@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…


2 comments on “@Wyldawen Okay. Here’s my response #GamerGate

  1. TexasMom says:

    Very thoughtful and well written. Plug up that brain leak quick!

    • halftangible says:

      Hi mom.
      Please don’t spread this one around to the family.
      That link to the catalogue of Anti-GG’s activities is a nasty piece of work.

      EDIT: Wait, I don’t think I actually linked that. Nevermind.

Leave a comment! I love comments! =D

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s