Why Can’t We Separate The Personal From The Political?

Being too friendly with today's villains.

Color me confused that in today’s modern world of global communication,  we appear to still be in those fraught times where the Chinese don’t want you getting too cushy with any members of the Mongol horde and contact might get you viewed as spy and saboteur.  Don’t even go near their horses.

Since when did life become Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals that’s now applied to everyone and every damned sphere of life?

After the events of Florida’s school shooting  – which looks far more disturbing in how it came about via deliberate changes to school discipline and policing  – social media and the internet in general became it’s usual shouting match and echo chamber that ensues after any mass shooting.

What alarmed me in particular this time was that to some gun control advocates, anyone who didn’t denounce the NRA as a terrorist organization or opposed gun control was personally responsible for the shooting and was of course a vile, despicable, human being who supports kids being murdered.

That’s a pretty easy strawman to beat in public for an applauding mob.   But wait, are’t these the same people who are interested in diversity?  Not when it comes to worldview and politics apparently.   In fact dissenters need to be isolated, dehumanized, and possibly targeted.   If you can cost them friends and family as well as various public shamings, all the better right?

Welcome to conversation in the 21st century on the internet which is now spilling over into people’s actual real lives.  Rid yourself of dialogue and arm yourself with a cell phone and your targets contact information and workplace details that can be submitted to a two minute hate twitter mob.

Perhaps we are much more divided in terms of worldview and culture in America then we ever have been, but since when did dissenting views equal incompatibility with even spending time or associating with someone?

Recently I was having a conversation with a family member – one that I very much respect -who was surprised at how I could become “friends” with someone in the Dissident Right who my family member considered to have rather reprehensible views. (Granted, most of my family members would consider him to have said reprehensible views.)

He was particular surprised by me using the word friend.  Why would you become friends with someone with views and speech seen as inexcusable or unacceptable?  (While I don’t agree with this friend on everything, he is still a friend.)

Well regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, it’s a damn good question.

How I Became a Deplorable With Detestable Views

Picking my friends, associates, or villainous enemies to be denounced on twitter based on what they think or hide in perspective closets has always simply been a matter of how and where I meet people.

Hookah lounges. Bars. Concerts. Churches. Raucous Parties. Parties I will not mention.  Internet Forums. Gaming Circles. Gaming Servers. Family functions. Work.  My Old Campus.

Years ago before Trump was a thing, I used to play an online browser game called Astro Empires. While I’ve retained a friend from that game, one other “friend” – a rather progressive one – on Facebook told me he couldn’t be friends with me anymore because my views were detestable.   We even really enjoyed soccer too!   (At that time I was first stumbling across the Manosphere.)

When I reflected upon that moment, the recent conversation I had between me and my family member prompted that EUREKA moment in my puny bigoted backwards brain; plenty of people today view life style, worldview, political, or even cultural differences and disagreements as the whole of a person.


If their views are too far out there or “offensive”, their friendship is something that’s found to be shocking.  I find this notion troubling as to what it implies; you are what you secretly dare to ponder upon in the late night hours when you entertain crimethink thoughts about the nature of man, society, and any other specifically touchy controversial subjects where voicing opinions on what you actually think could get you fired from your job because guilt by association.

Talking to people, associating with them, or even communicating or working with them on mutually agreed ideas – even if you differ with them on everything else is certainly not allowed.

What happened to Quinn Norton, which while it certainly didn’t happen to me reminds me of myself.   She got fired hours after being hired by the New York Times for talking with the wrong people. Quinn dared to “associate” with Weev or the greatest deviant villain alive on the internet today, Andrew Aurenheimer founder of the Daily Stormer.  Whoops.

Obviously Quinn is the opposite of a Nazi, but the fact that she had communicated with him on just ONE idea they shared the same opinion on and that she felt was important produced some sort of alternate internet depiction of her as a Nazi.

I was called a Nazi because of my friendship with the infamous neo-Nazi known on the internet as weev—his given name is Andrew Auernheimer; he helps run the anti-Semitic website The Daily Stormer. In my pacifism, I can’t reject a friendship, even when a friend has taken such a horrifying path. I am not the judge of who is capable of improving as a person.


This philosophy also requires me to confront him about his terrible beliefs and their terrible consequences. I have been doing this since before his brief time as a cause célèbre in 2012—I believe it’d be hypocritical for me to turn away from this obligation. weev is just one of many terrible people I’ve cared for in my life.


I don’t support what my terrible friend believes or does. But I strongly advocate for people with a good sense of themselves and their values to engage with their terrible friends, coworkers, and relatives, to lovingly confront them for as long as it takes, and it would be wrong to not do so myself. I had what I now see as the advantage of coming from a family of terrible people.


This taught me that not everyone worthy of love is worthy of emulation. It also taught me that being given terrible ideas is not a destiny, and that intervention can change lives.

One article that covered her reaction to her Twitter scalping had this particular gem of a comment posted:

“There’s a big difference between being friends with people in private and changing their minds personally, one-by-one, and being friends with people publicly and normalizing their BS. If friendship with the Nazi is so important to her, let them be friends. But if it’s part of her public persona, that makes it part of NYT’s public persona, that makes a big cultural voice voting for white supremacy – welcome to 2018. Everyone can see everything, everyone can hear everything.”

Right there in this tripe of slime comment is everything that is wrong with social media, the internet, and our outrage culture in general.  I’m picking on this comment in particular because this is EXACTLY the kind of attitude I see reflected by so many saintly twitter and social media stake burners when they light their torches.

Being friends with bad people – or those deemed to be by our new cultural overlords – is the same thing as “normalizing” their views.   Pious peasants don’t associate with heretic harbingers or they risk becoming them or promoting them.

Even if you are friends with a Troll,  Sauron, Nazi or worse -a Communist considering their body count in the 20th century – talking, eating, communicating, gaming, participating in gay orgies, or shooting the shit with them isn’t going to “Normalize” anything.

We aren’t our political or worldview beliefs.  We are Jack, Jon, Joan, and June who are living life in the 21st century in the digital age afflicted by social media Popes who think that too many “radical” blog posts or social media rants are the absolute embodiment of what someone is 24/7.

Can’t the friend police ever take a damned break?  Don’t they have lives? Is this really what they want to reflect upon gloriously when on their death beds?

I always viewed having various friends and associates like a 9-5 job where after you got done talking about what you thought – no matter how heinous it was deemed to be, you then went on with your life.  You kept drinking beer, smoking stogies, and telling stories late into the night with them.

In fact,  I would imagine myself as a professor or his neighbor.  I could have a daily talk with some uber male feminist ally like Michael Kimmel, have very different conclusions, and go back to grabbing a beer with him later while throwing darts.

The disagreements, while fundamental to our worldview differences and how we choose to life life and spend time would fade while we live our normal lives. One would leave work, go home, unwind, and enjoy time with family and friends.  Another would go to the bar, play softball or volleyball, or watch the newest Game Of Thrones episode together.

That right there. Normal life.

Journey Of Self Discovery

When you form your worldview and outlook on life, it happens over time – often in a kind of butterfly and domino effect of situations, events, friends, and where you spend your time.   It’s a journey, just maybe not as adventurous and  epic as something out of Lord Of The Rings.

I’m far from a modern day Jesus, but I  have and do associate with plenty of sinners, reprobates, and people who are today’s version of heretics.

Lately there’s been a wave of miserly curmudgeons who want to dictate who you can and can’t hang with.  If you deviate, you are labeled some sort of ist /ism or more frequently a fascist or Nazi lover.

It’s not like I went out trying to make friends with hardcore druggies, dangerous online deviants, violent biker types, or Molotov cocktail wielding AntiFa activists.  Rather I simply kept looking for the truth and I was going to wherever it led.

I wanted to find out who I was.   Being drawn to controversy, mischievous and dirty humor, abstract in-the-clouds freedom of speech ideals, gaming, history, rebellion, cigars and smoking, etc all played apart in the paths I would choose at the forks in the road.

In fact, it was similar creating a character class with attributes in an RPG.  I was forging an identity as there were flaws in my current thinking and approach at the time that left me feeling like I was wasting away in the wind while others clearly were not.

What led me even more into the devious, deviant, and every “ist” and “ism” under the sun circles is the simple fact that they were as hostile as I was to control over freedom of association.

Not once did the mean miserly misogynists sexist racists in the manosphere writhe in constant shouting, shaming, and denunciation of myself for being friends with feminists, social justice advocates, Black Israelites, “liberals”, Trump haters, ect.

Neither did those in the #GamerGate, the Dissident Right, and even in horrible dangerous despicable your-soul-may-perish-for-eternity places like the Roosh V forum.

In fact,  not once did some White Nationalist or Supremacists types I talked to flip shit over the fact I talked to Jews, had Jewish friends, and didn’t loathe them.  Even in the case of me being mixed race, my family being mixed race of various sorts, and plenty of friends and associates being every kind of ethnicity, race, culture, factions and members of various “groups”  did this occur.

After a while, I realized where the real “bigots” were coming from and who was surprisingly far more “tolerant” despite having all sorts of views I didn’t agree with.  At the end of the day, I didn’t have to be fully 100% on board with Nazis jackbooting in Harlem with a Hivemind to agree with them that feminism is bad thing.

Look what happens to people like Laci Green who are still ardent feminists and social justice advocates who dared to ask questions and not be completely in lockstep.  They of course get all the nasty labels deliberately designed to rid them of their humanity, making them acceptable targets.

After all, if someone isn’t human and their views have no place in “acceptable” society, then there are no rules that limit what you can do to them.  The insane exaggerated hyperbole and straw-men they are tarred with is therefore not only “acceptable” but apparently some sort of cosmic justice.

Dissenters must be squashed.  For some in uber progressive circles where they spiritually and mentally self-mutilate themselves for not being better allies, they reach a breaking point.   The term “Peak Trans” comes to mind.  Now they not actually suddenly jump to the right politically, but they end up realizing that they can’t survive in a hive mind which allows for no free thinking.

Social media just exacerbates this problem of free thinking.  Express views where you question a popular and accepted narrative?  People lose their minds and you become a Nazi, ist, or ism.  People will take screenshots of denouncing you and “defriending” you.

One is either a hero or a villain – no in between.  If you associate with them in anyway or dare to be friends with them, then via guilt by association, you also become a hero or villain.

I suppose this is the evidence that we needed to prove that friends on social media really aren’t friends. However, too often have I seen family befall the same fate.  Even for family members, certain beliefs are too far and suddenly you are disowned even if the son denies the accusation.   I didn’t know we were all secret Muslims at our core.

Pearce Tefft proclaimed that “Peter Tefft, my son, is not welcome at our family gatherings any longer. I pray my prodigal son will renounce his hateful beliefs and return home. Then and only then will I lay out the feast.”

To quote the guy from 300 who get’s kicked into that bottomless pit, “This is madness.”

I have two sons, and regardless if they became die-hard SJWs who loathed every view I espoused, they’d be welcome in my house.   I’m not pouring years of time, smelly diapers, long nights, and the joys of watching them crawl, walk, and start talking down some drain filter because of what they might believe.

In fact the mere thought of it really bothers me.  I can see not marrying or dating someone because of it, but your very own flesh and blood?

However,  this isn’t a new phenomenon.  It’s one of human nature.  Plenty of family members, villagers, tribesmen, etc. have disowned each other to the point of the sword because of differences in belief.

However that was then, this is now.  Right?

Supposedly the Enlightenment and Age of Reason were supposed to put us past this, but they haven’t.  I’m not going to bother to go into the reasons for that, but I will say that social media obviously fuels this polarization and dichotomy of us vs them.

For some people, they aren’t just content to “de-friend” and dehumanize you, they also believe you need to lose your job, be unable to pay your mortgage, and ensure you are out on the streets. Your family who you support financially? They don’t give a shit.

I’ve been an advocate of fighting fire with fire – specifically those people who threaten to or go after people’s jobs.  However, with finances being tight for myself and with me being the sole provider for my wife and two sons, it’s hard for me to imagine attempting similar retribution to someone, even if they were the aggressors in trying to get me or people with whom I hold similar views with fired.

At some point, we have to draw the line as to how far one should go in a polite and civilized society – while it still barely remains one.

To all you activists out there, regardless of your stripe and creed, how far are you willing to go?

I don’t consider activism, political stances or worldview to be this ever constricting bubble where you dwell permanently, but if your entire life and purpose is based on “activism”, where else do you go to seek your identity? To seek who you are?

Seriously, consider that so many ardent screaming activists are often far removed from the situations and people they express outrage about.  Do those who scream about gun control the loudest with the biggest platforms live in Baltimore in the ghetto?  Often they don’t.

So many people say they want “diversity”, but it seems we pervaded by a culture that encourages us not to have friends or to cut them loose if they won’t come to similar views as ourselves.  Diversity indeed.

Those same people are then shocked when they exit their bubble and briefly enter another where very different views are held.  You’d think they’d embrace that diversity, but often they just point, shriek, and scream “HERETIC!”   Often, that’s where the mutual conversation ends and the pitchforks and torches begin.

Is this really how any of us want to live?  Where we can’t separate someone from their politics or opinions?  I certainly don’t, but I fear far too many do.


When To Use Scorched Earth Against SJW’s

When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
Scorched Earth

Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.

“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”

I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap.  As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”

Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters.  Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.

If an SJW is going to attempt to get people fired from their jobs, dox people, and threaten them, then they should be subjected to the same treatment if not harsher to make them realize what terrible dicks they actually are – note legal restrictions.  This is exactly why Milo Yiannapolous wrote up his three part expose on Randi Harper to demonstrate how much of a vicious terrible hypocrite she actually is.

Now “scorched earth” tactic that Vox Day endorses in his primer “SJWs Always Lie” – which has been described as the digital Art Of War of are time for good reason – isn’t necessary all the time when dealing with SJWs. It’s the one’s that pick up the rifles that need to have salvos fired in return. If I learned anything from #GamerGate, its that the same boycott tactics, public shame, and pressuring tactics SJWs employ can be utilized against them with devastating effects.

Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.

If your enemy has a tank, you need one as well. If Julie Bindel wants to put all males in a camp for the proper re-education, we should advocate the same for her.

Consider the current raging tornado surrounding Sarah Butts who may have actually molested a child, not withstanding her views on the subject of pedophilia.

To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs.  However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due.   She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.

Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.

I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people.  They should be treated as POWs.   Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”

We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.

The “Extremists”

Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is.  Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.

The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist.  Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.

Labels are again the primary weapon.   SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists.   Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.

It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.

Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.

Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for.  It’s up to you to shape that.

“Harassment” Doesn’t Affect Nor Negate the Validity of #GamerGate’s Call For Ethics in Gaming Journalism


Retaking The Narrative: Ethics in Gaming Journalism

“Guilt by Association” or rather “Wrong by Association” is one of the most utilized tactics of the online media age. It panders to the to the intellectual laziness in our culture which finds it much easier to dismiss arguments based on where they come from rather then what they are.

It is why you will see/hear people dismiss arguments and positions based on retorts such as, “Alex Jones nut”, liberal whackjob, bible thumper, fundamentalist, ect.  instead of bothering to actually examine people’s arguments  Why? Because it is far less tim consuming to simply dismiss ideas based on who has said them. This is essentially intellectual laziness, which as we can see, is really bad for a culture.

These tactics are used today by not just SJWs, but by most passionate souls on the internet.  Often in order to discredit your opponents argument(s) in the ever watchful internet eye,  opponents will attempt to associate a group or a movement with (1) their most radical members who are examples of poor judgement and unwise actions (2) define what the movement is about primarily about rather then it’s own advocates.

Essentially, they attempt to dictate and control the narrative and construct straw men about what you supposedly believe, and then proceed to beat the ever loving shit out of them.   It’s a dirty sneaky tactic and it is one we should be aware of.

Currently, I believe anti GamerGaters and SJWs have managed to dictate the narrative and determine what we will talk forcing us to often be on the defensive.

We’ve been sidetracked defending ourselves against “harassment” claims of people like Wu, Randi, Chu, ect.  While many in #GamerGate justifiably dislike what SJW’s have slowly done to gaming, they are not the main focus – Corruption and a complete lack of ethics in gaming journalism is.  To make matters worse, it isn’t even just gaming journalism that has gone down hill,  it’s the majority of publications, newspapers, and websites that have been influenced by the “Post Now, Update Later” mentality.

While it is unwise to ignore the actions of the SJWs that will do anything to destroy those who support GamerGate, we can not focus on them, yet we must still be aware of them. Remember, they are their own worst enemy.

I sense a disturbance in the Force

Their actions in doxing, outing, harassing, and threatening minorities, gays, women, transgenders who support GamerGate prove that they really don’t care about them to the neutrals and the rest of the world that is watching.  It shows that identity politics and ideology trumps even the most non-cis transgender black ect, ect, ect, person if they dare to support GamerGate.

It is not enough to be one of the “oppressed” according to SJWs. You have to fall lock and step in with their conclusions on anything, or you will be thrown to the wayside.   Even those who do acquiesce to their complaints about racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-phobia and every kind of phobia and “ism” out there still can’t win.

In the end, SJW’s have seriously curbed the artistic freedom of developers and have been able to successfully shame people with cyber twitter lynch mobs if they don’t hit all of the items on the checklist of Social Justice.  Daniel Vavra who has worked as a designer and writer for 15 years in the gaming industry has some sobering insight as to what SJWs are slowly doing to the industry:

The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what’s right and what’s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don’t even care what the “oppressed” people think. They censor any feedback they don’t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It’s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn’t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.

And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.

It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom.

What is even more concerning is that they have become arguably the dominate representation in Gaming publications and sites and they are only too happy to throw the notion of journalistic ethics out if the “ends justify the means”.

They have been and still are willing to promote terrible game and give them unjust scores that don’t reflect their quality, plot, gameplay, ect as long as said games have the “right” messages.  If the game’s don’t have those “right” messages, they are willing to let that shortcoming unduly effect their reviews and discussion of it.   This is a double-standard that I will address later in this article.

The “Harassment Debacle”

I’ve seen countless twitter battles going back and forth in which Anti-GamerGaters continually attempt to put us on the defensive and divert the narrative away from talking about Ethics in Gaming Journalism to talking about supposed harassment that has happened to Anti-GamerGaters.

Observe that even minor “E celebs” like Mike Cernovich haven’t been just harassed, they’ve been doxxed and with no remorse from the supposed denouncers of harassment.  In fact, Zoe Quinn herself knew about it and helped in the dox.    So much for her complaints about doxxing.  Dox up not down right?


The hypocrisy is noteworthy.

Now, whether every case of harassment they claimed has actually happened or not, it is irrelevant to the our strongest demand – Ethics In Gaming Journalism, but I’ll focus more on this later.

A conversation I had on Twitter with an Anti-Gamergater and what I assumed to be a feminist – rightfully so later as I would find out – kept bringing up the “harassment” claims, as well as the supposed allegations on Hotwheels supporting child porn. Whether 8chan having Child Porn on their boards is factual or not, it doesn’t invalidate any of the arguments being made by GamerGate supporters there.   This is a point I’ll drive home later in this post, but first let’s take a quick look at the story.

I found an interesting forum thread while browsing through the story and one poster summed up the thought process at play here far better than I can:

Think the other major problem is that he’s just being disingenuous. Hotwheels and his volunteer moderation team have always been pretty clear that they do not tolerate illegal content on their boards. The article was supposed to be on how the moderation team at 8chan were complicit in the distribution of child pornography, and I mean the legal definition of the word here. As much as I am opposed to that shit on moral grounds alone, most of the ‘CP’ shown there is completely legal under United States law. If SJW’s don’t like it, then they should be lobbying to get it declared illegal, not complaining about the distributors. But Hotwheels himself has said that he received no reports of CP the night the author of the article supposedly went through 8chan to find CP, which indicates that the author made no effort to actually contact the moderators of the website to get it removed.

This could mean multiple things: 1. He genuinely saw CP, but nevertheless made no effort to contact the moderators to get it removed. This, at best, makes the message of the article moot, as mods cannot do their jobs if the community does not direct them to the one thread in the one board out of literally hundreds. It’s like recording somebody getting mugged to use as evidence of the inefficiency of the local police, while not bothering to actually call the police to report the mugging. At worst it indicates that he does not really care about the distribution of CP, just that he can use it as a weapon to attack his opponents). 2: he didn’t see anything that does fit the legal definition of child pornography in the US, and did not report it because he knows it would give Hotwheels a solid trail to link back to him and call him out for lying. 3: he has no idea how the moderation of 8chan works, and is trying to talk shit about stuff he doesn’t understand.

Also another important point that was made is a rather simple but shocking one: What if he planted the child porn there himself?  We have witnessed SJWs often “dox” and harass themselves in order to gain sympathy and appear to gain the moral high-ground. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that the same thing happened here, we should be VERY skeptical of any claims they make considering the dubious tactics they are willing to employ to “win”.

Anyway, back to the “harassment” issue.

So I undertook the foolhardy task of attempting to first question what “harassment” actually entailed.  Enter the mind of a male feminist SJW with whom I still dialogue with on Twitter to this day.

I found this conversation we had to be very useful for seeing what kind of arguments opposing viewpoints would make and how ingrained assumptions – me and him both – about how words are used and the people that use them affects the discourse.

One of the first things you’ll notice here is that they like to define harassment as actions and words that they don’t like – such as the 1000+ notifications and “telling someone to go die.”   I’m also sure some of you have noticed that “harassment” will also often include essentially anything and everything they don’t like.  I find this unfortunate because it destroys the necessary stigma for the words to actually mean something.

It becomes much harder to believe feminists and/or SJWs who claim they have been harassed because the definition has been applied to just about everything.   I just hope that when an actual case of harassment happens, the concept of “crying wolf” doesn’t hinder someone from receiving the help and support they may need.  No it wouldn’t be vengeance through Karma, it would be an opportunity to show compassion.

My Response:


Catch that?

This is a lesson for me to learn and that the rest of GamerGate should as well.  If the other side is going to chose their own “definitions” for what constitutes things like harassment, and any attempt to refute the obvious shortcomings of that definition can simply be dismissed by them as “redefining”, there is no point to addressing any conversational matter with them that addresses the subject of “harassment.”

I won’t make this same mistake twice.  When dealing with people – specifically SJWs – who literally bend ANY word to mean what they want it to mean, you will likely not be able to actually agree on the definition of the word.  Let it be noted that ideology and worldview – regardless of whatever it is affects how you view concepts as well as how you define them.

As that piece of historical and timeless wisdom says, “He who defines, wins.”

Logically Exposing The Double Standards

Many of our opponents, SJWs in particular, have often engrossed themselves so thoroughly in presuppositions that involved double standards.   The spewing of the entire “privilege” and “racism doesn’t happen to white people because they are not the oppressed race/class” manure is a perfect example of this.

Essentially they are convinced that it is okay for them to be “bad”, but only them.   Everyone neutral onlooker with a half a brain that hasn’t been indoctrinated 1984 style by the US public school system will be able to see through this bullshit.   It is our job to point said bullshit out.

When I challenged him statement that their has been little/next-to-no harassment from the Anti-GG side and showed him several links, he responded with:

For some reason the Twitter URL wouldn’t display the tweet on this page so I screen capped it.

Well now.  Isn’t this the same kind of “victim-blaming” behavior they have been accusing us of when we dared to doubt the veracity of Sarkeesian, Wu, ects claims of their supposed harassment?  Note his tweet is evidence of that “double standard.”  I proceed to point it out:

The Fallacy of Taking Responsibility For Others

In the following tweet I asked “her”  whether she would take responsibility for all the terrible things said by the “radicals” in feminism – specifically 3rd wave feminism – and denounce the label.

He predictably would not, and I can see why.  Notice what he said when I applied the same logic to feminism:

I then pointed out why then would he expect GamerGate supporters to do the same?  If it’s just the extreme exceptions to feminism that are saying absolutely horrific things, then shouldn’t we apply that same logic of “exceptions” to GamerGate?

I refused to accept responsibility for “harassment” in GamerGate and denounce the label because he wouldn’t take responsibility for “feminism” for the things said by radical feminists.

Logic hurts. It also is a valuable tool to employee to the onlookers on the sidelines whose minds have not yet been subjugated to the SJW cog.

Maintaining the Focus

In the long run, It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxing, ect has taken place or not.  In fact, let me repeat that:   It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxiing, ect has taken place or not.

It is a distraction and besides the point because it DOES NOT diminish in anyway nor invalidate our observations that (1) ethics in gaming journalism is a problem both before and right now, (2) the gaming press still has made no real effort to acknowledge the corruption and blatant bias in pretending to be impartial while actually conspiring to drive a very specific narrative that they felt their audience didn’t need to know, (3) a refusal to disclose collusion which was later revealed by lists in which journalists  secretly admitted choosing which stories they would and wouldn’t cover – the very definition of “biased media”, and (4) their persistent refusal to actually admit the glaring ethics violations that took place, offering no apology or remorse, and instead deflecting the criticism with accusations of “misogyny” and “sexism”

While we can condemn actual harassment that has taken place, we must immediately take back the narrative and focus i back onto what us and neutrals on the sidelines can plainly see:  The corruption and the lack of ethics in gaming journalism.   These attempts to insist that “harassment” diminishes our call for ethics in gaming journalism must be dismissed because they are actually irrational when you employ a tad bit of logic.

Note the exchange below:

His Response:

Let’s think about that for a moment.  Logic 101 dictates that it does not matter WHO advocates an ideology.  What matters specifically is the validity of that ideology, regardless of who actually advocates it.  Either the ideology is valid or invalid. Note that his tactic here is essentially another form of “Guilt By Association” or rather “Wrong By Association.”  

I’m going to break Godwin’s Law here, but not in the way you think.  Take into account Hitler’s and the Nazi’s emphatic support for environmentalism – the kind often endorsed by many liberals. Does that mean that “environmentalism” is automatically wrong because the Nazis and Hitler endorsed it?  No, it doesn’t.  Who espouses the ideas of radical environmentalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the ideology has merit or not.

Okay, Next:

Logic 101 again tells us that “truth” and what is “right” or “wrong” can not be accurately nor should be determined by a majority.  Might should not make right.  A majority of “Public” figures supported slavery leading up the Civil War.  Did that make it right?  A majority of “Public” figures opposed the Civil Rights movement during its struggle. Were they automatically correct being the majority?  You get the point.

I think it’s safe to say he missed the point. Entirely.  This doesn’t speak badly about him but rather shows what influence the assumptions of our worldviews have on how we perceive issues as well as others.

Ultimately everyone is GamerGate is responsible for themselves.

This is important to point out considering how many of us do not hold the same views on issues ranging from politics to culture.  I am one of the staunchest proponents of gun rights out there, I think Climate Change is nonsense, and I advocate making ALL drugs legal.

I can guarantee many GamerGate supporters disagree with at least one of those three positions of mine.  So should I denounce my fellow GamerGaters for not subscribing to EXACTLY the same opinions as my own? Nah, I’ll let the SJWs do that as they eat each other which we have seen them do so often.

The Importance of “Objectivity”

Let’s be honest; absolute objectivity is impossible.

Objectivity in journalism terms  these days is often understood to include journalistic concepts like “disclosure”,  telling both sides of the story, ect.  Any “decent” opinion column – that’s about as rare as a comet these days – will argue a position on an issue without completely misrepresenting the opposing side’s viewpoints and will refrain from creating strawmen.

As the internet becomes more and more of an echo-chamber, the definition of objectivity has changed much in the way the definition of trolling has.  If you disagree with someone, you are immediately accused of trolling after you have been accused of being “biased”.

To give you a very simple example, the definition of Objectivity has changed in as much the same way “Democracy” has.  People say America is a “Democracy.”  No, America is more of a Republic with Democratic elements. A pure Democracy is literally where 51% of the people determine the laws.   (Essentially 51% of the people in a “Democracy” could decide they don’t like Asian’s anymore and ban them from driving and it would be “the law”)

In fact, most news outlets and press publications don’t exactly bother to hide their biases. What this entails is knowing that Breitbart leans to the right and The Washington Post to the left.  They don’t attempt to hide it, so readers are aware of it, something that is important.

When it comes to many gaming journalists, they have gone through great lengths to disguise their biases, while still directly letting them influence their reviews of games and effecting which ones they promote.  Objectivity, in the sense of being completely 100% impartial, isn’t necessary or possible to avoid “corruption” in gaming journalism.   Those biases however can’t be left undisclosed if they will be allowed to effect the reviews and the rating scores given to game.

Some journalists have unfortunately allowed their biases to distract them – Bayonetta 2 for example – from reviewing the aspects of a game that matter – content, level design, plot, characters, gameplay, graphics, ect – and instead dismiss games based on whether they like them or not – which some people actually think is fine!  This brings up an important point when you consider the kinds of bonuses that developers can receive for good scores and how personal worldview bias can actually be used to penalize developers for making certain games. In fact, Kotaku ironically pointed this out in an article, “Metacritic Matters: How Review Scores Hurt Video Games.”  It looks like they have perfected this observation into a unique form of cultural warfare.

Eacaraxe – whose blog on gaming and media I highly recommend, expanded upon this line of though in a series of posts, specifically concerning the case of Bayonetta 2:

“Are certain critics, if they are docking points simply for finding the game’s content distasteful, trying to punish game developers and their publishers by denying them review-based bonuses? If so, is this emblematic of an effort on the part of critics to influence what games are produced and how they produced, contrary to critics’ claims? Is this a valid, or ethical, form of protest against content deemed objectionable by critics and those who produce it?”

This is certainly obvious in the case of the recent controversial game, “Hatred”.  Whether a journalist approves or disproves of a game is irrelevant. Their duty is instead rather to inform their readers about the game and include such unnecessary details like plot, character, gameplay, ect.  At least the creators of Hatred are honest and fully upfront with what their game is about, something many journalists are not and refuse to be.   Will however future reviewers allow this to effect their games and also effect the kind of perception that the public – particular the corporate sector?.

Kotaku’s Social Justice influenced reviews aren’t going to be objective and we know that.  We do however expect them to disclose relationships about the games they are reviewing, promoting, and giving attention to.  There is an expectation that they would acknowledge the conflict of interests between either (1) the publication and the story (2) the journalists involved in the story.

Instead of doing just that, they couldn’t be bothered to disclose the glaring conflict of interests at hand between Quinn and journalists like Nathan Grayson.  Disclosing a conflict of interest is Journalism 101. If you take ANY media journalism classes, it is one of the first things you will learn.

Think about anti GamerGate folks like Ian Miles Cheong that can boast that they don’t give a fuck about ethics in gaming journalism, to which no one in the the anti GamerGate coalition seems to object.  The long and documented lack of journalistic ethics still doesn’t appall them in the slightest. This is a point we must continue to ram home.   We can do this as we gather even more evidence that shows and will show just how bad the state of ethics in gaming journalism has become and that the corrupt gaming press still “doesn’t give a fuck”.