All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
22:42
The #GamerGate Harassment Narrative is Dead, #SPJAirPlay
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So you're probably not aware, but on Kickstarter there is currently a project called hashtag Gamer, which describes itself as a full-length documentary film about online harassment, ethics, and moving the game community forward after Gamergate.
So this is a documentary done by someone called Chris Haynes, and he says, there's a lot of misinformation about Gamergate on all sides.
Part of what we hope to accomplish is to provide a clear understanding of the people and factions involved and the series of events that has so fiercely divided the video games community and the internet at large.
There's more than two sides to every story and really only one right answer.
It's our hope that by highlighting the good with the bad, we can encourage our community to start treating each other like people again, resulting in a friendlier, more positive internet for everybody.
Well that's great.
As a gamer who has been consistently dehumanized by the gaming press, I'm looking forward to them seeing me as a human being again.
What's more is I'm looking forward to not being lied about in future as well.
The narrative being spun by journalists who are opposed to Gamergate has become ridiculous.
Just look at this one, Gamergates Fail, The Rise of Ass Kicking Women in Video Games by Alec Kubarmeier.
I mean, what the fuck are you talking about, Alec?
I really don't see this as being much of a Gamergate issue.
And the thing is, this completely ignores instances where Gamergate has actively helped women in the video game industry.
For example, one of the first things that Gamergate did was help fund the fine young capitalists to help women to make video games for charity.
Or what about Gamergate helping pro-Gamergate indie developer Jennifer Dorr getting her game greenlit on Steam?
Or when a group of female Gamergate supporters are kicked out of the Calgary comic book expo for simply being anti-censorship, Gamergate actively supported the crowdfunding efforts for these ladies to be able to mount a legal challenge to the Calgary Expo.
Why would they do all of these things if they were against women in geek culture and gaming?
It becomes self-evident that what we are actually dealing with is a gender-driven quote-unquote journalism.
For example, the rest of this article practically entirely deals with the writers' lament that there simply aren't enough female video game protagonists.
Thing is, Alec is all about his agenda.
He says, feminists want video games with 50 million plus budgets that start interesting female characters.
And that he is sick of playing as muscly men and thinks the vast majority of us are.
Well, according to the market, Alec, you're very much in the minority.
But he says, and although this year's E3 underwhelmed, there was a glimmer of light maybe, just maybe people working in the industry were too.
It's the largest gaming event of the year and the industry's companies tell the world what to expect from them in the years to come.
And more than half a dozen new games were unveiled with female protagonists or generally playable female characters.
The gender gap is still a chasm to be sure, but these are significant first steps.
What are you fucking talking about, man?
What significant first steps do you think are happening, Alec?
Because I get the feeling you don't play many video games, or at least you haven't for very long.
Let's take the example of Kotaku's Jason Schreier, a self-proclaimed journalist who thinks that nobody at Kotaku has ever claimed or will ever claim to be objective.
Objectivity is a silly thing to strive for.
And you might think, well, I'm taking him out of context.
Oh no, I'm not.
No, no, because of all the mocking that Jason Schreier received on Twitter, he decided that he would double down on this and write a whole article about how objectivity is silly.
An article in which he unambiguously says it's impossible for any journalist to achieve any sort of objectivity.
Jason Schreier isn't really a man known for his brain power because this is what's called a Nirvana fallacy.
So when Jason Schreier goes on Twitter and says, I love that the video game industry's response to gooba gob, we just want the video game industry to be mature, is female protagonists everywhere, you've got to wonder, Jason, Jason.
You've got to wonder, is this actually Jason Schreier's agenda, the one that he thinks he is unable to look past when doing his job?
So naturally, Gamergate supporters were like, well, if you were actually paying attention to what genuinely goes on in video games, instead of just nakedly pushing your agenda, you might know that, for example, Fallout, which Fallout 4 was showcased to E3, has always had the option for female protagonists.
I say all this because it's in this context that we can now discuss hashtag gamer the documentary.
It's about gender pushing, very, very clearly.
But you know, I don't want it to be in my words that you hear this.
So let's hear it from the intro video itself in their own words.
If you ask 10 people what Gamergate is, you'll probably get at least five different answers.
Wow, it is ballsy that you would start with Kotaku's editor-in-chief for your documentary.
For those unaware, Gamergate really began because Kotaku quote-unquote journalist Nathan Grayson had been sleeping with a person that he had also been covering, and people were naturally concerned about this.
Stephen, I have a master's degree in journalism to Tillo, decided that rather than punishing Nathan Grayson for failing to recuse himself from writing about a one Zoe Quinn because he was having an intimate relationship with her, Stephen decided just to hand wave it.
Doesn't matter to Stephen.
Because ultimately, it's like Jason Schreier said, nobody at Kotaku has ever claimed or will ever claim to be objective, and yet they will still claim to be journalists.
For some people, it's been a movement for better ethics and games journalism.
Interestingly, Stephen, we can include you as a person who thinks that Gamergate is a movement for ethics and game journalism.
We know this because you decided to revise Kotaku's ethics policy in response to Gamergate.
And don't get me wrong, this is a very good thing.
But it took the combined efforts of thousands and thousands of people being furious at your corruption to make you do it, Stephen.
When was the last time there was a sociological event in video games that broke through not only our community, but into the mainstream media?
Oh, that's a good question.
And congratulations to you for being able to make that sound so neutral.
It's amazing how one can stay so neutral on the issue, given that it was the gaming journalists who used their connections to go and spread the narrative in the mainstream media that gamers are rapists and terrorists.
Needless to say, this didn't go down well with anyone, including some of the biggest names in the game industry.
All you people did when you went to the mainstream media is make the gaming industry look bad.
That's it.
For other people, it's been a movement of harassment against women.
Brianna Wu, oh, good choice.
That's a very good choice, in fact.
Let's talk about how beneficial Gamergates has been to Brianna Wu.
As it stands, she's making over $3,000 a month.
And she started a Patreon because she needs help.
Please retweet.
She desperately needs everyone's money to help her get over all the nasty words people have said to her on the internet.
It's not an exaggeration to say this, but Patreon was the difference in her staying or leaving the industry because of all those nasty words.
Some of which came from Brianna herself.
Because she's a fucking idiot.
And she's also massively profiting of a victim narrative.
Okay, I'm going to pretend that Brianna Wu isn't nakedly profiteering on the nasty words she sends herself at the expense of a bunch of idiot chumps.
And I'm going to listen with an open mind at what she has to say.
I think this core psychological motivation of gamergators are people that feel that the game culture is under attack.
Yeah, but isn't that because they were?
On the 28th of August and up until the 1st of September, there was a slew of articles declaring that gamers were dead.
In fact, you all seem to be openly part of some kind of culture war against gamers, which has recently accumulated in Le Alexander's pet project Sunset failing utterly and the developer stomping out of the industry declaring gamers to be the worst things in the world.
Their empathy is criminally low, like they don't, they don't see me as a person.
Listen, you wrote an article calling Gamergate cyber terrorists and bullies.
I don't think the lack of empathy is entirely on the side of Gamergate.
Just so you know, Brianna.
They don't see Zoe Quinn as a person.
Anything I do gets bombarded with hate when a documentarian or journalist or an academic asks to see it and they ask to go through it.
I'm like, okay, well, do you want the stuff that involves naked photos of me?
Because Zoe Quinn will sell you those.
Because she did a photo shoot, and she did multiple photo shoots, that she then sold the photos of on the web for people to buy.
But I have to be the one to give that information because, as I said, they're trying to craft a victim narrative.
If these women portray themselves to be victims, then people will give them money.
So she is forced to leave out the parts where she was the instigator of these nude photos and sold them for profit.
Do you want the child pornography they send me?
Weird you'd go to a documentary and that and not the authorities.
Just saying.
Or my home address photoshopped onto mutilated children's bodies.
Oh wow, that's the first time I've heard that accusation, Zoe.
Who has done this?
Where is this happening?
Who's sending it to you?
How long is it before you're going to contact the authorities?
You know there are cyber terrorism legislation that has been passed and that is now available to protect you from this sort of thing.
But if you were protected from this sort of thing, what rationale would there be to give you $4,000 a month?
I mean, you don't have to like Zoe Quinn.
I mean, if you just look at the stuff people tweeted her, there's just the...
Well, that's good, because I don't like Zoe Quinn, but...
But Stephen, is this you tweeting her a death threat?
Unending stream of garbage and bullshit that people tweet at her.
I mean, who deserves that?
I don't know, but it's not my job to worry about it, and it's not your job to worry about it.
It's the job of the FBI to worry about it.
So let's not worry about it, because it's not our job, Stephen.
It's your job, in fact, to worry about the conflicts of interest that your journalists have, Stephen.
But I noticed that you're busy hand-waving that sort of thing, which is probably why you're more interested in talking about Zoe Quinn being a victim, because it makes you look like less of a shit corrupt journalist.
Quote unquote.
The vocal minorities is so loud that you can't ignore it.
Jesus Christ, who is this guy and what's he on?
And why does he look like he's about to cry?
Look, if you have trolls on the internet, there is only one way to beat them.
You ignore them because they're looking for your reaction.
No matter what your reaction is, that's what they want.
But since you're not ignoring it, in fact, by acknowledging it, there is a direct vested financial interest for many of these professional victims, and it gives the journalists something to report on that doesn't involve their own corruption.
I'm not surprised.
Of course, Stephen Totillo wants to talk about that.
Of course, he does.
Because otherwise, he looks like a fucking failure.
And then, you know, once everybody's like taking a stance or putting it on a pedestal, and that's how things become viral.
It's pure negativity.
And beyond that, pure hatred.
Charity work, but you guys don't want to talk about the $100,000 that Gamergate raised for various charities.
I can understand why you wouldn't, because, like I said earlier, you're pushing a narrative.
Listen to you.
Listen to all of this.
Oh, GamingGate's so hateful.
It's so negative.
Oh, it's just a small minority.
Well, let's ignore them then.
I'm not part of that small minority.
In fact, most people aren't part of that small minority by fucking definition, you morons.
So let's ignore them.
They will eventually get bored and go away if you stop feeding them.
And then we can talk about the genuine issues which have been the major ethical failings of the video game press.
Isolation, and I just don't understand it.
Then why the fuck are you being interviewed, you monkey?
If you don't understand what you're talking about, why are you part of this fucking video?
Nothing changed.
If anything, it's gotten worse.
Still pushing the victim narrative.
Yeah, this doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda.
Not at all.
I mean, it's not like we're trying to set Zoe Quinn up as the eternal victim of the internet or anything.
I mean, you know, it's completely neutral.
just just a neutral question that's being asked neutrally oh yeah it's it's just a witch hunt Nobody in the video game press has done anything wrong.
There's no collusion.
There's no censorship.
There's no corruption.
And you're not about to cut to Stephen Totillo.
Oh, he looks like he's about to cry, doesn't he?
Why does everyone hate me?
Just because my journalists are corrupt, they're not objective.
I'm pro-censorship and I'm anti-gamer.
I just can't understand why the entire gaming industry is mad at me.
Oh, that's a good question.
I would say when identity politicians decided that they cared more about their agenda than the gaming industry.
That's when.
I see some people say, hey, it's the internet.
This is how it's always going to be.
But I also sense that there's a growing number of people who say, why does it have to be this way?
Why can't we treat each other better?
Stephen, Stephen, don't forget that Kotaku was one of the outlets, the dozen or so outlets that happily shat on their audience on August the 28th.
They all ganged up and decided, you know what?
Yeah, fuck gamers.
And you were part of it.
You disingenuous fucking snake.
I wasn't like this feminist figurehead.
I was somebody who made weird games about mental health and farts and stuff.
And my life is completely different now.
My dream is dead.
Oh, poor Zoe.
Maybe she should open a Patreon account.
I wonder if the guy making that trailer works for Fox News?
Because I suspect that he would claim it to be fair and balanced.
But in the frequently asked questions, people have noticed that, hey, there are no pro Gamergate voices in this.
Apparently, they reached out to a short list of people across the spectrum.
Some did not respond, some respectfully declined, and the rest we interviewed.
Well, as a pro-Gamergate person, I wasn't contacted, and I don't really know anyone who was.
So I tell you what, if anyone can find anyone from Gamergate who was contacted about this and accepted, do let me know.
I particularly like this bit.
Our trailer does not represent the diversity of viewpoints we hope to achieve in the final film.
Well, you know, you didn't have to make the trailer so one-sided.
You didn't have to be so obviously pushing an agenda.
And it is with the perpetual victim agenda in mind that we come to Michael Koretzky's AirPlay update number four.
I'm not interested in the bits where Arthur Chuan and Anisarkeesian rebuff Korecki and have no interest in talking to him at his airplay event.
And I'm going to go for the tweets that personally I found absurd.
Sarah Butts says, the entire event is predicated on the ridiculous notion that there's a middle ground to be had between the harassers and the harassed.
Listen, Newsweek wrote a damning piece on GameGate, but by their own conclusions, 90-95% of the tweets examined by them using the Gamergate hashtag were neutral.
Just 1.19% of these tweets were negative tweets towards non-journalistic figures like Anit Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu.
The overwhelming majority of discussion regarding Gamergate has been neutral or positive and not aimed at these people.
It is a hashtag movement, not an organization.
This is a remarkably low amount of trolls using the tag to get a response.
This has been confirmed by feminist media watchdog Wham, Women, Action and Media, who have found that only 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts were Gamergate related on the Gamergate auto blocker.
And out of 10,000 accounts, of which mine is one on that blocker, only 65 of those accounts were flagged as harassing.
That's less than 1% of Gamergate supporting accounts that have been responsible for harassment.
That's incredible.
That's an incredibly low figure, considering that A, the coverage Gamergate has had, you would have thought it would be a magnet for trolls, an absolute magnet for them.
But B, the fact that the media has been so blind in just enhancing the coverage that these trolls would get from it.
You would think it would be a magnet for these people.
And yet it's not.
It's absolutely not.
The people involved in Gamergate are overwhelmingly opposed to harassment and overwhelmingly in favor of ethical standards in the industry that they love.
So I'm really bothered that Koretsky would buy into the harassment narrative.
He says, if any airplay panelists start a sentence like this, and I can't imagine they will, I'll shut them down before they finish it.
What happened to Zoe Quinn was terrible, but because there is no but.
If someone commits a crime, you call the cops.
If someone commits a war crime, you call the Hague.
And if someone pisses you off, you call them names.
Well, Korecky, as I said in the comments, I will repeat here.
There is very much indeed a but.
And that but is that, but I never did it.
And therefore I'm not going to be held responsible for it.
I'm not going to decry harassment because that would imply that for some reason in the past, I didn't decry harassment.
And hell, it kind of implicitly states I may have been part of harassment and therefore I need to go forward and decry it.
This has always been my position and everyone else in GameGate's position that I have ever fucking spoken with.
He then says, so if anyone feels a butt coming on, airplay isn't for them.
No one deserves a death threat or any threat.
Some Gamergaters have told me they agree.
Listen, Mike, or if Koretsky, whatever you want to be called, if anyone death threats Brianna Wu and Isakesi or anyone, it is counterproductive for Gamergate as a movement.
The last thing that anyone would want, if they support Gamergate and they think tactically, is for any of these people to be threatened in any way.
Because all it does is allow them to put up another roadblock in the way of getting to the fact of the matter.
And he even says here, is Koretsky aware that Gamergate was founded on a dox?
Gamergate was not founded on a dox.
The flashpoint that started Gamergates was corruption exposed by Erin Joni, Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend, who Zoe Quinn had been particularly abusive towards.
A link's in the description.
Read the fucking thing.
Founded on a dox.
Why would you even post that?
This is not only not true, it's like an anti-truth.
For fuck's sake, Koretsky, I thought you were a journalist.
And I noticed you didn't say anything about Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless doxing and trying to swat Mike Cernovich.
But hey, why would you?
Why would you?
They've got a victim narrative that for some reason, you are buying into Hookline and Sinker.
But no, Zoe Quinn never did anything wrong.
Oh, she's just a poor innocent angel.
If only for some reason, the internet would leave her alone.
But you know what?
Let's go back to Koreski's three points he's got here.
A debate about journalism ethics doesn't legitimize harassment.
Well, brilliant.
Great.
I mean, everyone's on that side.
No one's against that.
It can do the opposite.
If harassment is quickly confronted and condemned, then we can move on.
Look, right?
Let's just assume we all condemn harassment.
Let's just assume it.
I mean, hell, we can all mass report to the FBI if you want.
I'm sure that we can arrange that.
But seriously, we're not interested in talking about these professional victims.
Most of the people in Gamergates have not threatened these people, and we can prove that.
What happens to Zoe Quinn and Itsakisian and Brianna Wu is not our business.
So stop trying to fucking make it our business.
Number two, airplay will happen no matter who shows up and who doesn't.
That's brilliant.
Just stop sensationalizing it, alright?
I actually want to hear a reasonable, sensible, factual debate on the situation.
And number three, fresh faces might be better than familiar faces.
Many Gamergaters have told me they don't want Arthur Chu and Itsakis and Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu airplay, which means there's common ground amongst more enemies.
No, it's not anything to do with that.
It's the only one there who even vaguely resembles a journalist is Arthur Chu, and he is so biased as to be an untrustworthy source.
I am not interested in the lies told about Gamergate by the anti-Gamergate faction.
I am so tired of them.
They are constant, unremitting, shameless.
Look at your own code of ethics and ask yourself, does what these people say line up with what you think is right, according to the Society of Professional Journalists.
These people claim to be journalists, but they don't seek truth and report it.
They don't even try to be honest.
They try to push their agenda.
▲
Export Selection