Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Al-Jazeera #GamerGate Debate

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 12, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

02:13:34

The Al-Jazeera #GamerGate Debate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	I've just got around to being able to find the time to have a look at the Al Jazeera Gamergate debate, and I've heard it was very entertaining.
	So I'm going to kick my feet up.
	I'm not sober, and I'm going to have a read.
	And I'll be keeping an eye on the chat, hopefully, when I'm not bellowing with laughter, because I hear this is fucking brilliant.
	Great effort by Chu is exactly what I've heard.
	right so let me get this set up okay so what you should be able to see now is what I can see Let me just fiddle around with this.
	Sorry.
	So, yeah, once, right.
	Is this a screen grab from a feminist frequency video with this turquoise down the side?
	Anyway, the Gamergate debate: video games, free speech, and misogyny.
	Where?
	Where is the misogyny?
	Okay, never mind.
	So I'll skip the preamble because you'll know what the deal is.
	And right, so we've got Brooke here first.
	She says, I'm Brooke.
	I'm 21 years old, student majoring in neuroscience.
	I first became interested in Gamergate when I saw that discussions about it being censored on 4chan.
	After that, I looked into the situation and did research on my own.
	When I learned about the problems regarding ethics and a lack of transparency that were occurring in gaming journalism, it made me want to speak out against it.
	Yeah, that's exactly why almost everyone is in Gamergate.
	And we next have Hot Wheels, Frederick Brennan.
	My name is Frederick Brennan.
	I'm a professional web developer and I became involved in GameGate originally when Moot, the administrator of 4chan.org, banned discussion of Gamergate across various boards.
	Own alternative anonymous BBS hosted at 8chan, which allows users to make and manage their own boards.
	One user created a board called Burgers and later renamed to Gamergate and quickly became one of the many online discussion boards used by Gamergate to coordinate their activities.
	After seeing what Gamergate was about, I decided to support them.
	Great.
	And then we have Deanna Zant.
	Hey, y'all, I'm Deanna Zant.
	I have been a technologist.
	A technologist.
	Is that some kind of wizard?
	For 20 years online, making me an official old lady nerd.
	Yes, okay.
	I've got a digital strategy agency in New York City called Lux Digital, where we create measurable emotional resonance.
	You create measurable emotional resonance.
	Using like an MRI, how do you measure it?
	I'm also a writer and an artist, mostly comics and illustration.
	As for Gamergates, I've been supporting women who have been doxed, harassed online through various feminist channels for years.
	See, now I was doxed, Deanna, and I've been harassed.
	Don't I get support?
	No, because I was born with the wrong genitals.
	Damn it.
	Just fucking damn it.
	But earlier this year, she joined a task force to help address the immediate and structural issues of harassment.
	GamingGates has provided us with oodles of material winky face.
	I already feel like I'm being, I'm talking to a child here.
	Okay.
	But can you not see that anyone can use a hashtag?
	But anyway, I'll carry on.
	David Auerbach.
	Hello, I'm David.
	I write the bitwise tech column for Slate.
	I've been writing about Gamergate on and off since late August as the story has developed.
	I think that reporting on GameGate has been the reporting on GameGate has been generally very poor, and that this has ended up exacerbating the conflict.
	Honestly, David, the problem is the press, and the enemies of Gamergate are the press.
	So I'm not surprised, but this is a very astute observation.
	It has been very poor.
	I don't support Gamergate, and I wish this whole thing would end because too many people are getting hurt.
	But I also see GameGate as having become an all-too-convenient scapegoat for far many greater problems, for many far greater problems with harassment and sexism on the net.
	I think this is probably a true statement.
	Ah, we finally get to Arthur Chu.
	I'm looking forward to this.
	My name is Arthur Chu.
	I'm a Jeopardy pseudo-E-Celeb due to my winning streak this year.
	More importantly, I'm a lifelong geek and gamer.
	Arthur, I don't think you understand gamers are over.
	So if you're on the side that's declaring gamers over.
	Anyway, thanks to going viral because of Jeopardy, I've had the opportunity to get some of my writings on geek culture published.
	And one of them, a response to the Isle of Vista shootings, how is that anything to do with geek culture?
	Went really viral and catapulted me into the spotlight.
	Fucking.
	Okay, Chu.
	Okay, that's great.
	That's have a great claim to fame there.
	You know, you clawed your way to fame on the back of a mass shooting.
	Brilliant.
	I spent a lot of time writing and talking about the misogyny and general toxicity that haunts geek spaces.
	There is general toxicity, Chu.
	It's nothing to do with misogyny, though.
	I got sucked into talking about Gamergate because I needed to.
	No, sorry, I won't, I won't bullshit because it's basically a distillation of everything that's wrong with nerd spaces.
	Yes, it's libertarian.
	Look at the breakdown.
	Most people in Gamergate are left-leaning libertarians.
	That's it.
	And you guys are left-leaning authoritarians.
	In fact, you're extreme left authoritarians generally.
	So there's your problem.
	You know, you guys want to control everything.
	And people are like, hey, why don't you shut up and fuck off?
	But you keep inserting yourself into things, don't you?
	Yeah, I got sucked into talking about Gamergate because it's basically a distillation of everything that's wrong with nerd spaces, of the tendency for those who see themselves as bullies to become the worst bullies.
	Of the tendency for those who see themselves as bullies, I assume you mean bullied, to become the worst bullies.
	And holy shit, Arthur, have you heard of the word projection?
	Do you know what projection is?
	So Brooks says, GameGate, in my opinion, is a consumer revolt that is addressing a problem that many of us have seen in gaming journalism.
	Since the beginning of GameGate and even pre-GameGate, there have been examples of journalists engaging in sketchy and unethical behavior.
	That's exactly true.
	I mean, the game geno's pro-lest is just the apotheosis of this problem, isn't it?
	And even publications attacking consumers of their products.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks, Garma Sutra.
	I think that a society that is becoming increasingly centered around corporations and consumers, it's important that these two groups can exchange information in a transparent way.
	Sounds good.
	I don't have anything to object to there.
	Hot Wheels says the Gamergate movement represents a backlash in demonstrable ethical violations in video games journalism, many of which are detailed at press.gamegate.me.
	We won't go into it now.
	We all know the deal.
	It's been proven conclusively that video games journalists accepted favours from developers in order to write positive reviews and that further video game journalists from independent publications coordinated the coverage of certain events on a non-public Game Journal Pro's mailing list.
	Oh, there we go.
	I shouldn't have lacked faith in Hot Wheels, should I?
	What the fuck was I thinking?
	It also remember, I am not sober when I'm doing this, just so everyone is aware.
	It also represents a backlash against the censorship online that took place on Reddit's R Games and all over 4chan and many other message boards around the web.
	Just pause it.
	Has anyone seen the photos of Moot doing the rounds?
	I mean, holy fucking shit, Moot.
	What is the deal?
	What is wrong with this kid?
	Anyway, HM rose to 500,000 rankings.
	HM rose 500,000 rankings in Alexa to become among the top 3,000 websites in the US due to this backlash black mullah, black backlash against censorship.
	Right.
	David thinks that GameGate at this point is a very unlikely coalition of people united by mostly a set of shared enemies, which I think is true.
	Because the coalition is made up of people across a bizarrely wide ideological spectrum, it's hard to say what they represent.
	So people tend to see what they want in the movement, whether it's a manifestation of pure evil or some virtuous underdog standing up to some projected bully.
	I don't even, I'm not sure if projected is really a fair way to say.
	I mean, Leia Alexander does appear to want to bully people.
	Just the tone of her writing sounds very much like a snarky, spiteful, popular girl having a go at people that she deems to be unpopular and, you know, worthy of her snarkiness.
	But to paraphrase, to paraphrase Robert Musil, if mankind could dream collectively, it would dream Gamergate.
	Hmm, it's very interesting.
	Very interesting thing to say.
	Are you sure you're not pro-Gamergate, David?
	It's not to downplay the great harm that's been caused.
	Just to say it's all about misogyny or it's all about ethics are not sufficient answers.
	I agree.
	Deanna says, if this were entirely about ethics and entertainment journalism, the oodles of other arguments that would have surfaced, the oodles of other arguments would have been surfaced along with the misogyny and harassment.
	I linked to Leigh Alexander's article about problems with video games and video game companies.
	But I don't know honestly what Gamergate represents.
	I do know that he's demonstrated very clearly that there are serious problems with gender and gaming communities.
	I see.
	Okay.
	Okay, I'm not saying the M-word.
	I'm not saying the M-word.
	But you all know that it's the M-word.
	From how my How to End Gamergate article, which I haven't read actually, so I didn't know about this article.
	I'll read it another time.
	Here's an incomplete list of factions on each side.
	Hardcore and mantle gamers.
	Okay.
	Revanchist movement misogynists.
	Fuck, I'm probably, he's probably talking about me.
	And you guys listening, just so you know.
	Heterodox social justice heretics.
	Ooh, very nice.
	Disgruntled game journalists and devs.
	Actually, I can claim this category.
	I'm a disgruntled dev.
	Heterodox feminists, anti-identity politics liberals.
	I could probably claim that.
	Libertarians, yeah.
	Anti-liberal media conservatives.
	Yeah, I think he's talking about you, Milo.
	Loosely anti-Gamergate, middlebrow gaming America, the indie gaming scene, social justice orthodoxy.
	I'm really glad that David is couching this in, again, religious terminology.
	It sounds like he's talking about a religion, doesn't it?
	Gorka, Weiss, another hipster media.
	Yeah, they fucking are.
	Progressive media, geek culture celebrities.
	Didn't mention Adam Baldwin, though, on our side.
	Gaming studies academics, quote unquote, academics, mainstream progressives.
	And he says, Deanna raises a question that has actually been on my mind.
	Why did Leia Alexander's list of ethical problems in gaming appear on her personal site rather than Gama Sutra, where she's an editor?
	Gaming journalism seems to have been much quicker to attack Gamergate endlessly than write about most of those other ethical issues in gaming.
	My hypothesis is that it's because Gamergate is a much safer and easier target.
	Well, that's, I don't doubt one good reason, but I also think another good reason is that to quote Alex Lifshitz, we're plying you with payola.
	These are the journalists who are receiving that payola.
	I'm not surprised they're not complaining about it.
	But I and I'm also not surprised that Leigh Alexander didn't write this on Garma Sutra.
	But anyway, Frederick says the article by Miss Alexander lists ethical concerns in video games, not ethical concerns in video games journalism.
	Holy shit, that is a fucking good point.
	Nice try, Leigh.
	I haven't read Leia Alexander's article either.
	But I might go through a personal blog one time and just see what I can see on there because I'm sure it's an interesting place to get inside Le's mind.
	But that's a fucking incredible point because a lot of people I think would have missed that.
	In fact, if I hadn't, I mean, I probably would have missed it myself.
	Many of her concerns are legitimate, but that doesn't make any of the ones listed on the Gamergate link less legitimate, although she is quick to wave them all away in the last paragraph.
	That's true.
	And we all know that she's willing to do that because, again, she's part of the media.
	We're complaining about the media.
	Of course, she's going to wave them away.
	You know, I'm not criticizing her.
	That's exactly true.
	She does do that, I'm sure.
	I personally would enjoy seeing Kotaku in other games journalism sites write articles about the issues she's listed, especially ones concerning mobile storefront issues and Steam curator collusion.
	Go ahead, I'm all for writing about any kind of corruption wherever it seems to be found.
	So, America Tonight say the debate of the Gamergate movement has sparked a discussion in the media about online harassment.
	What do you think that those involved in the debate over ethics and journalism and misogyny online and in games can do to get rid of the voices in the debate that do engage in online harassment?
	Good question, I think.
	Deanna, that list is compiled by Leia Alexander.
	Brooks addressing the previous point made by Deanna that is not addressing America Tonight's point, it seems.
	But she says, Yeah, Deanna, that list compiled by Leia Alexander is very interesting.
	I've heard many of those points raised by people in Gamergate, and they are frequently discussed on many of the streams that people support supporting Gaming at Coordinate.
	I assume she's talking about harassment and the fact that, you know, then I mean, I actually, I personally have never seen anyone using the Gamergate harassment, the Gamergate tag and harassing someone under it.
	I actually haven't seen that personally.
	But I'm just going to assume that, you know, for the sake of argument, that it does happen because I, like I said, I haven't seen it, but that's not saying that it doesn't happen.
	But I also agree.
	I've heard, you know, I've been involved in discussions trying to, you know, what can you do?
	Like Till Biscuit said, there's a very low barrier to entry to joining Gamergate because it's a hashtag, you know, and people are using it to voice their concerns about ethics.
	So, well, lack of, sorry.
	So, again, anyone could use it for anything, for you know, any time.
	So there's an and there's no central body to control it.
	But um, but yeah, I know I'm interrupting these people as I'm reading their statements out.
	Um, Some of the points seem to resemble common ground, which could be a good time for discussion.
	That'd be nice, wouldn't it?
	But Arthur Chu's about to open his mouth, isn't he?
	What is Gamergate?
	It's a standard reactionary flare-up in response to a changing culture.
	Well, I'll stop you there, Arthur.
	I was corrected on this myself the other day because reactionary means returning to the status quo.
	No, wait, hang on, no, I'm reading it wrong.
	he's right he's fine um the social justice warriors consider this to be a culture war um I wrote earlier about how this kind of thing shows up in music, and it's all about how people who feel ownership of a certain subculture get angry and defensive when they feel that culture is being invaded by newcomers.
	Why wouldn't they?
	Anyone who is currently participating in the culture surely has some kind of ownership of it.
	They surely get to say, Yes, I contributed, I participated, so I am at least partially responsible for the things going on in this culture.
	And so, you know, why wouldn't they be bothered when people outside of the culture come in and say, Hey, right, we're going to change this now?
	People have already got their groove going on, they enjoy how it's going.
	Why can't you just leave them alone?
	But obviously, they're not okay.
	Obviously, they're not getting so yeah.
	This is what the Gaming Gate ethics argument comes down to, does it, though, Arthur?
	Because I think the problem with breaches of journalistic ethics, um, you've Nathan Grayson, for example, promoted promoted his friend and developer Robin Arnott.
	You know, it doesn't even have to be about Zoe Quinn.
	You know, he has had other ethical breaches because this is the problem, isn't it?
	It's a culture of corruption.
	These ethical breaches happen all the time.
	What about Patricia Hernandez and Anna Anthropy?
	You know, there are just so many fucking examples of this.
	I'm sure they're on that gaminggate.me link.
	I should have got them up just to read off a few, really.
	But again, you can just sit there pulling them off the fucking head.
	The Game Journal Pros list, where you had dipshit from one site pressuring dipshit from the escapist to take down Gamergate stuff on his website.
	Is that acceptable?
	If you're
	still here, don't fucking pretend like you didn't think my internet was gonna crap out.
	You knew it was going to as much as I did.
	Right, let me get this shit sorted again.
	Oh, sorry, everyone.
	Yeah, I'm fucking back.
	You'll get it in the chat.
	Sorry.
	So yeah, I was saying, Arthur Chu.
	This is what the ethics argument comes down to.
	There are plenty of examples of ethical violations with the press and developers.
	It doesn't, obviously.
	Games are being made in different ways and funded in different ways than in the past.
	And self-appointed gatekeepers call those new ways illegitimate and corrupt.
	It's so ironic, isn't it, Arthur?
	That literally you in the press are the gatekeepers.
	And when someone else says, right, okay, no, you people are doing a bad job.
	You're not being fair.
	You're not being unbiased.
	You're not judging things on their merits and their worth.
	You're judging them based on your own personal fucking agendas, lay Alexander.
	You sit there and complain about it.
	You complain that someone challenges your role in this.
	And it's like, you know what?
	Fuck yourself.
	Fuck yourself, Chu.
	Seriously, you are literally corrupt and you are complaining that people are trying to force you, not you personally, but the culture to stop being corrupt.
	And that is a problem for you people.
	They're challenging your power because you have abused it.
	You dip shits.
	Patreon is corrupt because it's a different way to get games made.
	No, no one's talking about the audience funding developers.
	They're talking about the press who are implicated in scandals about a breach in their ethics, funding the developer that they were having that is involved in the fucking scandal.
	Jesus, you fucking liars.
	You just can't stop yourselves from misrepresenting the truth, can you?
	But story games are not really games because, and so their success is false.
	What are you fucking talking about?
	What has that got to do with ethical breaches in gaming journalism?
	But see, anyway, Chu waffles his ass on pointless and irrelevant topics.
	And then Deanna says, I don't know that it's a matter of getting rid of voices.
	That's not what I'm interested in.
	Don't you work on the Twitter banning crew?
	That feminist wham thing where you ban people who you presumably don't like.
	I'm interested in addressing the roots of these problems and fixing them.
	I am terrified on what the Marxist feminist solution to any of these problems is.
	Honestly, I think that that's, I would rather live with the problems and I'd rather these problems exist in the world than you people fix them.
	I just want you to know that, Deanna.
	I think any solutions you people come up with are going to be fucking dangerous and damaging to other people because you don't seem to have any empathy for anyone who isn't looking in exactly the same way you look.
	But anyway, see, I told you, I'm not sober, so I'm going to go off on one occasion.
	So David Auerbach, the harassment problem is very difficult, and the media attention that has resulted coming, oh, the media attention has resulted in the whole thing becoming a troll's paradise, since Gamergate will take the flack for any bad actor.
	That's a great point.
	What we are seeing is a profane and immature underground internet culture making contact with the mainstream for more or less the first time and the mainstream being shocked and outraged but not knowing how to handle it.
	That's partially true.
	I think that there is a profane and immature underground internet culture.
	And you know who I'm talking about, H-han, but that's kind of why I like the place, you know.
	That's why I find the things that come off of there fucking hilarious.
	But the thing is, even then, right, what annoys me about this statement is that it implies that this culture shouldn't exist.
	It implies that it is inherently bad because he personally disagrees with it.
	It's not profane, that means unholy.
	You know, immature, yes, but again, immaturity is funny.
	That's why I call people, that's why I insult people in my videos.
	It's funny.
	So, I, you know, it's fucking that's a fucking derogatory statement, you know.
	Um, and I really think that the um the C.S. Lewis quote, um, to paraphrase, he says something like, The only people who are worried about not being adults are children.
	Adults don't have to worry about whether they act childish or seem childish because ultimately they are never going to be children again, so it doesn't matter.
	You know, only children or people who are sort of arrested in that mindset, Leia Alexander, they look at you like you're a creepy arrested child.
	Yeah, I wonder why.
	But only people trapped in that mindset worry about being adult, you know, people who are actually adults allow themselves to lapse back into it for fucking shits and giggles.
	But I'm not having a go at David, but it just, I am a little bit, I guess, but not in, you know, I don't hate him.
	But it's just like, you know, these people have a right to act in exactly the way they want to act as long as they're not hurting anyone.
	And they're not really hurting anyone.
	That's the thing.
	They're just talking shit on an internet board and, you know, talking about video games and stuff.
	You know, making memes.
	They're not going out and victimizing people.
	And they're under attack.
	I mean, maybe some of them are, but again, like all things, just deal with individual cases on an individual, case-by-case basis.
	But anyway, I'm sure he doesn't really mean it in a particularly, you know, attacking way.
	But so yeah, he says, as he wrote, whatever troll does under the cover of Gamergate is guaranteed to get a lot of attention.
	Far more typical, far more than typical internet harassment.
	That's true, I think.
	And to be blamed not on the individual, but on Gamergate collectively.
	For the troll, this is the perfect setup, maximum effect, minimal exposure.
	This is a very true point.
	That's a very good point.
	And we've seen it exactly with Bill Waggoner crew.
	They're just third-party trolls.
	If anything, they're just trying to make both sides look bad in the eyes of the other side for great yucks, which is fine.
	Not fine, but it probably is funny if you don't care about either side.
	But obviously, it means they're complete dicks, but what are you going to do?
	It happens.
	Like all things, you can't blame fucking entire group for the actions of a minority, especially when anyone could be part of that group.
	But yeah, I mean, there are black people writing in Ferguson, so maybe we should just.
	Obviously, we don't do this.
	I think as far as harassment goes, it's important to understand that one of the great things about Gamergate, sorry, this is Brooks speaking again.
	I should have said, about Gamergate is that it isn't an organized club.
	Sorry, I should just read her point, you know, read the next point because the pro-GamingGate people seem very much on point here and they're doing a great job.
	Even the neutrals are doing a great job.
	Anyone who feels that GameGate accurately represents their values is able to join.
	However, the structure of GameGate means that anyone with a Twitter account can use the hashtag.
	We've seen different groups of people using the GameGate hashtag, send threats simply because it's popular and therefore it's an easy way to send the threats.
	Exactly.
	Deanna says, for one thing, I talk and write about a lot about empathy and technology and how humans aren't exactly hardwired to communicate well via text online.
	The example of the neuroscience of flaming.
	Okay, that's probably true.
	I've got no doubt.
	I mean, you know, it seems self-evident from when people do it.
	So when you see something that upsets you, i.e., I don't like how women are treated in games, there's a good chance it's going straight to your fight or flight centers.
	Deanna, What are you talking about?
	How is I don't like how women are treated in games?
	Part in any way concerned with the fact that, you know, one of the things that came off of the Game Jono Pros list is: who here hasn't slept with a developer hashtag, am I right?
	I mean, what's that got to do with women being treated in games?
	I mean, you seem to be talking about Anita Sarkeesian's personal criticism of games, which, I mean, as Matt Binder said, it's her opinion.
	It's just her opinion.
	And it's like, great, okay.
	You know, she's cherry-picked the examples.
	She's created this opinion.
	It's not unbiased and it's not correct.
	So why are we talking about it, Deanna?
	Can we not talk about, for example, gamers are over?
	That would be an interesting thing to talk about.
	10 articles on one day saying that gamers are over.
	I mean, that's a very strange thing, isn't it?
	That might be something that might actually upset gamers rather than, you know, a subject they probably don't care.
	But, but yeah, your brain thinks a tiger is about to try and treat you and responds accordingly, yeep.
	Okay, right.
	There's no professionalism here.
	That's fine.
	Don't know what's going on on my screen, by the way.
	Sorry.
	Firms David's assertion that, you know, Gamergate, anyone can join, etc.
	And she says, you can see the same sort of effect in Gamergate that happens in many socio-political hashtags, which is true.
	So the moderator decides to relax the structure a bit and let people discuss things.
	And Arthur Chu, probably responding to the last comment by Brooke, says the ethical issues are total nonsense and are symptomatic of gamergators, not just gamers, being locked into a consumer mindset and actively resistant to any other model of how the gaming scene should work.
	Chu, you fucking Marxist.
	Yes, we are locked into the free market model of how gaming should work.
	Developers should say, hey, we have made a game.
	Would you like to purchase it?
	And people would say, yes, we would like to purchase it.
	Here's some money.
	And critics might say, hey, if you come to my website and read my words, see my adverts, I'll get paid to advise you on what games are good and what games aren't based on the fact that I spend all day doing this.
	Excuse me.
	And so you would think it would be a very consumer-driven market because to get people to either go to your website or to buy their games requires the customers to cooperate with you.
	They could cooperate with anyone, but you want them to cooperate with you.
	So why should the gaming scene work from any other way from the mindset of the customer?
	But that's the point, isn't it, Chu?
	You're not a customer.
	You are part of the fucking media.
	Sorry, I've got a cough.
	Sorry about this.
	Let's have a good old swig of tea.
	But yeah, so you're part of the media, Chu, right?
	You are, for some reason, thinking that you are more important than your audience.
	Even though you seem to not understand that without your audience, your importance is very, very low.
	I mean, you know, even with whatever audience you have, your importance is still fucking low.
	But, you know, you seem to misunderstand the power dynamics between a person who creates any kind of content and their audience.
	It's the audience that has the power over the creator, effectively, you know, and or at least that's how I would view things.
	But anyway, using terms like collusion for the journalistic scene, having conversations with each other.
	It's not that you have conversations with each other, because that can be done out in the open.
	It's the fact that you guys collude in secret mailing lists and you end up with producing 10 articles.
	And you wrote one of these articles, Chu.
	So I'm not surprised that you're concerned about people thinking that you fucking collude with other people because you must have done it.
	But these articles all in the same day, decrying gamers, ending games.
	There's nonsense, Chu.
	To say that collusion is, it's just, it's not, it's just, we're just conversing with each other in private against you, our audience.
	You cannot just hand wave this shit away and just be like, oh, you know, it's ridiculous.
	It's not ridiculous.
	It's exactly what's happened, you dick.
	But yeah, developing relationships with devs and championing causes they care about.
	I mean, and why?
	Why?
	What do you think you do?
	That is what apparently is supposed to happen in a healthy art scene, though.
	Is it though?
	And is it actually an art scene?
	I mean, you guys can have an art scene if that's what you want, but most people aren't actually interested in whatever you consider to be an art scene.
	Most people are interested in a gaming scene where people come, they buy games that they like to play, and then they play the games for the enjoyment of playing the game, not for the enjoyment of appreciating it as art.
	I'm not saying you can't do both.
	I'm sure you can.
	I mean, hell, PlayStation Torment for me, I was just honestly, I love the fucking story of that game.
	And the mechanics aren't anywhere near as good as the previous games.
	I mean, there is no customization for your characters.
	When I'm playing Boulder's Gate, I'm a sort of guy who goes into the multiplayer and creates a whole new party.
	So, you know, six characters out of nothing.
	So I get to customize exactly how my squad's going to operate because I like doing that sort of thing.
	You know, but anyway, it's you can have an art scene, too, if you want, but stop fucking acting like it's more important than anything else because it's fucking not.
	It's just fucking annoying hipster bullshit that most people are just not concerned with.
	But he's not engaging in hyperbole, apparently, though.
	Oh, sorry.
	Gaming Gate wants to replace the concept of a thriving indie community with a press-driven with a press driven by corporate PR.
	That is just such a misrepresentation of what's going on, Chu.
	You are public relations for your friends.
	That's what you are.
	You find someone as an individual that you like, and then you promote their products.
	You know, you all do.
	As a community, you do this.
	It's not just individuals doing it with individuals.
	You all do this.
	Like Anit Sarkeesian tweeting that stupid We're not Jack Thompson song.
	You know, it's that kind of thing.
	And, you know, Rami Ismail from Vlambeer funding like Zoe Quinn and all these others on Patreon.
	It's like, you know, you're doing it for community reasons.
	You're not doing it for art reasons or even merit reasons.
	So, yeah, it really, really annoys me when you suggest that you are some kind of a thriving indie community as if there's press, as if it's somehow a good thing for everyone else.
	It's just so not.
	And no one is actually advocating for corporate PR.
	In fact, that's why Toastle Biscuit's so popular, right?
	What he does when he's being paid to do something, he says he's being paid to do something.
	And it's literally that kind of transparency because being paid to do something for someone else doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.
	Shilling necessarily, I'm not advocating shilling, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily have to be bad, especially if you're being transparent about it.
	And you guys just don't understand this.
	It's not that people want corporate PR.
	In fact, we want consumer advocates, or at least I do.
	This is what I personally want.
	If I'm reading any kind of review or anything like that, I want it to be in my best interests.
	You know, it's just sorry, anyway.
	Sorry, is my mic too low?
	I will see what I can do.
	You may just have to.
	Sorry about this.
	Yeah, that's as good as I can get it, I'm afraid.
	Can you hear me?
	See, I've got to wait for the thing to get up.
	But anyway, I'm going to assume that you can because I can't really do anything else at the moment.
	So, yeah, I'm not engaging in hyperbole.
	GameGate has literally proposed the replacement of the corrupt press with Nintendo talking directly to gamers as a positive thing.
	Believe it or not, Arthur, when a company talks directly to its audience, it's mostly done through advertising.
	And when a company is talking to its audience and people know it's the company talking, they take that into account, you fucking idiot.
	That we want to know what Nintendo said because we know what Nintendo's agenda is.
	It is trying to sell us its fucking game.
	So we will know from the outset this is the best looking thing it could possibly be.
	Now, I'm not suggesting that this is the only source of information we should have, of course, but at least we know what Nintendo's purpose is.
	I mean, I suppose there are probably people in social justice who don't realize that because you seem to attract the biggest fucking retards.
	And they're probably sat there going, well, this thing that's being advertised to me looks amazing.
	You know, I'm just going to rush out and put all my hopes in it or something.
	I don't know.
	I don't even know what these people think.
	They're fucking idiots.
	So, yeah, anyway, getting past two just active retardation.
	David carries on with, I want to take issue with Arthur's insufficient explanation of GameGate.
	I don't think his simple reactionary account explains why there are so many social justice people in GameGate, nor why there are so many minorities, women, and trans people in Game Gate.
	Hashtag not your shield.
	These are very important questions, and I don't think that a blanket reactionary movement explanation suffices.
	I think it's a good point.
	Brooke says, Deanna, and this is to address Deanna's comments about neuroscience of flame me, in fact.
	So, well, this is a strangely good coincidence, isn't it?
	I study neuroscience, and if I'm correct, that discrepancy has to do with mirror neurons.
	I don't study neuroscience, and I have no idea what that means.
	I know what a neuron is, but I don't know what a mirror neuron is.
	However, I don't think that the issue of empathy is specific to GameGate.
	From my personal experience in GameGate, I haven't found empathy to be an issue.
	Rather, I think it rather distracts from the issues.
	I agree.
	Let's keep the conversation on the hashtag for a bit.
	If anyone can, right?
	I think that there's probably some sort of delay here.
	But anyway, David Auerbach goes on to say, I'd like to quote something.
	Arthur wrote back in August: Games journalism isn't journalism.
	Games journalism is a neglected Johnny Cum lately subset of entertainment journalism, which is also, with a few honorable exceptions, not journalism.
	That's good to know.
	That's good to know, Arthur.
	So what are they?
	Bloggers.
	They're bloggers with agendas.
	They're bloggers with agendas to support each other because they're all friends, because this is a culture of corruption.
	Why would developers speak to you?
	Why should they?
	Why would games developers be like, well, obviously I'm going to talk to these weird, freaky social justice bloggers who are absolutely obsessed with gender and absolutely racist in every way against white people.
	Why wouldn't I talk to these people?
	Because these people seem lovely.
	As far as I can tell, no one disputes that gaming journalism is a joke.
	Okay, great.
	I can't believe you would fucking write this.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	I thought that was Arthur.
	Sorry, shit.
	Sorry, David.
	I didn't.
	Sorry, I misread that.
	So yeah, as far as I can tell, no one disputes a gaming journalism joke.
	That's true.
	The question is whether GameGate has a moral standing to make that critique a legitimate question.
	I think it's the only thing that can have the moral standing to address that critique.
	Because these are the people who are going to be suffering at the hands of misinformation.
	Because this is something that drives me crazy.
	People are like, oh, why is it important?
	Why is games journalism important?
	It's like, games are a huge industry.
	It's billions and billions of dollars.
	Grand Theft Auto made a billion dollars on its first day.
	GTA 5 made a billion dollars on its first day.
	Some of these games are 60 quid and whatnot.
	And it's just like $60, sorry, probably 40 quid.
	And it's as if people aren't supposed to be concerned when spending that amount of money in the sort of quantities that people do, as if it's not necessary.
	I find it absurd that people can suggest that this thing isn't necessary.
	And the consumer is obviously going to be the ultimate sort of victim of any malfeasance on their part.
	There's, you know, who else is going to suffer?
	Who else could suffer from it?
	Anyone else stands for, everyone else stands to benefit from this.
	And whether the particular critique is accurate.
	But by Arthur's own admission, again, sorry, I'm not, I don't need to have a GERD, David, but these are things that I've heard a lot from reasonable people like David.
	And you can tell that David is a reasonable person.
	And I've heard these things so many times.
	And it's just because they haven't really thought about it as a consumer of games because they aren't consumers of games.
	I get, I would hazard to guess.
	And so they don't really, again, empathize with the idea that, you know, if you were, if you're a film buff, you know, whatever your hobby is, David, just think about if your gaming press or the sorry, the hobby press that you engage in had like a weird agenda to push.
	And you, you would, anyway, sorry, I'm going off topic.
	But yeah, by Arthur's own admission, it's not that the game press is some font of integrity and cultural critique.
	There's a lot of cultural critique coming out of them, but most of this bollocks.
	Hot Wheel says, I'm starting to really become not sober now, so I'm going to try and get through as much of this as possible.
	Online harassment is nothing new.
	The internet has been around with mostly the same laws governance since the DMCA was passed in 1998.
	Wow, I didn't realize it was that old.
	However, in their haste to try and shut down this GameGate thing that was hurting their business, the games press have decided to give every troll who made a new account tons of attention to paint GameGate as a movement entirely composed of harassers.
	That's a good point.
	This led to more trolls making more anonymous accounts and perpetuate the cycle.
	Yeah, it kind of goes against what the FBI recommends when you're given threats, isn't it?
	You don't publicize it because it encourages others.
	And you'd think that if GameGate actually was often involved, you know, was literally, you know, in 5 million tweets about misogyny or whatever they think it is, You would think they were trying to downplay it, not to not to build it up because I mean, if I think that probably a lot of nasty people would come out of the woodwork if it turned out there was a giant hate campaign online against women, I think that they probably would do that.
	I mean, Jesus, but um, it came out today that Brianna Wu, one of the women who had to flee her home, didn't actually do so.
	Make of that what you will, it seems to me she was in no danger.
	It seems to me that Brianna Wu is a complete fucking narcissist, and it seems to me that when her when she was threatened by an account called Death to Brianna, I'm going to do all these things to you and your husband, it kind of sounds like it was written by an insane narcissist.
	So, I think that, yeah, she sent those threats to herself, and I really don't think that she's fled her home.
	And honestly, I really want us to stop talking about Brianna Wu because holy shit, she is so totally irrelevant to everything, which is actually why I didn't do a video about her appearance with the Australian.
	Oh, no, it was the Al Jazeera, the original Al Jazeera piece, wasn't it?
	Yeah, which is why I didn't do a video on them because it was just like, you know, I just got halfway through it.
	I literally got to like the end of Brianna Wu talking.
	I was thinking, I'm not spending 10 minutes on Brianna Wu talking.
	So, you know, just why the fuck is she still coming up?
	You know, hardly misogyny against her, is it?
	But, um, but again, I don't blame Hobbe's bringing up, and it does seem that she's talking shit.
	And I, you know, I reckon that, you know, if I heard, I know, I won't say it because that'd be baseless rumor.
	Star, oh, you know, Sargon says baseless rumor.
	Uh, no, yeah.
	But yeah, so Deanna says to Brooke about mirror neurons, uh, her favorite kind, hair.
	But anytime we communicate, empathy is central to how we perceive and react to one another.
	Or lack, obviously, of course.
	Um, that setup and the adequate and the lack of adequate digital tools pretty much guarantees an apathetic flame war in highly emotional contexts.
	Maybe I can it depends what she doesn't explain, but okay, I'm happy to accept that that could be true.
	Um, David says, I don't understand the change the hashtag argument.
	Everyone will just say, Oh, it's those Gamergate losers, they're just trying to cover their asses by changing the tag.
	It certainly wouldn't change my opinion of Gamergate.
	The problem isn't with the hashtag, it's with the leaderless amorphous nature of the movement, which, not coincidentally, is why it's proving so difficult to stop.
	There's no one in control of Game Gate, and ultimately, there can be no one in control of Gaming Gate.
	I can't imagine someone coming out and saying, you know, actually, I am going to be the leader of Gamergate, and you know, feel free to take that out of fucking context, bewildered ape.
	I know you're fucking going to just go wild, mate.
	You know, you can also have, I am a literal Nazi.
	Um, uh, I've always hated women, um, and I'm hoping for a couple more holocausts.
	So, yeah, you go do your videos and run wild with those, mate, because I know you will.
	Um, I forgot what I was talking about now, thinking of a little literal Holocaust of women.
	Yeah, the problem isn't that, yeah, no one in control, yeah, okay, yeah.
	There can be no one in control, yeah, it's absurd.
	And pretty much anyone who then who actually was trying to sensibly declare themselves the sole commander of Gamergate would surely just be ostracized on the spot.
	I mean, what the fuck?
	It simply can't happen.
	Um, no, I don't think I really don't.
	It would be like saying you're going to be the king of Rome.
	Um, Hot Wheel says, anyone can hijack a hashtag if Gamergate is soiled.
	That means all of Twitter and fundamentally the whole internet is soiled.
	I could post hashtag blueberries are all about harassing women in video games.
	We make it true.
	Good point, actually.
	But it really, I mean, kill all men.
	That's all I say.
	Hashtag kill all men.
	Deanna Zant posts a link to hijacked fake trolled hashtags.
	Probably something like N Father's Day, except that kind of caught on, didn't it?
	Oh, she actually says that as well.
	So I had to make a fake famous hashtag like N Father's Day that caught on with feminists.
	Arthur Chu responds, saying, David, there's tons of people who choose to center their identity around being a gamer for whatever reason and excuse the various nasty things the gamer community does because of it.
	Well, the thing is, Arthur, if that's the case, why did you personally write one of the gamers are dead articles?
	Why did you have an active hand in trying to end the term gamer?
	Why would you want to take people's identities away from them?
	Aren't you concerned about being a complete, total fucking dick?
	I guess not.
	But speaking as an Asian guy, a new race would come into this eventually who used to make excuses for racism.
	Oh, God, of course, racism would come into this as well.
	In my various fandoms, it's not that mysterious or inexplicable.
	And the attempt of hashtag not your shield to treat it like it is is why it's done so okay Arthur, I'm not even sure what Arthur's trying to say here, but that's probably not due to what Arthur's saying, it's probably just due to the way he's saying it.
	Speaking as an Asian guy who used to make excuses for racism in my various fandoms, it's not explicable that people would try and excuse that people would try and explain racism or whatnot in the gamer community.
	Okay.
	The attempt of hashtag not to treat it like it is why it's done.
	It's not trying to excuse anything.
	It's just, oh, it's fucking individuals, you dip shit.
	No one is responsible for someone else saying something racist.
	Only that person is responsible.
	And if everyone else in Game Gate is saying, look, we're not racist, this is why we've got this not your shield hashtag.
	We want to show you a lot of people are not racist.
	So you cannot, you could not do that.
	It's that would just be the same as me saying something racist about you.
	Just don't worry about it, Arthur.
	There are a lot of personal beefs against individuals in Gamergate that is used as a weapon for, indeed, was the original intent of Aaron Joni creating it to destroy his ex.
	What?
	I must have.
	Listen, my eyes must be going funny.
	There's a lot, there's also a lot of personal beefs against individuals that Gamergate is used as a weapon for.
	Right.
	That was the original intent of Eren Kajoni in creating it to destroy.
	So he thinks that Eren Joni, whatever his name is, created Gamergate.
	That's crazy, but if anyone's listening that doesn't know, it was Adam Baldwin actually coined it, the actor, on August the 27th, the day before the Gamers are dead articles, which is why it kind of shot up in popularity because everyone wanted to talk about those.
	And in addition to everything else that's been going on, repentant Gamergator Debbie Ever has talked about how, I don't know who that is, has talked about how that played into her motivations getting back at the cool kids in her scene.
	Oh, so this is one of the social justice apostates.
	I see.
	Deanna Zant says, clearly there are always going to be lulz peeps who jump into a popular hashtag to stir things up.
	That's true.
	That shouldn't distract from the very real threats, harassment, etc., that people are on the receiving end of.
	I thought that we were just saying, look, we accept that they're there.
	Let's talk about the actual issues.
	And you're trying to muddy the waters again by talking about things that are not the issues.
	Threats and harassment are legal issues.
	They're not issues of corruption in the gaming industry.
	You know, what the hell are you talking about, Deanna?
	I mean, yeah, yeah, get these people counseling, get them to a safe house.
	I'm fine with it.
	Permanent guard, whatever you want.
	Just stop fucking telling me about it.
	I just don't care.
	You know, I just don't care what happens to any suckies in Bruno Wu or Zoe Quinn.
	It's not my problem.
	Call the authorities.
	Just treat them like royalty.
	If you have to, just stop fucking talking about them.
	You know, you talk to me about them when you see me sending them a death threat.
	Okay, that's when I want to know about it.
	That's it.
	But Brooke then goes on to say, I don't know where you're getting the information from about people using the identity of being a gamer to excuse bad behavior.
	Good point.
	I often hear people identifying themselves as gamers and citing that identity as a reason to achieve good things.
	I don't know why I was nervous about Brooks.
	I saw her on the Al Jazeera thing and I didn't think she really translated all that well live.
	I'm not trying to be harsh, but you know, sometimes you've got to be honest.
	But she does a marvelous job in text.
	Absolutely marvelous.
	She's really, really getting her points across brilliantly here.
	There's nothing about this I don't disagree with.
	I do disagree.
	Sorry.
	I don't think that anyone using this, using Gamergate as a weapon to I don't think that anybody's using Gamergate as a weapon to attack individuals on a personal basis.
	Most of the conversation happens between people who don't know each other on a level that is personal enough for those beefs to be a motivating factor.
	I feel like giving her a round of applause.
	That's fucking brilliant.
	But holy shit, Arthur, what are you going to say to that?
	It's going to be something stupid, isn't it?
	Arthur Chu, the ethical issues are nonsense.
	Oh, that's Chu, you're a fucking idiot.
	How did you win on Jeopardy?
	I just.
	Holy shit, you, that is just okay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, we could just watch.
	I mean, if we're talking journalism, we just pull up the Reuters, you know, list of Jonathan Catholics, which I think is a perfect example.
	I mean, hell, the one from goodgamers.us was pretty fucking good.
	I'd use that.
	I mean, just fuck's hey.
	He just doesn't help himself.
	He's like, he is like a Gamergate plant.
	He is what he is literally what I would say to someone who is infiltrating the social justice movement and trying to discredit them and make them look bad.
	It's incredible.
	But I just need to get a drink.
	Be back in two seconds, but uh,
	sorry about the uh break there.
	So Gamergate opposes journalists having a moral point of view in their writing and pushing an agenda for what they think is right.
	Have you read anything by Samantha Allen or Patricia Hernandez or Leigh Alexander or any of them?
	True.
	What they think is right is wrong.
	They think racism is fine if you're doing it to white people.
	They think sexism is fine if you're doing it to men.
	These people are insane, Chu.
	They think bias is a bad thing.
	They think pushing their agenda onto people who don't really want it is fine and completely appropriate.
	They've got this annoying sense of smug air, this smug air of superiority around themselves, which makes them intolerable and completely unlikable.
	Whatever they think is right, I don't care.
	Sorry, my throat's really itching today.
	I think I'm coming down to something.
	Sorry about that.
	So he says they prefer that all reviewers be consumer advocates.
	Why would I read your site if you weren't advocating for me as a consumer of the product you are talking about?
	Why would I do that?
	It would just be a free advertisement for someone else's agenda and not my own.
	And it's my fucking money you want.
	So it's my fucking money we will be concerned about.
	And therefore, it's my agenda.
	We will talk about fucking Arthur.
	No one cares what your agenda is.
	Jesus, these people are just insane.
	And Chu, you are just doing a magnificent job of making yourselves look like complete assholes to anyone who's ever fucking been part of a consumer demographic, I swear.
	But yeah, they prefer reviewers to be consumer advocates, that they try to guess what their consumers want to hear and say it.
	Okay.
	Yes, they guess that the consumers would like to know if the product is shit or not.
	And then they try to tell people that.
	They think journalists should change their message in response to threats from corporate sponsors.
	Well, how about just free market here?
	If your site ends up not being profitable, then it'll close.
	You've just pissed off people who know how to get your sites to tank Gorka.
	They defend the AAA corporations against criticism from freelance reviewers.
	You are not freelance, Chu.
	Your sites owned by massive multinational corporations.
	You know, you are not freelance.
	And even if it, no, in fact, no, that's true.
	If you people are freelance, then you're fucking idiots because you are giving these massive corporations millions of dollars a year.
	And if you guys are barely fucking scraping by, then you're fucking stupid, aren't you?
	You just, you're, you're.
	Good thing you've got that jeopardy whim, really.
	All of this is the opposite of ethics.
	No.
	And even if it was, Chu, all you've done is misrepresented almost everything.
	So yeah, well done.
	That is a straw man argument.
	David goes on to say, Arthur, that doesn't explain the presence of so many social justice movement members in Gamergate.
	These aren't people who are chiefly identify as gamers, nor do they define themselves as people who don't consider racism a problem or make excuses for it.
	There are people who are very much in line with your own views, and honestly, many of mine, and yet still joined GameGate.
	Why is that?
	And this is the same sort of thing with the Fine Young Capitalists.
	It's not about left or right.
	It's about authoritarian and libertarian.
	And sorry, I'm going to have to have a drink again.
	So Diana responds to Brooke by saying, I've got to say, oh no, sorry, got to say, this might be, this might be astounding quote of the day right here.
	I don't think anyone is using Gamergate as a weapon to attack individuals on a personal basis.
	No, Deanna.
	If they were using Gamergates as a weapon, they would have to be persuading a large number of people using the hashtag to attack this person because they're asking using the hashtag.
	They're using it as a shield to prevent themselves as individuals from being spotted amongst the crowd of people in Gamergate.
	That's the difference.
	But they're not.
	Unless you, I mean, if you can provide one, find someone, find an example where that has happened.
	I'm happy to condemn that.
	You know, I want to see it.
	All you have to do is provide the evidence.
	Brooke says, Arthur, Gamergate wants transparency and journalism as well.
	It's often said that journalists can write about whatever they choose, but we want to be made aware if they have any extenuating circumstances of external motivations.
	Deanna, I meant anybody here.
	And agree, that's perfectly, perfectly good, perfectly sound on point.
	To which Deanna says, dang, no emoji on the branch, eh?
	That was the crying, laughing one, he.
	And then says, Brooke, got it.
	Wow, she sounds like a child.
	That's.
	I would be embarrassed.
	Jesus.
	Deanna, you raise a good point as well, don't you?
	Which is that harassment has been endemic on all sides.
	There probably has been.
	I'm frustrated to see that so many stories act as though only three people have been the victims of harassment.
	You've seen stories of doxing, threats, and swatting to both anti-Gamergate and pro-Gaming people.
	I'm disappointed when I see people in the trenches on either side act as though their side has clean hands.
	Well, that's true, you know, but I really don't think that you can judge the majority of GameGate by the minority of Gamergate.
	And again, it really would seem that the trolls are people whose views do not fall in line with the majority of people in Gamergate.
	Again, I think, in fact, I don't even think that the anti-Gamergate is responsible necessarily for anything that actually happens on their side.
	I think that the third-party trolls have been trying to make them look bad too.
	Not that that really needs to happen, but you know, but yeah, I agree.
	You know, it's not like anyone's especially clean and no one can say that their side has really done nothing wrong.
	I think that, yeah, I don't really think that either side is necessarily responsible for the worst successes of it.
	And I'm going to regret all of this later on.
	I always look forward to when Arthur Chew speaks.
	Brooke, Gamergate started for the purpose of destroying an individual person.
	yeah nathan grayson that was that was really the person because you know he you know he just didn't have to recuse himself what It was fine.
	Everything was cool.
	Copacetic.
	It was just awesome.
	Thin man.
	And that was the problem.
	He should have been fired.
	If Kataka just fucking fired him, none of this would have happened.
	I swear, or it would have would have happened like a year down the line or something, you know.
	But yeah, Frederick mentions that before the Game Gate name, they call themselves Burgers or Burgers and Fries, which is a nasty reference to a nasty meme about Zoe Quinn sleeping with five guys.
	All this is built into Game Gate's DNA.
	Well, yeah, but no more so than Archduke Ferdinand being built into World War One's DNA.
	He's always going to be mentioned in the story because that's how it happened.
	I don't think that Zoe Quinn is that popular, though.
	I mean, I'm still tweeting on the Game Gate hashtag, and she's blocked me.
	So what am I doing there?
	You know, what would I be doing if it was all about Zoe Quinn?
	But, oh, in a wonderfully mature move, Deanna Zalt, if you're listening to this and not watching, she says, wait, five guys, and then posts a little meme picture of some shocked-looking woman.
	That's insanely childish, Deanna.
	Yes, she shagged five men behind her boyfriend's back.
	You know, you might be some sort of radical feminist who thinks that being a massive slapper is fine, but you have to understand on the other side of the coin, you've got a guy who's been absolutely betrayed by the woman he loved five times.
	And if you were talking about empathy, Zoe Quinn doesn't really deserve much in this situation because she was taking advantage of someone else's trust and she really hurt that person and you know has probably had him exiled from their community basically because of it.
	I can't imagine that many of his friends have stuck by him.
	And, you know, but and again, he did it for obviously personal reasons of revenge.
	But the fact that it did us all a favor and saw the corruption going on and the intimate connections between developers and press and favorable courage based on community spirit, it just was an invaluable thing for everyone.
	So, yeah, it's a fucking bad thing that she shagged five guys behind her boyfriend's back.
	Whether you want to justify the action in a feminist manner or not.
	I know that that's what you're doing when you're being sarcastic here.
	So shut up, you idiot, basically.
	And grow the fuck up posting memes and what's meant to be a serious adult debate.
	What the.
	Are you old as well?
	Why are you acting like a child?
	I mean, like, she's older than me.
	I saw her.
	Eight wheels.
	Eight wheels, hot wheels.
	So hey wheels.
	Is she getting a tank?
	He says, indeed.
	I'll take a moment to reiterate what Han responds.
	The Han response to all warrants from US law enforcement.
	We've never actually received any nor official requests from Wu herself.
	Yeah, again, I think the fundamental principle of Han is just don't break the law on there, isn't it?
	You know, you can talk about whatever you want, just don't break the law.
	In fact, I found out about Wu's alleged doxing when I woke up and read some emails in September.
	However, she immediately blasted me on Twitter, which is absurd.
	It's like getting mad at ATT for not stopping your ex leaving you, leaving, for stopping your ex leaving your voicemail at 3 a.m.
	You have to understand me.
	She's insane.
	She's fucking mad.
	Also, Arthur, my name's spelled Frederick.
	And yes, Zoe Quinn originally was originally how ethical violations were uncovered, but many, many more have been found since then.
	These guys are just so fucking on it, aren't they?
	They're just doing such a fucking honestly, these are the tanks, man.
	Deanna Zalt says, sorry, some of this whole thing has made me really punchy.
	I mean, for real folks, Deanna, I don't care what you're talking about.
	What are you?
	A child?
	A creepy arrested child?
	Oh no, that's Leia Alexander.
	But you sound like Leigh Alexander, because why would I give a fuck how you feel about any of this, Deanna?
	I'm not obliged to care about your feelings, and I don't.
	So, you know, shut up and stop posting memes.
	Brooke says, I think that as a consumer revolt without any clear foundation, it isn't possible for these personal motivations to permeate every layer of the discussion.
	GameGate has evolved with time, and as new information has been discovered, the issue with Zoe Quinn is no longer relevant to GameGate, and it distracts from the important issues.
	Fucking hell, Brooke.
	Bravo.
	Arthu says, David, I've never met a social justice gator where that wasn't paper thin.
	Oh, right.
	So it's kind of a no-true social justice gamer, but, you know, it's not because you can just say, well, that person is, I guess, or that person's not quite, not quite.
	No, their motivations are just a little too thin.
	Sorry.
	It'll always be a little too thin.
	You know, but I mean, no, your values aren't in line with my own at all.
	If you think of anti-feminist Christina Hoff Summers as a legitimate feminist voice, well, you heard it here first, Christina.
	I'm sorry.
	Sorry, Dr. Summers.
	Sorry.
	I'm sorry to tell you, but you are not a legitimate anti-feminist voice.
	You were, in fact, anti-feminist.
	You are as bad as me.
	So I'm really sorry to hear it, but, you know, that's awful, isn't it?
	You know, she's been a feminist for like 40 years.
	You know, ah, shit.
	Sorry, guys.
	I'm trying to.
	Hang on, let me fuck around with my, um, my stuff.
	Right.
	this being heard sorry about this delay know that I suck is is is this any louder Ah.
	It's going to go on forever.
	Sorry about this, guys.
	It's not that I'll just sit here and wait in silence because I don't know.
	Okay, that sounds fine, right?
	Okay, cool.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, sorry about that, guys.
	Right, yeah.
	So he's never met a social justice gator.
	Christina Hoff Summers.
	Or if you think Moot shutting down Paul on 4chan is a troubling free speech issue, rather than being the very bare minimum of human decency, Moot, this is what you get.
	You get kicked like a fucking dog.
	For fuck's sake, man.
	Get your fucking balls back.
	David responds with, Arthur, Gamergate is an amorphous movement.
	It doesn't have DNA.
	These sorts of essentialist statements about what Gamergate is or is not don't really serve much purpose in addressing harassment and reducing harm.
	Brilliant.
	I'm very tired of the soapboxing, which has led to the absurdly hyperbolic comparisons of Gamergate since every atrocity to every atrocity since the dawn of time.
	It's just halo polishing.
	oh arthur arthur i i will call a medic um i need a drink Sorry guys, sorry about this.
	Yeah, so Brooke says, Arthur, Christina Haas-Sommers believes that women and men should be equal.
	What?
	What is there to say that she isn't a legitimate feminist voice?
	People should be able to identify feminists as feminists if they want to.
	Well, yeah, okay.
	Arthur says, there are zero legitimate ethical issues that Gamergate has brought up.
	So count me out of the calls for a new hashtag.
	There is nothing worth discussing to be salvaged.
	Every ethical issue targeted, every ethical issue targeted is a good thing that I support.
	Okay, so Arthur, are you saying that all of these things that people say about ethics and journalism, all of the examples?
	I'm not even going to get thinking any up now.
	I'm way too hammered for that.
	But there are definitely confirmed issues of collusion, corruption, and a complete lack of disclosure that has led to people breaching standards.
	So why would these things not need to be discussed?
	I mean, the only way I can imagine that you're looking at this, Arthur, is that you think corruption is a good thing.
	And I mean, these aren't issues to you.
	That's the thing.
	These things happen, and you're fine with them happening.
	You want them to be able to continue happening in the future.
	I just don't understand how you don't see these as issues.
	And I'm sure that other people are going to jump all over this sort.
	But yeah, so David says, Arthur, are you saying that Debbie ever was a paper-thin social justice gator?
	If so, I don't see why you're holding her up as an example earlier.
	Again, I presume that she's a defaulter, but I don't know.
	And Hot Wheel says, so Arthur, you're going to now make this about the closing of 4chan's politics board.
	So why are you so threatened by an open politics-themed board on which anyone can post anonymously?
	You're not allowed to air your opinions there, too.
	Sorry, you are allowed to air your opinions there, too, you know, or at least would be if it was open right now.
	Poll was closed because there was because people there had non-mainstream opinions, nothing more.
	It was a direct act of censorship that had persisted for days.
	And if Moot reopens it, I would caution all previous users, take a long, hard look at the site where Admin can close one of the most important boards as a joke.
	Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
	But I do agree with the point, regardless of that.
	You know, of course, I wouldn't fucking go back there now if I would move to 8chan.
	Fuck it, man.
	Moot becoming a fucking social justice warrior and puppeteering.
	I wouldn't be happy with that.
	I'm glad I'm too stupid to work these boards out.
	Brooke says, sorry, guys, I've really got a bad throat today.
	Again, how do you define legitimate ethical issues?
	Gaming has brought up many, many ethical issues, even in this conversation.
	So obviously, you're excluding them on the basis of their legitimacy.
	What defines whether an ethical boundary is important?
	Well, that's a good question.
	But he is absolutely dismissing them just because he doesn't personally like them.
	So he obviously condones them.
	America Tonight tried to bring it a bit more close to the original points and topics of conversation, I presume.
	And Arthur Chu carries on to say, I've talked about the disclosure thing too.
	It's crap.
	It's demanding access to the details of someone's personal life and relationships as a price for daring to talk about one facet of your life in public.
	Right.
	But if you're public figures and you have to disclose conflicts of interest in your work, which journalists should do if they want to call themselves journalists, then it's something you have to do, Arthur.
	Otherwise, it's a breach of ethics, journalistic ethics.
	I just don't understand why you think it's okay to do the things that you're doing.
	How is all of this fine with you, Arthur?
	But it's what's emboldened Gamergate to do invasive research or to just make things up.
	Oh, do you mean looking at the things that they put on personal media?
	Personal media.
	Public media, like, you know, Facebook, Twitter, all that sort of thing.
	They do it in public.
	These are public things that you are putting on the internet that anyone can see about anyone who's dared to have visibility in the indie scene and also be female.
	Arthur, you are an annoying little twerp because you just don't seem to want to accept that something that people in your community, some things that these people have done are wrong.
	I mean, it's not like anyone even has anything on you as far as I'm aware.
	It's not like anyone can prove any kind of collusion or, you know, any kind of corruption with you as a person.
	So why are you standing up and defending the people who have done something wrong?
	It just makes you look stupid.
	It makes you look like you're in favor of corruption.
	I just don't know why you're doing it.
	I'd be like, yeah, well, fucking, of course these people need to be.
	Of course they need to be fired or they need to be investigated.
	Why wouldn't they be?
	Any of them?
	It's so strange that you would feel the need to protect them.
	You know, I just don't get it.
	Just don't get it, Chu.
	But fucking crazy.
	So Hot Wheel says, Arthur, I encourage you to read his press.gamergate link and tell me how this is not an example of a severe ethical breach.
	I can explain that one to you, Hot Wheels.
	It's because Arthur Chu isn't ethical.
	He doesn't consider that an ethical breach, despite the fact it so obviously is.
	He just doesn't think that.
	He's fine with it.
	He's got a very strange set of ethics, there's Arthur.
	Please explain to me how this exact section, which deals with the firing of Alistair Pinsoff, reported on fraud by indie developer, is not a breach of ethics in the gaming press.
	Oh shit.
	Chew, I think you just got a new arsehole torn, mate.
	That's fucking hell.
	I'm going to presume that the information's real, but feel free to correct me if it's complete bullshit.
	I can't be asked to read it, frankly.
	You don't want me to read it right now.
	So Deanna Zant says, anytime an ethical issue addresses women's sexuality, what are you talking about?
	Women's sexuality?
	Why?
	What?
	That's where the red flags go off for me.
	I've got some helpful guidance on what's relevant to most of these discussions.
	Okay, again, I'm not going to watch it now, but what are you talking about, Deanna?
	That is irrelevant.
	So, I can only assume that what you've posted is relevant.
	They'd link.
	Brooke says, I don't think that anyone in Gamergate is against critiques of games.
	I think that the problem is when a critique is made for a particular reason, that reason isn't made transparent to those reading it.
	Fucking hell, that's that's directly on point.
	That's exactly how I would want to say it.
	That's really great.
	Additionally, there is a difference between critique and attempts to censor material one disagrees with, which we have seen recently with Grand Theft Auto V.
	I am impressed.
	I'm not being sarcastic either, really am.
	I know it always sounds sarcastic when you try and give a genuine compliment, doesn't it?
	You say, That looks really good, mate.
	And it just sounds like you're being a sake twat.
	But all right, tell me what's wrong with that, you know.
	But yeah, Arthur 2 says, Debbie Ever has been very open about her Gamergate support was a deep personal failing on her part that brought on by personal issues that were antithetical to her values.
	You mean she went back through the brainwashing and rejoined the hive mind?
	gotcha.
	Brooke replies, see Arthur, that's a fallacy of composition.
	One person's experience in Gamergate doesn't define the whole.
	And she's right.
	Arthur replies, Pinsoff gratuitously outed a trans person and directly contributed to suicidal depression while doing so to no journalistic end.
	What are you talking about, Arthur?
	Who is the person who has committed suicide?
	I mean, it may be common knowledge.
	I just don't fucking know it.
	And you've provided no information to tell me about it.
	You've just made an assertion, so I need some evidence.
	But apparently, it was a textbook flagrant violation of journalistic ethics.
	Okay.
	One editor advising another to fire him, then refusing to rehire him is not only one editor advising another to fire him and then refusing to rehire him is not only ethical, It is a model of ethics and a model of that mainstream outlets could learn from one editor,
	advising someone else in another company to find their person and they're refusing to rehire them is not only ethical.
	Maybe I'm just too ragged for this.
	The way he just can't form a direct sentence.
	I mean, that very much sounds like that is another company bullying a different company's employee and trying to get ruined ruin their career.
	Why the fuck would companies in competition do that?
	I would want you to want to ruin the careers of my sort of rival journalists because it would mean that we're scaring you.
	We're making things happen that you don't like.
	We're going to get the advantage on you here.
	But again, I might be misinterpreting this.
	I'm not sure I'm interpreting this correctly.
	But yeah, I don't agree that this is any kind of model of ethics, Arthur.
	You're an idiot.
	David Auerbach, I don't know to what extent it's about ethics or fears of what will happen.
	It's a war.
	People took sides.
	People on both sides inflamed the conflict.
	Now each side is just looking to destroy the other by whatever means it can find.
	I'm not sure that's really that fair because I suppose you could consider that gamers started it by demanding an investigation into Grayson and Zoe's relationship.
	But I think that that was, and I think that that was, you know, an authentic concern.
	I think that that's legitimate.
	I think that they're, you know, it's shown to be legitimate.
	There was absolutely a cause of concern there.
	So I don't really would, I wouldn't really think this was considered an attack, but I suppose if you're highest percentage of crybabies in the social justice press, you probably do consider it an attack.
	So you probably consider that, or not you personally, David, sorry, the social justice, they probably consider themselves quite aggrieved.
	How dare you criticize us?
	But that in itself is a bit of a problem, isn't it?
	Because that means that they clearly have a undeserved self-inflated sense of self-worth.
	And they kind of need something like Gamergate to kind of bring them back down to earth, to remind them that they're in fact complete fucking morons.
	But yeah, so, but anyway, but anyway, yeah, I mean, we are literally trying to destroy each other at this point.
	But that's because they should have apologised long ago.
	And, you know, it's this obstinate defiance that really is the reason that Gorka's losing millions.
	Yeah, keep sending this fucking emails, guys.
	Seriously, it's working.
	You can tell, you know, it's an overused analogy, but the Archdu Ferdinand analogy isn't too inaccurate.
	That's because I made it.
	The conflict at this point is more self-perpetuating than it is about the supposed original issues.
	People have dug in, absolutely.
	The thing is, it always has been.
	It really just needed a flashpoint because, like we've shown, it's happening all over this culture.
	And individuals in, you know, different communities of individuals who don't know about each other and had no real contact with each other have all seen facets of this corrupt culture.
	And that's why when it's all come out and everyone's realized that everyone else realizes they're a bunch of corrupt bastards, it's just like, right, okay, well, let's all band together and fucking do something about this then because we don't have to.
	The only reason that, you know, nothing's happening and they can perpetuate this bollocks is because we're not fucking doing anything.
	You know, anyway, but that's why things happened.
	You know, I really do.
	It's, you know, without necessarily that sort of thought process, but you know, it's, it really is.
	But for me, transparency would mean that somebody, if somebody was to critique or review a game, any connections with the development team would be revealed along with a review.
	That's a that, sorry, that's in response to America tonight asking Brooke what she thinks transparency would look like to her.
	And I agree with that.
	So that would be a perfectly satisfactory definition of how they could be transparent.
	Ideally, any information about paid content or where the money was received for review in any way would also be made available.
	That'd be great.
	Arthur Chu then says, I always look forward to this.
	GameGate loves to take collective credit for things like giving to charity or talking about how awesome gaming culture is.
	Well, let's think about why that might be, Arthur, because when you raise, you know, like $70,000, that didn't come from a couple of people in Gamergate who have lots of money, because there aren't really very many people in GameGate who have lots of money, but there are lots of people who have a very small amount of money that they can all collectively give.
	And so when you get $70,000, you know, in small increments, if they only gave $7 each, that's still 10,000 people.
	So that's a huge fucking amount.
	You fucking idiot.
	That's why they think as a collective that they are collectively taking credit because lots of people did it.
	There's a fucking good reason.
	And obviously they're all talking about how awesome gaming culture is because, of course, they're all doing it because they're all gamers, you dip shit.
	And taking it personally as individuals when the culture is attacked because it's part of their identity.
	While disclaiming any collective blame for the harm the culture has caused, it's a lovely rhetorical dodge.
	Yeah, it is Arthur, but the thing is, it's true.
	They're not responsible for individuals who do things under the name of something that anyone can type into a keyboard.
	That's the thing.
	They aren't responsible for it.
	You know, especially if they in this culture are actively saying, no, I don't agree with that.
	I denounce that.
	We should find out how that's done and stop it.
	They're in the right, Arthur.
	You're in the wrong.
	It sucks, doesn't it?
	It's fucking, yeah, it is a lovely rhetorical dodge, but it is true.
	But David says, Arthur, you dodge my question.
	It made stuff look foolish.
	You clearly think that membership in Game Gate is automatically disqualifies one from having authentic social justice views.
	I won't defend those people by saying, oh, they may claim to be social justice, but they're secretly reactionary.
	Isn't helpful.
	That's begging the question.
	Ow.
	Snap, I'd have to look that up to check.
	I can't really remember the exact definition of begging the question off the top of my head.
	But it sounds like it might be right, and I'm too lazy to look it up.
	Look, I do research for videos, not streams, all right?
	Especially what.
	Right, okay.
	So America Tonight says to Brook.
	That makes sense.
	But as someone relatively new to GameGate, it's really surprising to me that the passion that people bring to a rather dry issue like ethics and journalism.
	Where does that passion come from?
	Oh, this is a good question.
	See, for example, this lovely video.
	Excuse me.
	Sorry, where does this energy come from?
	And then they link to two video responses to the Al Jazeera interview.
	Now, I'm gutted I didn't do one.
	Now I could have been on that.
	I haven't seen them, but obviously one's called Al Jazeera uses a very insidious way to deceive, tap, tap, tap.
	Dot, dot, dot, even.
	And Satan's response to Al Jazeera and GameGate, and probably their bullshit.
	So we'll get to their answer.
	But in the meantime, Arthur Chu says to presumably David, yeah, see, in an actual artistic scene, that's impossible.
	So I don't really know what he's responding to there, actually.
	Maybe he's responding to Brooke's transparency.
	I do local theatre.
	If you wanted me to disclose all relationships, holy shit, do I want to see Arthur Chu in his local theater?
	Fuck me.
	Can you imagine what he acts like?
	That would be awesome.
	Fucking enjoy that.
	I'd enjoy the shit out of that.
	I would be his most enthusiastic audience member.
	Woo!
	Oh, Chu!
	Shakespeare, bitch!
	Holy shit.
	But yeah, if you want to be disclosing relationships before writing a review of a local production, the disclosure would be an autobiography longer than review.
	Then maybe you shouldn't be writing reviews of your friends' theatre companies.
	I mean, maybe you just shouldn't be a reviewer.
	Maybe you should be one or the other, you know, because you're always going to be talking about your friends.
	And if you don't tell people, hey, I know everyone I'm talking about, I'm mates with it.
	Just a little disclaimer: hey, assume I'm mates with everyone in here.
	People don't know that they're going to assume that you're an impartial observer or at worst, and someone who is acting in their interest, which is why you wanted them as a reader at best.
	So, you know, is it any wonder?
	But the arm's length relationship Game Gate wants speaks to their mental image of the ideal scene being corporate producers versus individual customers.
	Right.
	This doesn't, it doesn't appeal to an indie art scene.
	They seem fundamentally hostile to how indie art scenes are a community of evolving personal relationships.
	Yeah, because it turns you into an annoying little clique of dickheads who think that they're better than everyone else.
	You've got to understand how you come across other people, Arthur.
	You're a pretentious twat.
	I mean, I'm a pretentious twat, but at least I don't go around like forcing my pretentiousness on other people.
	They, you know, they at least have to come to my fucking channel.
	You know, I don't go to like people who make things that they like and try to change these artists or whatever you like.
	I don't even know what you like, Arthur.
	So fucking who does?
	You know, if you kept yourselves, no one would care, basically.
	If you weren't fucking talking down to other people and trying to take other people's identities away from them, no one would care.
	You know, you would be left alone and hipster wouldn't be a term of great ridicule.
	Hipster would be, uh, hipster, you know.
	Anyway, so Hot Wheels replies, so Arthur, in your opinion, trans people are allowed to do whatever they want, including scamming so long as they're trans.
	What are we talking about here?
	I don't see why he's suggested that exactly.
	But why don't you give me that same privilege because of my disability?
	Because he can't relate to people who disabled me.
	That's also an underprivileged group.
	And I could definitely make some money by scamming, especially if I knew that I could bully the media not to report on it.
	Yeah, that is exactly what they do.
	And Brooke says to Arthur that a local theatre production is very different from a review of a AAA game, both in expectations and what's at stake in terms of employment and profit.
	You can't logically compare the two, which is true.
	But I mean, I'm just concerned with any kind of consumer advocacy, really, or like advocacy for friends.
	It's, you know, I mean, I've got friends who are like I have recommended to people, but I've told people that they're my friends, I know them, or, you know, this is a patron of mine or something like that.
	You know, it's not that hard.
	It's, you know, just make sure that people get the sense that you're not doing it in an impartial way.
	You know, I mean, if like I often recommend Dan Carlin, dancarlin.com.
	And I can recommend him in a way that I'm not invested in Dan Carlin other than in the content.
	So I can recommend the content as being good because, you know, I don't know him.
	I've never, I don't have any relationship with him.
	And so I'm just a consumer advocating good content to another consumer or to other consumers.
	You know, that's the difference.
	But anyway, but he's right when he says, no one was talking about AAA games.
	The accusations are always in his budget production like Depression Quest and that dragon cancer people who haven't achieved great commercial success yet.
	So therefore any press coverage they get is through relationships and therefore by Game Gate's definition corrupt.
	Well, you know, who knows?
	I don't know.
	I'm not saying necessarily, but anyway, that's right.
	The problem isn't necessarily that there is a press that covers the indie scene.
	The problem is that you hang out far too much.
	You've become a clique.
	You are, you know, you have to be part of a certain culture to be able to access this scene.
	And so, what you're doing is you're preventing other people from rising through these ranks.
	You know, you're being selective with what you actually promote.
	And it's holding other people back, mate.
	You know, it's keeping people out of your little fucking social justice boys club.
	I know that you fucking weird feminists, oh my god, it's the old boys club.
	Well, it's it's the old social justice warriors club.
	You've become everything you fucking hate, basically.
	Um, so get the fuck on it.
	But, um, but she's Brooke says, I don't think that's true.
	I think everybody in Gamergate is here because of ethics and journalism.
	If they're in Gamergate for a different reason, they're in a movement, not a consumer revolt.
	Yeah, I think that's true.
	I think that fundamentally it is about ethics and journalism.
	I really do think that it is fundamentally about that, and that's that is a core part of it.
	I mean, that's that's like the core of it.
	But that's caused the corruption in journalism isn't caused by like money, you know, it's caused by culture.
	It's it's it's informed by the culture, it's always going to be there because it is fundamentally like Chu is proving right now.
	This is a part of this culture, corruption is just built into it.
	So if you want to have ethics and journalism, this culture has to go because you, you know, you can never solve the issue with this culture being in place because this culture is causing the issue.
	So it, you know, it's, I mean, I'm happy for them to have the little fucking corrupt art house culture where they sell each other's games to themselves on their on their sites, but I don't think they should be on fucking large fucking sites that people, you know, they've got millions backing them to advertise them, you know, to get them a huge market share because they can put themselves out there.
	That's the problem.
	You know, whereas most small sites can't.
	And so they've got to be done by word of mouth.
	So I know.
	Sorry, guys.
	I don't know what's going on.
	I can't actually boost the mic anymore.
	I don't know why it's so quiet.
	It must be my voice.
	I've got a bit of a sore throat coming on.
	But yeah, no, I mean, it's fair to say that gaming itself doesn't have one culture, but I think there are general precepts that everyone seems to be living by in it.
	And it seems to just be the libertarian sort of just go and play with the games you want, isn't it?
	You know, what the fuck?
	But I really, I really don't know what's wrong with my microphone.
	I don't know who can hear me and who can't.
	So I'm really sorry about this.
	But I really don't think I can turn it up anymore.
	Sorry, hang on.
	Honestly, I'm guessing it's my throat.
	i'm really sorry about it guys that's um right okay so So, yeah, they're always deathless corrupt.
	It's a movement, not a consumer revolt.
	Arthur says, all right, I'm typing on my phone and getting in the car, so I'm gone for a while.
	Maybe back.
	Arthur, did you not put aside some time to do this?
	You arrogant twat.
	I just, would you, sorry, no, I mean, I'm doing this as I was on the toilet or something.
	What?
	Seriously, Arthur, for fuck's sake, man.
	Right?
	But Brooke said, Deanna says to Brooke, oh, how I wish it were true about GameGate being a consumer revolt.
	And Brooke says, you said we want an arm's length relationship in gaming journalism.
	For us, that would be in regards to both Indy and AAA development.
	The goals Gamergate is trying to achieve, don't modify depending on the subject, but applied to all subjects in the same way.
	It's consistent.
	Fucking fucking hell, Brooke.
	That was brilliant.
	In fact, this is great.
	I can just bullshit along to this.
	This is wonderful.
	That was fucking excellent.
	I don't have to worry about fucking, you know, you guys.
	Her and Hot Wheels are doing a fucking amazing job.
	but yeah and hot will says yes like i often conveniently have to take a car ride after just being asked a hard question oh arthur Arthur, how's that arsehole, mate?
	Oh, sorry, that's probably sexual harassment, isn't it?
	Sorry.
	David says, I have to run off too.
	I'd say anyone interested in the issue, read up, research, talk to people on all sides, be skeptical of second and third-hand accounts, and put harm reduction first.
	That's all I've ever wished to communicate.
	Thanks and best wishes.
	Arthur proudly told the moderator that it would be in and out of cell reception before the discussion.
	Yeah, of course he would be.
	Brooke says, quote, I have to return some videotapes, unquote, using the 4chan mascot excuse.
	Are we?
	what that is um so america tonight says let's try to bring this uh back to an issue that the media definitely focuses on How do you police harassment online without stepping on free speech?
	Deanna says, again, police is a challenging word.
	And free speech, she links to a meme.
	You keep using that word.
	I don't think you know what it means from Princess Bride.
	I can't remember what the Spaniard's name is now, but I have known too many Spaniards.
	So no good, Deanna.
	She says, free speech is about governments, etc.
	We're talking about privately owned public squares.
	What people should consider when speaking within them.
	Oh, well, that's fine then.
	This is fine.
	That's just great because that means that even if something is immoral, if it's not illegal, that's completely fine to do it.
	You just, you just go to the fullest extent you can.
	You know, instead of me thinking, oh, well, I'll leave my comments open and I'll literally not remove anything.
	Then, you know, I mean, I do occasionally if it's, you know, bad, but most, I really don't remove any comments in comparison to the number of comments that are made.
	And, you know, I should just think, well, you know what?
	I just remove all the fucking comments.
	I don't have to worry about it in any way and fuck them.
	You know, I could just be like, well, yeah, it's, I mean, yeah, it's a shitty thing to do if I'm putting an opinion out and people might hear that opinion think, well, you know, I want to make, you know, this has become a this is a space to discuss this opinion clearly because that's why you made the fucking video.
	So let's talk about this opinion.
	Oh, no, I can't.
	So I'm just being talked at.
	You know, why didn't I think that?
	I just been like, fuck you guys.
	Comments off.
	Ratings off.
	Don't even need your opinion.
	Fuck you.
	Get out.
	You know, get out peasant is what you're saying, isn't it?
	Ditches.
	I fucking hate these people, man.
	You know, it's the principle of fucking with people's right to express themselves.
	You know, yeah, okay, it's not legally mandated on a public forum on the internet, but it's still shitty to do.
	Dickhead, honestly.
	Brooke says, I think Frederick does an excellent job of maintaining free speech.
	Even if even if it's illegal, it's not allowed.
	Gaming Gate has also set up different groups specifically to deal with harassment on Twitter.
	It's good, fucking damn good.
	Yeah, this is great.
	I'm going to autopilot this.
	Hot Wheels says, Deanna, I'm not sure if you're posting memes to make me feel at home because I administrate a chan, but I was under the impression that this was a serious debate and not an 8-chan thread.
	Oh, shit.
	Yeah, this annoying woman is posting memes.
	And my God, she just sounds childish.
	To the moderator's question, the good old-fashioned way.
	David Packman brought it up on his show, and it's good advice.
	If you're a public figure, harassment is part of your daily life.
	Just look at TMZ.
	With the internet, even minor figure to the mainstream press can become source for public figure.
	If you feel legitimately threatened, for the threats to law enforcement and let them handle it.
	I can say for a fact that 8chan, for one, will cooperate to the fullest of our capacity to respond to warrants from law enforcement.
	Very good.
	Deanna Zunt.
	Don't worry, I'm a mean girl of my own.
	Okay.
	Nothing to do with you.
	Okay.
	I would have taken his excuse, Deanna.
	If you had any fucking sense, you'd be like, oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't think.
	You know, I was just trying to be considerate.
	But no, you're an immature child all on your own.
	By some, nothing to do with you.
	But some of this quote-unquote serious conversation, I mean, I can't help but feel the level of ridiculousness associated with it and respond accordingly.
	Then why are you engaging in it?
	If you're just like, this is absurd, why don't you walk off?
	If it's literally not worth talking about this, I mean, you're looking at it as being absurd because you're a crazy rad fem.
	But the problem that you're having is like not everyone is like you.
	So you can sit there and think this is ridiculous.
	This is the problem I have when looking at feminism.
	It's so fucking absurd.
	It's Jessica Valenti on the Guardian website calling for men to take a pay cut because they're men.
	Deanna, that is that I mean, I do understand the steps of logic you idiots have been through to get there, but they're crazy.
	Each step is crazy, you know.
	And you've arrived at Crazy Town and now you're sitting there going, well, everyone else is just fucking ridiculous.
	Why aren't you all calling for the same thing as me?
	Because I've been down these ridiculous fucking steps of logic too.
	You know, you're all mad.
	Sorry, I fucking hate modern feminism.
	It's stupid.
	It's just retarded.
	It's for idiots.
	And you can't hear me again.
	I know it.
	Sorry.
	So yeah, Brooke says, I agree with Frederick on this.
	Part of putting oneself in the public eyes is to risk being criticized and sometimes not in the way one would choose for themselves.
	What exactly is the level of ridiculous associated with it to Deanna?
	If we're being asked questions about harassment and freedom of speech, doesn't that sound a little serious?
	And Frederick responds to Deanna saying, well, Deanna, if you feel the debate is ridiculous, it's currently 1.23 a.m. where I live in Manila, the Philippines.
	See, this kind of the level, isn't it?
	Arthur Chu just on the way home from work or something.
	Hot wheels is up at fucking, you know, half one at night just to do this.
	It's just a level of effort.
	It's just attitude towards what they're approaching.
	You know, it's just Hot Wheels.
	Yeah, I want an area for free speech.
	We're not going to break any laws and any warrants will be completely served, you know, like that.
	We're for freedom and liberty, basically.
	And Arthur, with his fairly privileged sounding life, saying, Oh, I just don't just turn off, just keep people from talking, just shut all this down.
	This isn't my ethics, there's no ethical breaches here.
	You.
	Oh, yeah, now I've got to go.
	Sorry, just pisses me off.
	Just the sort of people they are, you know, in comparison to the sort of people I find in Gamergate.
	People are going to get just pissed off and they can be dicks, but anyone can do that.
	You know, it's what you like when you're not being a dick that's important.
	And these people are fucking awful when they don't think they're being dicks.
	It pisses me off.
	Just totally self-centered.
	But given that Arthur Chu dropped out of my group, Brooke, I can call it a night if you want.
	Yeah, okay.
	I think they're okay.
	I think they were going to wrap up, but Deanna seems to have waffled on a little bit more and it could get good.
	She says, there's a double whammy for one.
	One of silencing.
	Oh, sorry.
	The American tonight asks, can I get a sense from people some of the impacts they see on people who are subject to the online harassment?
	It's really just a matter of, is it really just a matter of ignoring criticism?
	I've seen some pretty heated online mobs out there.
	And Deanna says, there's a double whammy for one of silencing and chilling effect.
	The person on the receiving end is often silenced.
	Okay.
	Others who may have spoken up about an issue see the harassment and choose to self-censor versus risk of getting targeted.
	Yeah, no, that's completely true.
	That is exactly how the social justice warriors work.
	That is, I mean, that is just insanely accurate.
	And I'm going to grab a cup of tea.
	So it'll go silent for a minute.
	Do apologize.
	Sorry about
	that um.
	Yeah, so yeah, choose self-censor.
	That is exactly what the social justice warriors do to everyone.
	There are literally, you know, there are loads of game developers who want to come out in favor, but they can't.
	I get told about loads of them in private conversations with individuals, you know.
	And someone will tweet me like, oh, I really need to DM you.
	And they'll say, oh, I know someone.
	And I'm like, okay, what?
	And they'll be like, yeah, he's a AAA developer.
	He really wants to just tell you that he supports what Gamergate does.
	I'm like, okay, that's great.
	But how does that help?
	It doesn't.
	You can't tell.
	I can't tell you who it is.
	And this might be complete bollocks.
	It's okay, brilliant.
	That doesn't help me in any way, does it?
	You know, it doesn't help anyone in any way.
	But no, I mean, obviously, I appreciate you coming down and saying.
	But it is frustrating that, you know, I'd like to do like more streams with AAA, you know, with any developers, really, but especially AAA developers.
	You know, anyone really would be good because just building up a body of people who are just saying, Look, you know, this has been a really bad thing.
	So, we need to know that you know, we need to be able to show that there are lots of people doing.
	Maybe I should do like a community stream for developers or something.
	So, indie developers can send you know an example that they've made something and then come on and speak their piece or something like that.
	But, yeah, it's complete projection.
	And so much of this is fucking projection.
	Let me know if you need a meme to clarify.
	Okay, she communicates broadly in memes.
	Um, Brooke says, I don't think it's good to ignore all criticism, but I think it's important to ignore trolls who aren't really offering valid criticism.
	To which Deanna replies, agreed.
	I wish it were easier to ignore.
	Block is the isn't that the best way to do it?
	But um, I also really like this matrix for dealing with criticism, the disapproval matrix.
	Okay, um, lovers want you to improve.
	I want to see you improve or thrive.
	I think give a fuck about you, and they're on the know you access to the quite far along the know you access, and with the rational access that shares with critics, experts in your field criticizing the work.
	Don't you know what?
	It's this bollocks, I don't even care.
	Fucking Deanna, look, you don't give me complex things when I'm drunk.
	Hot Wheel says, I've seen plenty of online hate mobs, the worst ones are the ones who are anti-Gamergate.
	And he says some links.
	I'll assume that they're quite bad.
	Um, completely biased.
	Don't take this for an objective review because I'm not in any state to give a particularly objective review.
	Um, stop GamingGate supporters have doxed users, gotten people fired from their jobs, lied to telecom companies to get services disconnected, and attempted to blame suicides on Gamergate and more.
	That's absolutely true.
	There's no fucking depths to which they won't sink.
	They're just every time they do something, I'm just like, Oh shit, this has got to be the worst thing they're going to do, you know.
	And then it goes worse.
	And so, okay, I loved Bob Chipman calling for a progressive master race or something like that.
	I was just, holy shit, Bob, you know, I know you're an idiot, you've got no power, and you'll never do anything more than make your videos.
	You know, it's not like you're ever going to become fucking, you know, social justice Hitler, but you are advocating for being social justice Hitler, so or someone being, and it's just ah, it's fucking crazy, and you know, it just keeps getting worse.
	Le Alexander goes, I'm biased, and I don't know how to be not fucking these people, man.
	Honestly, these fucking people.
	But, um, yeah, stop Gamergate is currently trying to get his Patreon shut down because they don't like him, even though I'm breaking no laws, uh, US laws, and simply host a Reddit and 4 channel alternative.
	Uh, Deanna says, No, Lester, anyone thinking I'm leaving for reasons other than clients who pay me not to chat online, I have to bail at 1 p.m. um Eastern Time.
	Um, what does she do again?
	Um, what she does some harassment thing, she harasses people online.
	I don't know, yeah, the feminist online harassment complaints person.
	Where do I complain that I'm being harassed online?
	Oh, you can pay that woman to complain at her that you're being harassed online.
	Oh, here's some money, brilliant.
	Were you harassed online then?
	Yes, I was.
	That was really awful.
	You don't even know.
	I do come and talk to me, we will get justice for you.
	I mean, what hell Brooke says, when I personally have been insulted online, which has happened many times, I don't really get offended or afraid.
	I'll get annoyed sometimes, but that happens to everybody, and ultimately, I don't take it as seriously as some people seem to.
	Holy shit, Brooke, that's a really fucking reasonable point.
	Um, insulted is way, way different to than harassed, though.
	And Brooke says, I think the point Frederick brought up is important, Deanna.
	I'm not sure if you're aware since the incident happened with Claire Schuman on Twitter.
	Did you hear about that?
	Um, I didn't.
	Uh, like I said, I've been on the internet for 20 years.
	Old man, Deanna, and her arguments from authority.
	Um, I've been insulted too.
	Death and rape threats are a whole different ballgame.
	Yeah, but how many do you actually see coming from Game Gate, Deanna?
	Just out of interest.
	I mean, I've never seen one, and I, you know, I'm on the hashtag all the time, so I would think I would see it if it was happening.
	You know, I would say something.
	Well, I'd be like, what the fuck are you doing?
	I'm going to report this to Twitter.
	Why are you threatening to rape someone?
	That's fucking retarded.
	That just dumb as shit.
	Why would you be doing that?
	You're obviously a third-party troll.
	Get off the fucking hashtag or something, you know.
	Or if I if I wasn't lazy, I would.
	But that's what you should do.
	That's probably why the Gamergate Harassment Patrol do it because I'm a lazy cunt and loads of other people are lazy cunts.
	And they're like, everyone's a lazy cunt.
	I'm going to do it.
	You know?
	So, you know, if you see it, where do you see it?
	Let's see some of it.
	So, you know, we can all be on the same page as you.
	But usually, sexually explicit harassment techniques to shut down a conversation, all different from them, all different from insulting.
	Sorry, I'm fucking racked at this point.
	I know it's different, but I've been harassed online as well.
	I just wouldn't place online harassment in the same tier as real-life harassment.
	It seems like emphasizing negative online communications takes away from the more serious problem of physical in real life harassment, which again, it trivializes things.
	You know, like getting PTSD from Twitter.
	Oh my God, how are you posting that on Twitter?
	But maybe she's just that much of a soldier, Melody Hensley.
	She's just like, you know, I'm going to soldier and I'm going to tell the world.
	But yeah, Deanna says, yes, I did, in fact.
	I was working on the WAM project to document gendered harassment on Twitter.
	Yeah, not just harassment for people.
	It's just harassment for women, because this is what the glorious feminist future looks like.
	And this came up in our discussions.
	We both reported pro and anti-gamergators who are engaged in gendered harassment.
	Okay, great.
	That's wonderful, actually.
	Now you could just do non-gendered, just harassment, maybe.
	And got people to warn, got people warned and suspended who are violating the term service.
	Okay, that's fine.
	I don't believe in distinguishing arguments of in real life or online.
	To me, it's all in real life.
	Yeah, but that doesn't mean it is, though.
	That doesn't mean someone sending you nasty letters on the Twitter is the same as some guy bellowing at you from across the street, is it?
	It's just, it's absurd.
	So you can sound like a fucking idiot if you want, Deanna, but it's not the fucking same and you know it.
	One never knows when online harassment will bleed into other areas of one's life.
	Well, no, but it doesn't happen all that often, does it?
	So it's not really something we need to constantly worry about.
	you know maybe we could just be vigilant instead brooke says i'm glad to hear that I noticed that after the incident took place, that many excuses were being made in regards to Claire.
	In the wake of harassment, it was at freeb, treated the same way as pro-Gamergate people have been treated in the past, as far as the reporting system goes.
	In the wake of harassment, was so-and-so treated in the same way as pro-GamingGate people have been treated in the past.
	Um, as have they been reported?
	Um, and Deanna says, I should clarify how WAM got action taken, lest the conspiracy nuts lose their shit.
	We escalated tickets to Twitter and asked them to look at the tickets faster than their normal queue.
	We had no power to warn or suspend anyone.
	No, but you do have them the power to get these tickets raised above everyone else's, as if there's something special about them.
	What's how is it different to other people being harassed?
	You know, or just why is this favoritism?
	I just don't understand.
	Um, we're not allowed to comment on specific cases, unfortunately, but we're working now with a set of wonderful data scientists to help us pull narratives, pull out narratives and info, and I suspect this narrative will be part of that.
	Um, holy shit, so you're going to be spinning lies, are you?
	Because um, I'm not surprised, I'm just surprised you'd be so brazen about it.
	Um, but yeah, anyway, Brooke says, speaking of a reporting system, do you have the option on the claims that your system was being abused to provoke the suspension of pro-GamingGate's Twitter accounts?
	Good call.
	And uh, Hot Wheels says, Why do you think internet service providers are equipped to handle harassment?
	Oh, fuck's sake, sorry, my monitor after a couple of hours says, you know what, you haven't pressed any buttons.
	You want me to do anything?
	And I have to say no, piss me off.
	Um, has the current system uh, yeah, why do you think internet service providers are more equipped to handle harassment than law enforcement agencies?
	Um, has the current system really failed so hard that in 2014, over 20 years of the after the creation of the internet, it needs to be completely recreated.
	Did you see the proof above that Wu knew she was in no danger and did not leave her home due to threats, even after telling MSNBC that she did?
	Um, and not only that, the um, the threats made against an East Sarkeesian at the Utah University, the police deemed it not credible.
	It's not a credible threat, nothing's going to happen, Anita.
	It's fine if there was a chance of anything happening, we'd say because we're the police and we investigate those sort of things.
	Um, and you're a woman, and obviously, we're gonna you're a feminist, so obviously, we want to keep you safe because otherwise, we'll never get it, it'll keep getting in the air.
	Cops let women die.
	Holy shit, that'd just be and if it was a nice Sarkeesian as well, they'd just never hear the fucking end of it.
	I'm surprised they didn't just give her an armed guard just to be sure.
	It's um the only way to forever and permanently stop harassment online is to require a government ID sign into every web service.
	People cannot have true free speech without anonymity, even during the Revolutionary War in the US.
	Articles were published anonymously.
	It's interesting.
	Wow, Frederick, that's breathtakingly awful.
	Says Arthur Chu back from the fucking dead for the peanut gallery.
	Oh, shut up, Chu, you pretentious twat.
	In the instant we're talking about it, an indie dev had put up an Indiegogo requesting voluntary donations for life-saving surgery.
	She did not disclose that she was trans and the campaign was for SRS.
	Okay, well, you know, I don't know why you wouldn't disclose that if it's for a good cause for a person's life-saving surgery.
	And, you know, you could say it's my friend.
	You know, I mean, people might be sympathetic, chip in five bucks or something.
	But Indiegogo had already discovered this deception and pulled the campaign at the time the story broke.
	IGG saw fit to merely announce the cancellation of the campaign without giving details.
	The devin questioned already withdrawn from the public eye and was under observation for suicidal thoughts.
	Think that's what it's meant to say because she feared being outed.
	Dun done.
	Yeah, that's great.
	So, you know, I hate to be unsympathetic here, but I don't know that person and kind of sounds like you made them up anyway.
	So, you know, I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt this person's real.
	So I can't believe people would act this way.
	But yeah, Pinsoff didn't do any crusading journalism here.
	He just told people something his dad had told him in confidence.
	I kind of think that might actually be journalism.
	But Deanna says to Brooke in response to the reporting system, presumably, option on the claim system.
	Hebrews provoke the account, yeah, to provoke suspension of GameGate accounts.
	So yeah, she says that's interesting.
	I don't feel like that was the case.
	In fact, we ran into many cases where high-profile people were committing what we definitely considered violations of the terms of service and whose accounts weren't even warned.
	Right.
	So you just went around saying, you know what, that looks like to me like a violation.
	Yeah, I don't like that person, rogue star.
	And yeah, you just get them suspended.
	Okay.
	So I will say we did receive more requests from help for people who are targeted by Gamergaters than other than Gamergators themselves.
	Yeah, but we're not suggesting that you should be doing this at all, really.
	It's probably not all that much harassment actually taken in.
	It's probably more disagreements, isn't it?
	People who are just disagreeing with the other person's point of view.
	And that is harassment, isn't it?
	Because you people are fucking crazy.
	But Brooke says, I'm not surprised to hear that.
	This is my personal opinion, but it seems that most pro-Gamergate people want to deal with these situations themselves.
	Maybe it's just the spirit of some gamer in a sense.
	Some gamers, in a sense, but we want to be able to complete all of the levels on our own.
	That's her opinion.
	And she also says, I just meant that some people in anti-GameGate were coordinating plans on Twitter to mass report specific people.
	I can't attest for what their reasons were, but it seems to me like a poor use of the tool that you've created.
	Well, again, this is just another tool to facilitate their internet hate mob.
	I mean, they are getting surprisingly efficient at online mobbing.
	I mean, GTA 5, 40,000 of them signed a fucking 40,000 fucking feminists, signed a petition to get GTA removed.
	Where are these fucking feminists?
	This petition could have been signed from people all over the world, probably.
	You know, just 40,000 feminists are passing around social media.
	And they're like, yeah, I'll all say that, you know, activism.
	Oh, yeah, fucking stick it to the patriarchy feminism.
	You fucking morons.
	But yeah, so you know, it's it really is becoming a problem.
	And so, yeah, it's, you know, very astute to point this out.
	I can't attest to the for what the reasons were, but it seems to me like poor use of the tool you've created.
	It should be able to run on its own without others pushing it.
	I'm not saying here that it can't, but I didn't seem to get, it didn't seem to get the chance to do that.
	Um, Deanna replies to that with lol at several levels.
	I like that hair.
	I saw coordination on Twitter on both sides, but we didn't experience it with the actual use of the tool.
	Um, well, are you not like mass Twitter reporting?
	I maybe I don't know how the tool works.
	Um, but she says, I it would have been easier easy for us to denote any to denote those problems, I think, uh, patterns.
	I think um, I disagree, I think it's complete bollocks.
	I think she would have done an absolutely biased job of it because they're all proud of that.
	She would have left out any information that really contradicted what she was trying to achieve by doing it, and then she would have told everyone she was doing the right thing.
	And I'm not wrong.
	You know, you're like, although you don't know that happened, yeah, I don't know how it would have happened, but you all know that would have happened.
	Arthur Chu says, The Grantland thing was from oh, sorry.
	Um, uh, Deanna also replies to uh Hot Wheels saying, agree that anonymity is critical and often scapegoated in these conversations.
	Uh, yeah, right, okay, what do you, however, I've seen people do some ridiculously awful stuff with their real names.
	No sense of that will change harassment or its underpinnings.
	Um, yeah, maybe you should reconsider your position, Deanna.
	Because if loads of people are doing what you consider to be quote unquote ridiculously awful stuff with their real names, then maybe it's not actually as awful as you think, or there may be other more information that you don't have.
	I mean, anyone could make up what sounds like a real name, Kevin Dobson, and then send threats from it.
	But is it likely to be the person's real name?
	Um, but anyway, uh, Arthur Chu says, the Grantland thing was far more debatable in that the situation.
	What are you waffling?
	I just don't care about this pins-off thing, Chu.
	Focusing on one issue really isn't going to affect all of the other issues that would still be true if this one wasn't Chu.
	Brooke says, I personally don't believe I know enough about the situation to comment on it, which is why Arthur's focusing on it so much.
	Like a plonker.
	Um, so to ask a complete naive question, America Tonight says, Can anything positive come from the debate about Gamergate?
	Um, right, um, Hot Wheels keeps replying to uh Arthur.
	So, um, oh, what?
	Oh, Arthur's declaring someone a sock puppet, a fake Twitter account that existed for four days and flounced off Twitter, claiming she couldn't take any harassment anymore.
	Oh, I'm sure that I'm sure she was a sock puppet, Arthur.
	I'm sure that they all are.
	You guys, you would know all about sock puppets, wouldn't you?
	Um, right, so they keep going on about this, and they don't address um anything positive coming from the debate.
	Um, yeah, so they just keep going on about that.
	Um, and then Deanna is just she's such a Jezebel, isn't she?
	Right?
	She says, Y'all, I'm going to have to take this convo redirect as my moment to bow out and get back to work.
	Oh, wait, just for kicks and gills too, hashtag meme girl with some annoying meme of some girl giving herself a high five.
	Just fucking just so fucking immature.
	And I know I'm not one to talk, but I wouldn't do that in this situation.
	I mean, even Arthur isn't doing that, you know.
	It's just a whole different level of childishness.
	Um, so Brooke says, um, oh, in fact, they go on a bit, but um, all right, okay, Frederick's got it.
	He says, I'm glad you asked.
	Many positive things have already come from it.
	Gorkra has lost over a million dollars in advertising revenue.
	Many video game journalism sites now have ethics policies where they had none before.
	That's true.
	People are being more careful to disclose their relationships.
	They are.
	It's actually led to just people generally being more transparent if they've been acting ethically.
	You know, you know who the people who have actually been acting in a relatively ethical way have been because they've actually been going, like, yeah, yeah, let's do this.
	You know, the people who haven't are just like, no, no, no, no, we don't need to talk about ethics.
	Don't need to talk about ethics.
	It's like, why wouldn't we?
	We haven't done anything wrong.
	But, yeah, the Fine Young Capitalist, the Federal Trade Commission posted a reminder specifically targeted at Gorka's deceptive tactics in regards to how they display content on their website, which is great.
	The Fine Young Capitalist Charity has been funded, despite the best efforts of anti-Gaming Gate to help women get into gaming.
	Many charity streams have been done.
	Extra Life and Gamer Fruit is one of its way to helping feed the hungry.
	I don't have enough characters for all the good.
	Well, you know, it's tough not to say.
	Yeah, I donated to a couple of those.
	Only like five, ten bucks because I'm Jewish.
	Cannot be turned police.
	I'm not really Jewish.
	So Brooke says, Thanks for being willing to have this conversation, Deanna.
	And then they carry on.
	But I think all the points we really need to make are there.
	Arthur Chu is crazy and arguing about charities because anti-game gators want to try and take money away from charities if they don't agree with where the money came from, which is just insanely selfish.
	If it was, honestly, if Hitler was offering to donate to charity, I'd be like, well, okay, let him donate to charity, but it doesn't excuse what he's doing, does it?
	You know, I mean, you know, donating to charity doesn't wipe out the Holocaust, you idiot.
	So carry on.
	You donate charity.
	You know, I'm not going to try and stop an objectively good thing from happening.
	Fuck me.
	What kind of maniacs do that?
	But oh, yeah, and then brings up Bright Bluet because they're right wing and therefore they are evil.
	No, sorry, evil.
	Yeah, blood-sucking conservatives who, you know, want to stop women from aborting their own children.
	I'm not even against abortion, but you know, it's just you can frame it in very funny ways.
	And I think, you know, maybe, maybe a bit of precaution might be good rather than someone told me there were like 60 million abortions a year or something.
	I don't know how true that is, but holy shit.
	I mean, that's probably not true.
	It's probably massively exaggerated because fucking hell.
	I hope that, you know, it's just like you hear a number like that, you think, well, I really hope like hell isn't real.
	And the religion is bollocks.
	I'm sure it's bollocks, but I mean, I don't know it.
	And if you know, if I die, get enough life.
	But yeah, so what did you do to condemn abortion in your society?
	I'm like, what are you talking about?
	I was fine with it.
	Really?
	You were fine with just killing all of these unborn children.
	I'd be like, well, I didn't really think about it.
	It's like, yeah, you get out.
	You know, it's, I mean, I'm not saying that's going to be the case.
	Obviously, not going to be the case, but you know, do I know that it's not going to be the case?
	Or am I just pretty sure that's not going to be the case?
	I'm just joking.
	But, but yeah, so yeah, I'll wrap up here because my throat is stunted, Kane, and I think we've pretty much reached the end of the points.
	But thanks for like hanging out, guys.
	It's been fun.
	And I've been relatively drunk.

▲