#Gamergate and the Golden Age of Hysteria

NOTE: There are already a number of comprehensive timelines and other compendiums of Gamergate-related activity which can be found elsewhere, and so I am not going to review or discuss all of that at great length here, as it would detract unnecessarily from the central focuses of this piece.
____________________________________

What is Gamergate?

To some, Gamergate (sometimes stylized as #Gamergate or GG) is the obvious backlash of a misogynistic status quo in the gaming community and field, set out to tear down and silence, via harassment, threats and other nefarious machinations, women who simply seek a voice and relevant influence in what they believe to be a predominantly male-controlled and male-oriented industry.

To others, Gamergate is a movement comprised primarily of well-intentioned gamers and gaming commentators who seek not to harass, threaten or exclude, but to not be generalized as a misogynistic status quo, and their chief call is that they care only about truth, facts, and journalistic integrity (which they believe that sectors of the media, primarily the gaming media, currently lack).

In truth, though, Gamergate is merely a series of events that are being reacted to and characterized by several individuals and collectives from different (and occasionally opposing) sides of an issue, or set of issues. There are problems on all sides of this debate, and harassment and threats are never appropriate or acceptable, but when it comes to engaging in unethical behavior and deceitful reporting of details, or outright lying, the journalists of social justice most certainly win first place in this race.

However, this particular post will not focus primarily on unethical or shoddy journalism. Instead, the chief things discussed in this will be observations that I have made regarding both “sides” of the current debate, who I will mainly refer to hereafter as “SJWs” (those against Gamergate) and “Gamergaters” (proponents of Gamergate). Those terms do not encompass everyone involved in this so-called “Culture War,” but I feel that they identify each side well enough to be used for this.

The current and greatest issue that I have observed recently, which may not be shocking at all to most, is that it seems as though everyone has gone mad over gaming. Threats of rape and murder are being sent, folks are being harassed, individuals are having their names and addresses given out for merely Tweeting about, or making videos on, the topic of Gamergate, people’s workplaces are being contacted in an effort to get them fired (and some have actually been released from their jobs due to such underhanded tactics, or because of their opinions on the issues surrounding Gamergate). All of these things are, undeniably, outrageous, unnecessary and excessive.

I believe, with all of these dynamics in mind, and as an outsider (relatively speaking) on this particular issue, that it might do everyone well, whether they are directly involved in the conflict or not, to take a step back and examine what is taking place in a more relaxed and objective manner. Call it gaining a little perspective, or whatever one prefers. There are ways which are far more reasonable (and less reactionary and hysterical) to approach discussing Gamergate, even when referring to enemies, than a lot of what is transpiring now.

The Gamergate discourse and the events surrounding it have become little more than an entirely ludicrous farce; the discussion has largely been degraded to melodramatic theatrics by those involved. Nearly everyone has taken a side, the extremists are slowly becoming the most noticed and talked about, and everyone is reinforcing their side’s messages with the same points in repetition, gradually escalating the gambles and language of their attacks and responses.

If people on both sides of the aisle do not take steps to turn away from focusing on, and partaking in, the superfluous drama soon, there will be no clear or reasonable resolution of this “Culture War.” In fact, it is highly likely that rational people will eventually tire of the struggle and move on, and the extremists and more unhinged leeches will be the only ones left fighting. The discussion will stagnate, become more pointless than it already is presently, and will remain indefinitely unresolved.

Most people currently, I think, do not desire such outcomes, because they are so often the results of debates related to many issues online. Hopefully, in this case, and if the proper goals are pursued, a true and agreeable end can be found and played out for all actors presently on the Gamergate stage.

Firstly, and to begin setting the background for the point of this post, let’s discuss harassment and ridiculous threats from the point-of-view of Gamergaters:

On October 14, 2014, WeHuntedtheMammoth.com reported that Anita Sarkeesian (FeministFrequency) canceled a talk at Utah State after the University received a “threat of another ‘Montreal Massacre’” if her event took place as scheduled. In the article, the site stated the following:

“Utah State University has just announced that Anita Sarkeesian has canceled a talk she was scheduled to give at the school tomorrow after receiving a threat of a ‘Montreal Massacre-style attack’ by someone promising ‘the deadliest school shooting in American history’ if the cultural critic was allowed to speak.”

Of course, and as one would expect, these threats were attributed (implicitly and directly) to Gamergate and/or its proponents by both David Futrelle (of WeHuntedtheMammoth) and Anita Sarkeesian (FeministFrequency). Additionally, as one would expect, Ms. Sarkeesian Tweeted about the threats a little while later, mentioning that one threat was from an individual who, him/herself, claimed to be affiliated with Gamergate. She then went on to state in a separate Tweet: “At this point supporting #gamergate is implicitly supporting the harassment of women in the gaming industry.”

Now, I am certain that people are already abuzz elsewhere regarding all of this, and have been for quite some time. I am likewise confident, if one were to take a look around in some of the usual venues of Gamergate discourse, that they would note the recurrence of a common trend amongst Gamergaters when it comes to reacting to alleged threats targeting SJWs that are being blamed on them or their side.

That trend is that Gamergate proponents are almost always likely to question or heavily scrutinize the validity and authenticity of alleged threats/harassment being directed at SJWs or those against them (Anti-Gamergaters). They are likely to question these things, both (potentially, one could argue) out of spite, and also because they believe that the media and many SJWs opposed to Gamergate are liars or disingenuous, and they have generally fair reason to believe such.

As several individuals have pointed out in recent weeks in videos and articles of their own, the media and many SJWs against Gamergate have done little, since this whole calamity began, to make themselves not seem like liars (especially when discussing Gamergaters or Gamergate in general).

SJWs often engage, as Ms. Sarkeesian has for some time, and did during her Tweeting on October 15, in unfair generalizing, committing association fallacies, and disingenuous reporting of details. The worse the things said or done, the more hastily and heavily SJWs now attempt to fasten the acts and words to Gamergaters, and this very problem is one of the central issues that proponents of Gamergate have been fighting against.

In my own analysis of the threat-mail sent to Utah State University regarding Ms. Sarkeesian’s scheduled event (at least from what is shown on WeHuntedtheMammoth), I detected a few elements which immediately struck me as unusual or telling, and I am positive that many Gamergaters will mention these issues at some point as well (or already have).

The menacing email shown reads as follows:

“This is a warning to all staff and students at Utah State University.

On Wednesday, October the 15th, a woman named Anita Sarkeesian is going to be speaking at the Taggart Student Center. This event is being organized by campus feminists at the Center for Women and Gender Studies.

If you do not cancel her talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby Women’s Center. I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.

You have 24 hours to cancel Sarkeesian’s talk. You might be foolish enough to just beef up security at the event, but that won’t save you. Even if they’re able to stop me, there are plenty of feminists on campus who won’t be able to defend themselves. One way or another, I’m going to make sure they die.

You’ve probably heard of a man named Marc Lepine. He was a hero to men everywhere for standing up to the toxic influence of feminism on Western masculinity. We live in a nation of emasculated coward too afraid to challenge the vile, misandrist harpies who seek to destroy them. This is why I’ve chosen to target her. Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with feminist women, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.

I am a student here. You will never find me, but you may all soon know my name. Feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the other’s they’ve wronged.

You have 24 hours. Use them well.”

The elements to note in this email are that the entire bit is so over-the-top that it appears as though it is meant to seem purposely absurd (and it is contradictory). It contains, quite literally, everything that one would expect if someone from the SJW side (or a grossly-trolling third party) were to fabricate a caricature of this nature in order to stir up a controversy to benefit the Anti-Gamergate agenda (or just to disturb people for “the lulz”).

I won’t go so far as to argue that this menace-mail is a “false flag,” as it very well could be entirely serious, but I am positive that the issues within it will be spotted and made note of repeatedly (for quite some time) by Gamergaters (again, if they haven’t already been pointed out elsewhere).

My own observations (briefly):

1) The entire plot makes little sense; the individual claims to be deeply harmed by Feminism, and wants Anita Sarkeesian to die because Feminists have ruined his life, and yet he is willing to suspend his dastardly and (what he feels are) heroic plans for the mere price of Anita being forced to cancel only one event (as if she will never plan another event again anywhere).

a. This could be simply due to proximity, but it still seems highly unusual considering how ardent this person claims to be about wanting to kill her and other Feminists on campus.

2) This person says in the next-to-last section that they are a student at the University, but then follows that with a bizarre “you will never find me, but you may all soon know my name.”

a. This appears to be little more than a “seriously, I’m in the area” type of admission. Otherwise, it makes no sense given their alleged desires and beliefs. Again, this person wants the chance to commit a massacre, or at least to murder Anita, and that necessitates not being captured or stopped before they can, and yet they willingly give out, up front, a valuable piece of information like “just so you know, I’m a student at the school, so I’ll be around.” They are either incredibly stupid, or enjoy disclosing self-detrimental, and entirely unnecessary, information.

b. Another point in line with all of the above is that they vaguely list their weapons. I am positive (because it happens all the time) that the police could carry out a search of who has been buying certain materials or weapons, or of who owns certain weapons, in that area. I would even go so far as to say that they could do a search for who has been purchasing certain items in the region recently, because this individual doesn’t seem like a long-term planner (given that they’re basing this whole plot around an event that hasn’t been scheduled for very long). More admissions of unnecessary and self-detrimental information that could prohibit them from carrying out their threats (but are also conducive to shutting down the event).

c. To summarize the above: this person claims to be a student (giving the police a list of suspects and a general idea of where they are) and states that they have a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. One gets all of these items from a store (or stores). This sort of information has been used many times in the past to locate people making terrorist threats. Again, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for someone so serious and passionate about their terror plot to provide figures of authority with such information directly (on top of their contradictory ultimatum) if they actually intend to do what they claim.

d. As a minor point, and I might just be nit-picking here, but “you will never find me, but you may all soon know my name” is also contradictory. Learning their identity would necessitate finding them in some way. Unusually inconsistent language abound.

3) The threatening person mentions Marc Lépine by name (the 1989 Montreal Massacre mass murderer). This particular individual has been used against various critics of Feminism in the past, and seems deliberately inserted (along with the Montreal Massacre itself) as if to identify a mentality that the threats could potentially be applied in relation to later, and that seemingly deliberate name-drop is followed with what appears to be a spill of things taken directly from some “generic arguments that SJWs believe all Anti-Feminists and MRAs use” handbook. It’s too measured and blatant to come across as sincere, especially given how inconsistent the rest is. It also, in a very heavy-handed fashion, implies an Elliot Rodger-esque mindset, as if to add an even greater sense of urgency and realness to the threats (for those unaware, Elliot Rodger was the 2014 Santa Barbara shooter who was attributed to the Men’s Rights Movement, after carrying out his killings, as being indoctrinated by their propaganda; his language was similar to that of this individual). It is all highly generic and purposely specific. That raises red “charade” flags to me.

4) And finally, the person claims in one line, which they later contradict more than once, and in fact contradict with the whole supposed plot, that they will “make sure they (Feminists on campus) die.” They are passionate about this, their life has been ruined by Feminists, and they will, without a doubt, have their revenge, for their sake and the “sake of all the others they’ve wronged” (referring again to Feminists). Oh, except, they are totally willing to abandon all of that absolute language and their fervid and serious quest if this one meager event is canceled. Do they really believe that shutting down this single talk will forever stop Anita from speaking, writing or broadcasting again anywhere? Clearly they can’t believe that because to think such a thing would be nonsensical and utterly moronic (and they would have to know this). Meaning that they should realize, because history has repeatedly shown it to be the case, that their threats will only benefit Anita in the long run (like this).

Nothing about anything in the threatening message makes sense. I don’t assume this person to be entirely reasonable or even mentally-sound, but one would expect at least their own plot to have somewhat coherent ends based on their self-described goals and background. Its ultimatum contradicts essentially every threat of certain acts within it, portions of it are so generically direct that it seems to be done or worded that way intentionally, as if taken from a talking points memo, and its purpose is irrational and inconsistent. These are all problems with the email that I see, and I am sure that Gamergaters will mention these (or other similar) issues as well. Additionally, there are likely more inconsistencies that I have not addressed here.

Nevertheless, what I am pointing out in the above with this particular and very controversial item, is the level of absurdity to which some of the events surrounding Gamergate have ascended, and that Gamergaters are likely to heavily scrutinize and outright question these threats as I have here, and as they do with most threats and alleged harassment claimed by SJWs (or Anti-Gamergaters) as being directed at them.

Gamergaters will condemn the contents of such threats and distance themselves from them, but they will also not simply take, at face value as true or just, the claims that these things should be tied to them. They will examine, question and distance themselves from such words and threats because this sort of hate is not reflective of their intentions, beliefs, morals and objectives.

And yet, for all of that, in my opinion, relatively reasonable scrutiny of claims made by the opposition (extending beyond threats and harassment), I think that it would only be fair to point out that it appears to me that Gamergaters are not quite as likely to so thoroughly question and scrutinize threats directed at their own side (I will discuss the relevance of this is later in the post).

On the other hand, and in contrast to Gamergaters at least acknowledging threats and harassment directed at their opponents in some way, SJWs are almost entirely, if not entirely, likely to ignore incidents completely when Gamergaters are harassed, threatened or dox-dropped. There may not have been anything, at least to my knowledge, of this caliber directed at Gamergaters yet, but the trend with SJWs, from what I have seen in the past few weeks, has been that they simply do not acknowledge at all the attacks thrown at the other side (or at proponents of Gamergate).

Several Gamergaters, or at least people who favor Gamergaters and/or support Gamergate, have been harassed, threatened and dox-dropped recently over their Tweets and videos, including, for example, YouTubers Boogie2988 (one of the kindest and fairest people online, in my opinion) and TotalBiscuit (who has been, and may still be, battling cancer; he wasn’t doxxed, just “denounced,” et cetera).

I have seen little to no acknowledgement of these incidents or any of the several others by people amongst the righteous and just of the SJW crowd. They seem concerned only with their own problems, and won’t even give the small inch of acknowledging, for the simple sake of scrutiny, the threats aimed at, or dox-dropping of, individuals on the other side of the aisle (again, Gamergaters).

There is no rational or fair reason for them to ignore such things as they do unless they are doing so to protect their cliques or themselves as individuals (which is wrong), aren’t aware of the incidents (which would be extremely difficult considering Gamergaters spam about most of it constantly), or because they simply don’t care and want to portray the harassment and threats as being entirely one-sided (meaning that they want to portray the issues as if only they suffer threats, harassment and dox-dropping, and only Gamergaters are engaging in such underhanded and despicable tactics).

To another point which I believe is important and relevant to all of this, one can observe, just by perusing accounts like those belonging to Sargon of Akkad, Mundane Matt, Internet Aristocrat, Jay3dfox, Lo Ping, Bob Chipman, Jenni Goodchild, Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, or Leigh Alexander, people from both “factions,” and those that they interact with and share the Tweets and content of, reinforcing their own one-sided messages continuously.

For the Gamergaters, one will often see phrases like the following being used to describe SJWs:
1) Shill
2) Unethical
3) Professional Victim
4) Corrupt
5) Liar
6) (And all variations of the above.)

These items reinforce their messages related to corruption in the gaming media, corruption amongst SJWs and all such activists presently against Gamergate, and their overall theme that they are the truth-holders and the opposition is comprised of virtually nothing more than charlatans and unethical deceivers.

For the SJWs, one will often see phrases like the following being used to describe Gamergaters:
1) Manbaby
2) Misogynist
3) Misogynerd
4) Harasser
5) Terrorist
6) (And all variations of the above.)

These items reinforce their messages that this “New Culture War,” as some have called it, is about misogynistic man-children, who simply can’t handle the fact that women want to be a part of their favorite hobby, reacting violently to said women trying to become a part of their favorite hobby (in this instance, gaming). Yes, that is redundant, but that’s essentially the gist of their narrative.

All of these terms used by each “group,” and those not listed that are effectively similar, reinforce the one-sided nature of both loosely-bound collectives’ messages and narratives. Right or wrong, both sides are now increasingly conveying the mindsets that they think that they are right, the other side is wrong, they are repeating endlessly their reasons why, and as of how things are at the moment, there can be no compromise unless the other side surrenders everything that they believe they stand for. Reiterate, retell, repeat, restate.

The underlying problem with all of these things is that none of it does much to solve the greater dispute in a real sense. Each side simply wants the other side to surrender to the entirety of their demands, but that would mean a nearly total reformation of one group (at least from the other side’s perspective), and neither side of the aisle is likely to be willing to undertake such a thorough transformation.

Each side has their own flaws. Gamergaters are worse in some ways, and better in others, and the SJWS are worse in some ways, and better in others, but both sides now seemingly seek only to attribute the worst to the opposition, and the best to themselves. Whether all of this is carried out through heavy scrutiny of anything negative that hits the news streams, or almost entirely ignoring even the most fair and reasonable of criticisms, it doesn’t matter, because there is no (or little) willingness to truly compromise and engage civilly anywhere in sight.

And, therein lies the rub; both Gamergaters and SJWs are refusing to look beyond their own narrowed and sullied filters to the larger picture, or to all of the likely alternatives for the absurdly over-the-top attacks (harassment, threats, dox-dropping) presently being slung in every direction. Those elements only further derail the discussion, shift the goal posts to new and even less meaningful nonsense, strengthen hostilities, and drive the entire discourse more and more toward a zone of indefinite lack of resolution.

Regarding threats, harassment and doxxing/dox-dropping (some things to consider); there are only three real options for where these attacks could be coming from:

1) Unhinged people claiming to be proponents of either side who don't necessarily represent the entirety or predominant will of either.

2) People from either side that are sending threats to their side to either make the opposition look bad, or to give their side more ammunition to use against the other side.

3) Third party or “unaffiliated” trolls who merely seek reactions and don't really care about any of it, or either side’s purposes. (This one seems to be the one that the fewest people consider, and yet, given the nature of the internet, it is one of the more likely alternatives, along with the second one.)

There are problems with each side of the debate; there is no doubt about that. The issues with each faction differ, as do their severities, but no one can deny (or should claim) that either side is without fault. Nearly everyone engaging in this debate right now is to blame for all, or at least a great deal, of this in some way, and things have become extreme to such a degree that people are gradually losing sight of what actually matters.

At the heart of this entire debacle is gaming. A hobby for some, a thrill-in-life for others; something that, by its very nature, is intended to be fun and enjoyable, to remove people from the harder realities of everyday life, and yet, here it is now, because of people who supposedly care about it, causing animosity, anger and even endangering the safety of individuals over their opinions and preferences.

It might do folks well, SJWs, Gamergaters and everyone around and in-between, to take a step back and consider what has happened, and how they have played a role in it. All involved need to take a deep breath, relax, and attempt to approach the debate in a more reasonable (and less reactionary, hysterical and excessive) manner. Just closure cannot be achieved solely by one side or the other here, but by everyone on each side of the debate.

It is the task, both of proponents of Gamergate, and those against (SJWs, journalists, the media, et cetera) to bring things back to reason, to be fair both to their side and the opposing side, to be civil, and to report things honorably, truthfully and impartially. If people do not adhere to these principles, there will only continue to be more misrepresentation, harassment, threats, banning, censorship and dox-dropping, and there will be no meaningful or rational resolution. The hysteria and nonsense will continue indefinitely.

There is no sensible reason for things to have escalated to these levels; none whatsoever.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]
____________________________________

NOTE II: Just to be clear, I in no way, shape or form condone any harassment, threats or dox-dropping of, or by, anyone. Not of SJWS, Gamergaters, or anyone else. I fully condemn threats to cause harm or harass, whether they are serious or not, against individuals of all kinds, as being unacceptable.

NOTE III: This is part one of three posts that I am going to write related to this topic. Feel free to leave your thoughts on all of these issues in the comments below. And, as my comments policy states, any replies containing threats against specific individuals, or the personal information of individuals who do not already publicize the information online themselves, will be removed.
____________________________________

PART 2 OF 3: “Gamergate, Conflicting Doppelgängers and Ideological Nepotism”
PART 3 OF 3: “Gamergate: Not Another False Narrative”