An open letter to @CranzBoonitz on #GamerGate and Obsidian

Dear Misandraste’s Herald,

This letter is not intended to enrage you, to insult you, to belittle your opinion or otherwise attack you or anyone mentioned. This letter is intended as a full response to a question you recently asked me on Twitter regarding the recent Obsidian debacle. If this goes anything like my previous attempts at extending an olive branch and having an actual discussion, it won’t go well (either because I suck at extending olive branches or because you’re not interested), but hey, gotta make the effort.

For those of you who don’t know, here’s a brief summary: a Twitter user by the name of @icequeenerika (Erika Imperial) found a tombstone in Obsidian’s game Pillars of Eternity that had a quick couplet about the deceased, written by a backer of the project. It basically said that the man had sex with someone, then committed suicide when they found out the person they slept with was a man. She declared this to be ‘transmisogynist’ (that’s a new one >.>) and demanded it be removed from the game, calling on her followers (and presumably anyone who agreed with her) to put pressure on Obsidian to remove it.

(EDIT: The poem in question, because i forgot the first time like an idiot:

“Here lies Firedorn, a hero in bed
He once was alive, but now he is dead
The last woman he bedded, turned out a man
And crying in shame, off a cliff he ran”)

Here’s relevant screencaps, in no particular order:

ObsidianSilenced1 ObsidianSilenced2 ObsidianSilenced3

I got into a discussion with Herald over this, and he asked why #GamerGate was so upset about the poem’s removal. After all, he reasoned, GG is supposedly pro-consumer, right? They should be applauding this on the basis that the customers got what they wanted, right?

Ha ha ha…

Mate, this isn’t pro-consumer, not even close.

Let’s start with the most basic fact about this: The poem was put into the game by a backer, as admitted by Erika Imperial. I’ve been told that the stretch goal that allowed you to do this was $500. The man paid to have this poem put into the game, he’s a consumer, and now because of social pressure his poem was removed from the game.

“But the makers have the right to police their own content, right?”

Yes, but that’s not what happened here: the game was policed by a twitter user who was offended by the poem (I haven’t played the game myself due to lack of income, but apparently this sort of thing fits in perfectly with the world – there’s a tree with children impaled on it) and blatantly bullied the company until they had it removed.

Further, #GamerGate is also about allowing developers to create their own content without being bullied by the media or by other consumers (hence, #LetDevsSpeak). The fact that a group of developers are being silenced is more important than the fact that they produced content you found offensive, especially since the world the game was created in is extremely ‘offensive’.

Again, this is all second-hand, as I haven’t actually played the game, but apparently there is actual murder of gays and lesbians just for being gays and lesbians in Pillars of Eternity. I don’t see how a 2 couplet poem is any worse than that.

“It’s not just about being offended. It’s about reinforcing and making light of a system that murders trans people daily.” -Herald

1) There is a difference between depicting something, and supporting something. This was clearly the former. I also thought that the joke was pretty plainly on the man killing himself over it.

2) That’s a very serious accusation that I’m going to instinctively call bullcrap on. Why? Because you led up to it by saying:

“The same justification (“I found out she lied to me about her genitals!”) is used to murder trans folks in real life.”
“And that’s legal. The ‘Trans panic’ defence is actually a thing that exists and can be used in court.”

From the sound of it (‘trans PANIC’) this is similar to a murder of passion defense, wherein a killer’s emotions override their reason. Murders of passion are still crimes, but they can be used as a defense in court to get a lighter sentence on the basis that something spurred them to action. Does that mean that the courts encourage murder of passion? No, they don’t.(And for the record, while I don’t condone murdering someone because they’re trans, I do think a trans person should disclose that they’re trans before a relationship gets seriously started, or at the very least before sex. Banging someone under false pretenses is a form of rape, and it could easily be argued that that is the case here) But that’s another conversation – you asked why GG is opposed to removing the poem. I’ll assume that you rebutted this concern succinctly and with well-documented sources that I can find no fault in (unlikely, since this is the internet, but whatever. Moving on)

That said, do you remember when fundamentalist religious nutjobs (this is coming from a Christian, btw) declared back in the 80s/90s that Dungeons and Dragons was a game designed to lure children into satanic rituals? Remember how insane that sounded? Or how crazy it was when they said the same or Rock-and-Roll and Elvis’ pelvis?

I don’t, I wasn’t born till 1991. But I did find some old websites claiming such and laughed hard at them.

That’s because media does not have the power to radically alter your previous beliefs just because they depict something or make a joke (at the expense of the transphobe and not the transexual, i might add). Otherwise, the fact that almost all music is about love would actually mean something. No amount of violent or disgusting media is going to destroy your ability to understand the difference between right and wrong unless you’re already mentally unstable, and at that point… well…Charles Manson claimed to be inspired by a Beatles song. You can’t predict what a sick mind is going to do with information you throw at it.

“It’s offensive to trans people!”

So? The statue David is offensive to me because the man’s penis is in full view and I swore to never look at pornographic images for longer than it took to cover my eyes. I’m also offended by the Birthday song because it’s what was used to bully me when I was in middle school (don’t ask, you don’t wanna know and I don’t wanna talk about it) until I was willing to punch my own dad in the face for singing it on my actual birthday.
(Edit: Oh, and homophobes were offended that Dorian was gay in DA:I.)

Here’s the thing: nobody cares if you’re offended, especially not when it comes to art and free expression. If you can’t prove that it actively incites people to commit transphobic actions (you won’t and can’t prove that, btw) then you can’t make a case that it needs to go away. Therefore, removing the poem is NOT pro-consumer. It’s anti-developer and opposes freedom of speech/expression.

This isn’t the first time anti-GG and SJWs have reacted in this manner to artwork, either. Remember the now-infamous Foaming Jugs tweet? Or the alternate Batgirl cover? #GamerGate has shown itself repeatedly to be against censorship, even self-censorship. Especially when pressure is applied to do so from an outside force.Look, trans people get a bad rap and need to be helped, I will freely admit that – any demographic that has a 49% suicide rate needs help badly. But I see no evidence of transphobia from anyone except a man who committed suicide, and even that’s a stretch. (ftr, It is perfectly arguable that having sex with someone without disclosing that you’re trans – sex under false pretenses – is rape. If you’re not ready to tell your partner, fine, don’t have sex until you are. No one’s forcing you)

In brief summary: GamerGate is upset because removing the image is anti-consumer, it is censorship in every way that matters, and because Obsidian is only the latest to be bullied into removing content by the loud, vocal minority we’ve come to call Anti-#GamerGate and/or SJWs. GG is pro-consumer, but that has little bearing on this particular case.

“Anti-#GamerGate isn’t a movement.”

spacekatgal is Briana Wu:


Okay… like my last open letter, that was a bit off the cuff. There’s probably some poor wording or misspelling here and there, but I hope this gives you a perspective on why GG is upset by this.

All the best,

EDIT: TB brings up a good point here, too:

… Come to think of it, he realized the person he slept with was a man the moment he woke up. So yeah, this is probably what happened.

@Wyldawen Okay. Here’s my response #GamerGate

Okay, so @Wyldawen recently asked me on Twitter to “open my mind” by reading an article about how GamerGate is, in actual fact, largely conservative. We’ll ignore that this has been proven factually incorrect and instead focus on the arguments presented and their merits. I like to think I’m fairly open-minded, let’s see what they have to say on the subject.

“Yesterday my ruminations about the parallels between GamerGaters and a conservative worldview called Libertarianism was found by the Internet. ”


Wow. First sentence and you’re already wrong. That’s… impressive.

Okay. This person claims to have previously been a social studies teacher, which I find baffling, considering that this is basic political philosophy we’re talking about here. Most libertarians are left-wing, not right, and libertarianism isn’t part of conservative philosophy in the first place.

There are two basic axises to political ideology: Liberal versus conservative, and authoritarian versus libertarian. Liberal is a philosophy focused around the idea that all people deserve to be free, but aren’t free unless they’re also empowered enough to make their own decisions based on what they want (and not what they need). Conservatism is the idea that traditions are valuable and should be preserved. In America, conservatism usually refers to the constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers, and American exceptionalism. Libertarianism is the idea that the government that rules less rules better, and authoritarianism is the idea that a big government works the best.

The idea that libertarianism is a conservative philosophy is inane. The two overlap in many areas, certainly, but Liberals also overlap with libertarians. That’s the whole reason the two are placed on a separate axis.

… Okay, ya know what? Fine. Maybe I’m just ignorant, or that one class I took in political science sucked. Heck, this guy was a social studies teacher, that has to count for something, right? What else do you have to say about it?

“That’s fair enough, my frame of reference was how GamerGate started-”

It started when a relationship that could have compromised a reporter’s objectivity wasn’t reported to the public. ‘GamerGate’ was coined by Adam Baldwin shortly after the release of numerous articles (within the same day) declaring that the Gamer identity was dieing because it was believed that these articles were spurred by that same journalist. I don’t see what that has to do with conservatism or libertarianism.

“I discussed how American Libertarians tend to be younger men who have understood that the Republican Party is very unpopular, but otherwise have a certain worldview that is actually rather Republican in nature. The crux of the similarity has to do with a strong connection to Ayn Randian ideology about “enlightened self-interest.””

Double whammy of wrong here. The Republican party currently holds most of both the house and the senate, and in most elections a president is chosen by a margin of a few percentage points (at least in terms of popular vote – the electoral college is usually a wider swing). So either the Republicans are fairly popular, or the Democrats are also unpopular and the point is moot.

Conservative worldview (in America anyway) is that people should be allowed to do whatever they please, but the law should still enforce moral behavior. Libertarians believe that forcing moral behavior will not work, and will only encourage more immoral actions.

“The basis of the idea is that anyone who goes out of their way to help others is actually hurting them, because of the capitalistic concept that everyone working for their own self-interest creates more wealth for everyone and helping others actually hurts them because we’re limiting their ability to achieve for themselves.”

I haven’t actually read Ayn Rand, but a quick google search turns up this: “Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.” This sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of what you just said.

Also, Ayn Rand’s philosophy is called ‘objectivism’.

“Ayn Randian Libertarians have filled the American Republican Party. ”

No, statists (Authoritarians) have.

“Their goals have a lot to do with removing all governmental supports and regulations that create (in their view) artificial supports and limits on people.”

I thought you were talking about Republicans at first (in which case you’d be dead wrong) but from your next sentence you meant Libertarians. So… yeah. You’re actually right there.

“It can be found in the language used in talking about President Obama – he is the one who is “antagonizing” them by stating his point of view and not giving in to all of their demands.”

Okay, I guess we’re talking about Republicans again.

I would argue that their language is that Obama is antagonizing Republicans by refusing any agenda but his own be put forth and not even LISTENING to the ideas of others, but let’s focus instead on how condescending and loaded this statement is. Your language is specifically crafted to imply that Obama has done no wrong, and that every statement Republicans make about him is inherently a ‘demand’ that Obama would be ‘giving into’ if he listened to. This shows an inherent bias towards assuming that Republicans are wrong in whatever they say.

You’re about to say that you’ve done nothing to antagonize gamergate, but you’ve done plenty to antagonize Republicans here by specifically phrasing your opinion as an attack on their character. Yes, it is indeed your opinion and you have the right to say whatever you want, but when you say ‘this sucks’ don’t be surprised when people call you out on it.

“In the same way I have been told that I am antagonizing GamerGaters by stating my opinion, as though my opinion is somehow a dagger cutting through the world savagely at them. No, it is not, I’m just writing about what I am observing from my point of view.”

As I said already, your point of view is presented in a needlessly antagonistic manner and is based on assumptions that are just not true. GamerGate is largely left-leaning, we know this because GamerGate’s tweets have been analyzed and most of them lean left and libertarian.

Again you’re free to have whatever opinion you want, but when your facts are wrong, you’re going to be called out on it.

“You won’t change my opinion by lashing out at me, you’re kind of proving it, in fact.”

Opinions cannot be proven, that would make them facts.

“Also, how can the conservative moniker not suit the GamerGate community that constantly goes on rants about SJWs?”

It doesn’t work like that. The burden of proof falls on you.

“Their complaint against SJWs is a Libertarian complaint against liberals advocating any kinds of efforts to increase access and diversity in anything.”

Ugh, how far are we into this thing?

ONE FOURTH?! ugh… I wonder if he wanted to kill me…

Since apparently you didn’t get the memo, there is such a thing as ‘far left’. SJWs represent the far left of liberal philosophy, in particular a sub-culture of radical feminism and social justice that believes that individuals should not make individual choices because those choices impact others in negative ways, even if they don’t realize it.

And you’re also factually wrong again; GamerGate has supported numerous women coming into the industry. As an example the Fine Young Capitalists (pro-gamergate) held a contest (for female developers only, in fact) in which the developers would formulate a pitch for a game and submit it. Whichever was determined to be the ‘best pitch’ would get 50 grand and six months to develop the game.

GamerGate opposes SJWs because they continuously refer to gamers as racists, sexists, homophobes and various other banal shit-throwing in lieu of having an actual discussion. Whenever a woman or minority says they are pro-gamergate, they are silenced and dehumanized.


“Now, I claimed that this movement is represented by angry white men. I still stand by this view regarding American GamerGaters,”

Why? This is pretty arbitrary.


“Without naming names, I think we have a good idea where those countries are.”

Uh, I can’t read your mind and neither can anyone else.

“You can be dark skinned and hold very similar values about entitlement from your home country about maintaining a social order, as our angry white men do here.”

You’re assuming that these people are entitled and racist, because?

“How strange it is to be on the Internet and read a general article written by some nobody and feel extremely threatened and entitled to that person listening to you.”

Your entire article so far has been full of insulting language that inherently assumes your opponents are wrong and stupid. This is not strange in the slightest, anymore than being afraid when someone mails you a knife.

“Furthermore, the aversion to any kind of labeling makes no sense to a group that rallies around the GamerGate label.”

This is called Equivocation, the use of word with multiple meanings and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

Also, you should not be surprised that a group finds it insulting that you use a label like ‘privileged cisgender white man’ to win an argument.

Here’s one reason why: You’re wrong in many cases, and don’t bother to check.


If you can’t read it, Mark is responding to Briana Wu’s assertion that he’s a privileged white man by saying that he was half-asian, grew up overseas, and was so poor in the philipines he had to eat food infested with ants.

“GamerGate is not a political party, but it behaves like a special interest group that has political goals.”

If you consider the newspaper political, I guess >.> It really shouldn’t be

“Their stated goals have something to do with “journalism””

You’re critiquing a group and you never bothered to learn their mission statement? Are you sure you were a teacher?

“but their main targets are women who are not journalists (this includes Anita Sarkeesian who is NOT a journalist).””

Most of GamerGate’s targets have actually been male in my experience (Ben Kuchera, @ChrisWacraft, Arthur Chu, and others), but that’s anecdotal so we’ll ignore it. Anita Sarkeesian is mentioned as often as she is by GamerGate because she is considered one of the leaders of the Anti-GG movement and with good reason.

“It is literally impossible to feel victimized by Sarkeesian, Wu or Quinn without having very fucked up internalized beliefs about what you’re entitled to and abusive views about what victimization is.”

Again, these women are considered the leaders of Anti-GG. Here’s some of what Anti-GG says and does:

NotTakingToysAwayHuh NotYourShield is Dumb Questionaire1P1@Alison_Prime Questionaire1P2@Alison_Prime SJWeatyou

I don’t know about you, but telling someone that their opinion is invalid because it disagrees with yours sounds like bullying to me.

“To be a victim you must have lost or have had some something damaged that you owned.”

I direct you to the previous images (in particular the quote from Dan Golding).

“The gamers angry about GamerGate do not actually own the game industry.”

Assuming you mean Anti-GG, I must ask then why THEY get to decide what direction the industry should go. They haven’t been quiet about their intent to change it to suit their mindset.


“Furthermore, being called a jerk or being ignored are not violations of free speech or otherwise any sort of victimization. Free speech includes the ability to ignore what you want, and to respond to ideas put forth in the public arena with ridicule. Yes, if your ideas suck, we can say that they suck and that is free speech. Ignoring you is also a completely normal practice of free speech.”


This is the point where I stopped, and let me tell you why.

A GGer was mailed a half-full syringe full of an unidentified liquid. Another had a picture of a GGer covered in c#$ mailed to her. aGGro has gone on record that their plan is to remove fun from games and get rid of the games that we enjoy. Numerous members of GG have been doxxed, harassed, threatened with murder and rape, and told that their identity was invalid because they supported GamerGate.

Oh how I WISH you were just ignoring us.

Yes, the argument could be made that they were simply random assholes and not Anti-GG. But that same argument applies to the nutcases that use the GamerGate hashtag.

I know that most out there (in GamerGate especially) think that in order for a review to be valid, it must go all the way to the end, but this is one of many areas where I disagree. I’m a firm believer in the idea that you don’t need to finish a story to know that it sucks. At this point, I’m halfway through the blog post and there is nothing of value here. It starts at being utterly wrong and moves into outright disgusting.

Not even gonna bother editing my thoughts. This was just… UGH

I feel my brain dribbling out of my ear…

An open letter to @ShadowTodd on #GamerGate that probably isn’t very well-written

This letter is not to harass, belittle, insult or otherwise attack you. It’s been a few days since our discussion on twitter, and having unblocked you, I noticed that you asked in one of your tweets if I would like to continue the discussion, now that you had calmed down. Your outrage wasn’t something I intended to cause, but I do apologize for causing it.

In answer, no. I didn’t want to continue the discussion on Twitter – as you may have noticed, it is far too easy for conversations held at less than 140 characters at a time (especially long ones with heavy controversy like GamerGate) to spiral out of control and make the entire affair angry and miserable for everyone. On top of that, your opinion on GamerGate seemed locked in and I didn’t think telling you why I was involved would do any good.

However, in the interest of an open discussion, (and on the chance that this will be a positive discussion between GG and aGGro going forward) I’ll leave this last bit of word on the subject in an attempt to explain rationally and calmly why I continue to support GamerGate.

Lemme preface this by saying that threats, doxxing, intimidation, defamation, all that jazz are NEVER okay. No, not even then. I only bring them up because they are a thing that happens and need to be addressed.

*Firstly,* I want to address an issue you brought up multiple times in our brief discussion: the issue of false equivalency. As you’re no doubt aware, a massive amount of doxxing, flaming, threats and generally horrible things have been flying from both sides pretty much from the beginning, even before Adam Baldwin coined the term ‘GamerGate’. However, you claimed in your conversation with me that comparing the two was a “false equivalency”, since GamerGate was “specifically founded to harrass people” and aGGro’s tweets were likely the result of a few bad apples as opposed to the whole group. We’ll ignore the fact that some threats are worse than others (though on a side note, I’m pretty sure mailing someone a syringe full of what is implied to be poison is worse than a sexist slur)

I don’t believe it’s false to say that the two are equal for several reasons.
-There are mountains of evidence for threats from both sides. You’ve already seen GG’s (and I am sorry your friends were threatened) and here’s a compilation of aGGro’s (several of the images are NSFW):

-It is impossible to control who contributes to a hashtag, so a tweet stating ‘you should go die muahaha’ is not evidence of how an entire movement acts, behaves and feels. With organizations like the NRA, the Democrat Party, etc you can get away with generalizing the organization based on individual members’ behavior since the group has a barrier for entry based on their ideology. However, a Twitter hashtag movement is impossible to control in this manner. I could easily go to #KillAllMen and say “Jesus saves – he takes half damage.” That doesn’t mean that #KillAllMen is about Christians playing DnD all of a sudden, does it? Of course not, that would be silly.

-GamerGate was not – as you claim – founded to harass Zoe Quinn for sleeping around. This is a common misconception, but it’s wrong on several levels, so lemme go over the whole story from start to finish. Zoe Quinn was lovers with one of the reviewers of her game, and the reviewer did not disclose this. (Personally, I found this behavior repugnant because she was cheating at the time, but that is both her business and neither here nor there)

(EDIT: Apparently, this is wrong – it wasn’t a review, just coverage. My bad, but it doesn’t change the overall point of the paragraph)

When this was discovered, it raised questions of how impartial about the game he could be, and rightly so; it’s difficult to criticize someone you care about (and/or are having sex with) and reasonable to assume he’d be biased. Had this been disclosed beforehand, or had he simply said ‘mea culpa’ and moved on, this entire incident would have gone completely unnoticed. Instead, a slew of inflammatory articles came out within 24 hours directly attacking gamers as misogynist, racist, etc and stating that the gaming identity was dead/dieing. Obviously, there was a massive uproar about this, and Adam Baldwin coined the term ‘GamerGate’ in response. So in short (too late), GamerGate did not exist during the Quinn scandal and was founded in response to the actions of games media, not a female game developer.

So therefore, saying that someone used a particular hashtag when saying something horrible is not proof about how that hashtag behaves as a whole. I kept bringing up the threats anti-GG had made because by the logic you posed, if GG is a hate movement because you can find tweets threatening someone’s life, so is aGGro. But that logic is wrong, because again, hashtag movements are impossible to control. The fact that it’s even possible to hijack a hashtag should be proof of that.

*Second,* (i promise these won’t all be as long as the first secion was) your assertion that GamerGate has not accomplished anything of merit is just plain untrue. I’m not going to talk about what they’ve changed in regards to ethics policies at various websites, since you’ve already stated you feel that such was corrupt of them. GamerGate has funded numerous charities, including Child’s Play, Action Against Hunger USA, United States Fund for Unicef, Toys for Tots, extra life, and 32 different charities through a charity drive. Numerous websites updated their ethics policies (including IGN, the Escapist, Eurogamer and others), helped Cytherea (a porn star from Utah) get back on her feet after her home was broken into (she was also sexually assaulted), and even adopted a sea lion for 5.5k. In addition, the Fine Young Capitalists (who are pro-GG) held a contest for female developers where they gave the best pitch $50k and 6 months to develop their game.

*Third*, you stated outright that you could not be in support of GamerGate without also supporting harassment. This is an absolute statement and is a form of false dichotomy – I can support neighborhood watches without supporting the KKK (seriously, the KKK bills itself as a neighborhood watch group – look it up), I can support free speech without supporting slander, I can like This is How We Roll without hating your review of it and I can support ethical reforms without supporting death threats made by others who also claim to support ethics reforms. And I am most definitely in support of ethical reform in the games industry – even if 12 articles all stating the same message isn’t corrupt or collusion or whatever you want to call it, it’s certainly alarming, and the fact that the articles attacked its consumerbase is amazingly arrogant.

*Lastly,* there is definitely a need for GamerGate in the industry. Totalbiscuit explained this better than I could (and since he’s deeper into that part of the industry than I am I’ll take his word for it) but the short of it is that large gaming news websites are no longer pro-consumer. You were right when you said that publishing an article attacking your own audience isn’t corrupt in and of itself (though I would argue that 12 of them across multiple websites IS), but it does show contempt for the people that news groups are supposed to be working for and informing: the consumer. Games media cares more about publishers and developers than the consumers they’re supposed to be informing, which does lead to corrupt and unethical behavior. Reviewers and publishers regularly negotiate with each other to get as high a review score as possible in exchange for money and/or exclusive reporting opportunities. EA had the information for 40k accounts stolen, and was able to keep the press from reporting on it until a whistleblower WITHIN EA tipped them off – that’s something that should never happen if a news site has integrity. This has been a problem in the games industry for years, GamerGate is just these issues coming to a head.

I’m not going to ask you to flip to pro-GG based solely on what I’ve said, that would be ludicrous. I’m just hoping this softens your stance somewhat and makes things a little easier next time you discuss GG with someone. I also hope this came through more clearly than my previous attempts – I have a bit of a problem communicating, this was very much off-the-cuff (assuming I understand the meaning of the phrase – unprofessional, impromptu, not edited much?) and honestly I’m both hungry and tired as f#$@ right now. There’s probably a typo or two somewhere.

Best wishes,
David Burton
aka HalfTangible

Well… that was more long-winded than I’d planned. Wish I could pump out words like that for my novel.

…Wait, you seriously read all that? O.o Uh… thank you. I’m… kinda out of things to say.


Vivian James needs a cyborg crocodile sidekick.

That can FLY. AND TALK.

Scratch that, we ALL need cyborg crocodiles. Dibs on the laser-eye one!

Gamers Discussing #GamerGate Scandal Are Being Harassed; Where’s the Coverage? This Article Will Be Regularly Updated With Documented Harassment Of Gamers.

This needs to be seen by anyone that calls themselves a gamer, whether gater or anti.

Citizen Journalist Jennifer J Medina

*1/12/15 02:03 PM Since this apparently needs to be restated at start although it is in the introductory section of this document:
I find this endeavor especially important due to the little coverage by mainstream media of the harassment gamers receive that discuss #GamerGate. Instead, we mainly witness coverage of harassment those opposed to discussing the #GamerGate scandal receive.
This article is meant to give light to what is barely getting any mainstream media coverage. It is covering gamers discussing #GamerGate. This piece is NOT meant to show “both sides.” Thank you*

There was a fairly recent Pew Poll done on the prevalence of online harassment. Apparently four-in-ten people have experienced some form of online harassment in their experience on the internet.

Online harassment is a serious issue for people of all identities; whether male, female, homosexual, transgender, white, black, Asian, etc. According to the poll,


View original post 814 more words