Left wing values tend to be egalitarian and anti-hierarchical, while 'Social Justice Warriors' tend to be feminist, rather than egalitarian, and seek to establish a hierarchy and forms of social control. Where libertarians want the minimum necessary intervention, the Regressive Left seem to want to legislate and enforce thought crimes and to determine not only what you can't say, but what you must say[81].
Left-libertarians tend to see censorship, for whatever reason, as a regressive step and they tend to value an open marketplace of ideas. These left-libertarians are much more tolerant of opposing ideas, dissent, debate, dialectic and are – perhaps – the real inheritors of liberal and Enlightenment ideas and values.
Journalist Brad Glasgow conducted a more professional investigation into the political attitudes present in Gamergate and is, apparently, also working on a book about Gamergate to show his point of view. His is a much more neutral position than mine. I suggest that you read this book once it is out. He has, however, released some of his findings already online and it is worth summarising some of these [82].
Gamergate self-identified overwhelmingly as liberal or centrist.
American Gamergate members overwhelmingly voted for Obama, or not at all.
British Gamergate members mostly either didn't vote or voted for Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
Over 80% agree that human climate change is real.
Over 90% believe marijuana should be legal.
Over two thirds are against the death penalty.
Over 90% agree with gay marriage.
Over 90% are in favour of abortion.
Over 75% are in favour of socialised healthcare.
Over 70% agree the gender of a game protagonist doesn't matter.
Less than 10% regularly read Breitbart (and keep in mind, Breitbart was one of the only outlets to give Gamergate a fair shake).
This is hardly the picture of the sexist, racist, reactionary, conservative hotbed of right wing bigotry one might have otherwise been led to expect. Certainly, there were minorities of hard right people – and people all over the political spectrum – and they were quite visible. This is, however, a testament to how one or two unifying principles can bring huge numbers of people together from very different mindsets and political positions for the same, singular, purpose. This is the very lesson that the Occupy movement completely and utterly failed to learn.
There are ways in which Gamergate does differ from the more extreme Regressive Left viewpoints dominant in academia, games media and the Indie scene, however. Gamergate tended to take a much more meritocratic perspective and to be against positive discrimination on a racist or sexist basis. It did not buy into objectification theory any more than it had bought into the idea that games made people violent. It was sceptical of patriarchy theory and tended to be ruthlessly egalitarian, believing people could and should make it on their merits, without unequal assistance. These attitudes – and the removal of benevolent racism and sexism – seem to be enough to be called right wing.
This isn't helped by Internet culture's heavy use of irony, sarcasm, dark and un-PC humour. All of these can give an appearance deliberately at odds with people's values and made stronger by anonymity.
Blockbots and Echo Chambers
The polarisation of political opinion is a hot topic, and a lot of people blame social media for worsening it[83]. This is certainly a part of it. The algorithms on sites like Facebook and Youtube tend to serve us up material similar to that that we already consume. This reinforces our existing self-selection and greatly diminishes our exposure to other points of view. We know, sadly, that only interacting with like-minded people causes people to trend towards the more extreme points of view[84].
Algorithms and selection bias are far from the only causes of this phenomenon. At the more extreme end of self-selection is the increasing tendency to block anyone who disagrees. People end friendships over political or other differences, even when they're quite minor. This seems to get worse and worse year on year, and it takes increasing amounts of effort to seek out and encounter alternative points of view.
This isn't helped by the media abdicating its position on reporting THE news, and increasingly reporting 'A' news. Fox News is perhaps the most blatant example of this, pandering to the existing biases of their audience. In the UK the newspaper The Daily Mail is, perhaps, the most egregious example of this and, both audiences end up with distorted views of reality[85] due to the 'news' they consume. Similar issues occur with outlets like The Guardian, and MSNBC, just on the other side of the political spectrum.
Even more sinister has been the emergence of 'block bots. These are mostly found on Twitter, though versions have appeared about other sites, links and social media platforms. The basic idea isn't necessarily a bad one. You have a list of bad actors on such a site (spammers, trolls, abusive accounts) and that list is propagated so that anyone who uses it can automatically block everyone on that list and avoid encountering these people.
So far, so good.
Unfortunately, what could have been a useful anti-spam/anti-abuse tool ended up almost immediately being politicised. This goes back before Gamergate and back to Atheism Plus. In that community, during/after the split between the political atheists and sceptic atheists, a user from the first camp – called 'Oolon' put together the first popularly acknowledged 'Block Bot'. Needless to say, for all the talk about it blocking abusers and other 'troublesome' people, it was as much about politics as it was abuse. A huge number of individuals from the opposing camp ended up on the Block Bot simply for disagreeing, and all it ended up doing was creating a worsening echo chamber[86].
During Gamergate, something similar happened. Cheap hack and script-kiddy Randi Harper put together a similar Block Bot, listing anyone who had used the #Gamergate hashtag and anyone who followed more than a couple of people who had – guilt by association. It then blocked them for everyone who subscribed to that block list. Hilariously this led to many companies and commercial accounts being blocked – including KFC. Less hilariously the information about who was on the list was accessible, and they were described as abusers, harassers and other rather nasty, libellous terms. This was lauded as an anti-abuse tool, but like the Atheism Plus Block Bot it was, rather an echo chamber creator and a de facto blacklist[87] by an abuser and disgusting human being[88].
Again this only made things worse, since people who disparaged Gamergate were flooded with refutations, counter comments and explanations, as well as trolls. This meant a great many people signed up to use this list and ended up cut off from accurate or opposing information. This included a lot of media people who had been poisoned against Gamergate ahead of time, they never even had an opportunity to see the truth or have their minds changed. Even worse, the Independent Game Developer's Association (IGDA) endorsed the politicised Autoblocker as an 'anti-harassment tool' and passively as a blacklist.
As it turned out, there were legal issues with these Block Bots regarding both data protection and libel. I was one of the people looking into potential legal action against both the Block Bot and the Good Game Autoblocker regarding the libellous aspect. As a result, there were changes made in both bots, their hosting and wording to avoid the legal implications. Unfortunately, it didn't put an end to them, but it did inconvenience the creators and helped force that change[89]. Other block lists and block bots have continued to proliferate, however.
Harper was also the creator of a Twitter bot that spammed out messages to the Gamergate hashtag and, superficially, appeared to be someone against or clueless about Gamergate, asking questions and engaging with people. I have the dubious honour of being one of the people drawn in by this. I ended up exchanging a handful of messages (4 or so) with the bot. I engaged with it as I had been engaging many other people in the tag, trying to counter the negative narratives that were being spread around. I also have the dubious honour of having the embarrassing episode broadcast full strength by Wil Wheaton.
I gues
s 'don't be a dick' is an aspiration, not an actual, personal rule [90].
Feminism & Men's Rights
Gamergate has been caught up in an ongoing and increasing cultural conflict – mainly but not entirely online – between increasingly radical, authoritarian and censorious feminism and the rise of Men's Human Rights Activism (MHRA). This was down to a few important factors and places of commonality between the two, broad communities.
A lot of the interference in games and many other matters have come from a fairly radical, authoritarian fringe of feminism against whom many Men's Rights groups are aligned.
Men's Human Rights Activists have been misrepresented and slandered by the media in much the same manner Gamergate was treated, there's a common cause.
Both Gamers and Men's Human Rights Activists tend to reject Identity Politics.
Hardcore gamers are still majority male.
There is a commonality in a more egalitarian and meritocratic point of view, rather than one of positive discrimination.
Of course, the participation of MHRAs in Gamergate, while welcomed at a time Gamergate needed allies didn't help their image in the public eye. MHRAs have long been smeared as misogynistic, traditionalistic, anti-woman and so forth. With Gamergate being, similarly, spuriously accused of those same things it made it seem like confirmation to those with existing prejudice against either group.
Nonetheless, the alliance seemed to prove fruitful for both parties. Both had crossover with the sceptic community that emerged after the Atheism Plus débâcle, and all three groups became very adept at using the Internet and alternative media to get their message out – whatever the failings of mainstream media.
Archly feminist analysis invaded the gaming space and failed to make its points, instead of coming across as a repeat of the Satanic Panic and violence controversies. Rather than create the change they wanted, it created enemies. MHRAs gained a lot of ground level support and exposure via the Gamergaters. This appears, indeed, to have contributed to the visibility and popularity of the documentary about Men's Issues, The Red Pill [91].
I don't consider myself to be a Men's Human Rights Activist for many of the same reasons I don't consider myself a feminist, but an egalitarian. There are extremists – though less of them – involved in Men's Rights. Many of them are, understandably, bitter and twisted over what has happened to them and are very angry, in a way that overrides the reasoned passion that accomplishes more. I also don't like the tone and style of sites such as A Voice for Men. I simply can't feel comfortable alongside Conservative or 'crank' men's issues advocates like Philip Davies and Mike Buchanan, even when they do the right thing about men's issues in particular.
That said, there are plenty of things within the Men's Human Rights Movement that I cannot help but agree with. Family court should be equal. The barbaric practice of infant circumcision should be banned. I would like to see the extension of some manner of reproductive rights extended to men. I want to see the end of the Duluth model. Internationally I want to halt the erosion of men's right to be presumed innocent. I want to reverse the massive reduction of men completing university and want to try and address the balance of male teachers in primary schooling. There are so many genuine problems men face (violence, substance abuse and homelessness) disproportionately, but the people trying to bring these things up just end up being demonised.
That's not right.
Effective Protest
Gamergate has contributed to a changing game of online protest and, indeed, protest culture in general. This has had a resounding effect on politics of both left and right and has been a big part of why Gamergate keeps being mentioned – somewhat unfairly – about Trump's presidential campaign and support. A better example would, perhaps, be Black Lives Matter.
There's little doubt that Gamergate was an incredibly effective protest, continually confounding expectations that it would die or falter. It accomplished many of its goals and also managed to deal a lot of damage to its enemies. Bad faith journalists were driven out, policies changed, and Gamergate contributed to the death of the website Gawker to the tune of seven figures. This, the constant bad publicity Gamergate was causing, and the lawsuit with Hulk Hogan conspired, together, to ruin the site. In the end, it came together to put an end to their clickbait and bad practices[92].
So how did Gamergate do this?
How did they make it work?
What has been their influence on other protests and their legacy?
Unity
Gamergate was able to unify a huge amount of people around two issues.
The demand for a more ethical and community serving games media.
Anti-Censorship.
Much as people laughed at the idea of 'Actually, it's about ethics in games journalism', it was. Every step that their enemies took appeared to confirm that this was an issue, whether by colluding over 'Gamers Are Dead' or misrepresenting the movement as a whole. All of these actions simply showed that games media – and much of the mainstream media – were an ethical desert.
Censorship was very much a rallying cry for people of all kinds. Genuine liberal and left wing people despise censorship, the right-wing has found itself on the receiving end of a lot of censorship, and for gamers and Internet natives, anti-censorship is in the blood.
By focussing on these issues, Gamergate failed to succumb – at least for most of its most active period – to the kinds of divisions that broke up movements like Occupy. Gamergate was able to unite right, left, liberal, libertarian, older, younger and every other group all over the place into one for one (perhaps two) causes.
That couldn't last forever of course and as Gamergate won battles and began to diminish in scale, size and vehemence those divisions began to appear. 'Ethics cucks' were dismissed by the relatively small number of conspiracy theorists and far-right people, who ended up splitting off into 'Gamergate Revolt'. Further, the tactics and antics of a minority of participants like The Ralph Retort and the increasing politicisation of media supporters like Milo, during the US election, meant the centre – eventually – couldn't hold.
Still, the tactic of staying cohesive and effective for such a long time – by focusing on the main two issues to the near exclusion of all else – worked. By keeping to a consistent and unifying message, Gamergate could try to keep things simple and stay on track.
Operation Disrespectful Nod
Games and Gamers had already been under attack for a long time even before Gamergate. Frustration and exasperation had been growing for some time, and they had seen how Twitter mobs and Social Justice Warriors often applied pressure to companies with shaming tactics, boycotts, letters to advertisers and bad media publicity. Perhaps Gamergate couldn't get the last, given their problems with the media, but the rest they could do and turn back around on the people who had intruded on them.
Gamergate successfully adopted enemy tactics, ferociously attacking the journalists who had ethical failings, digging up information on them, finding their conflicts of interest – and exposing them. They also took the 'Gamers are Dead' sites to task, as well as other sites that attacked their subculture and customer base. They informed advertisers that they did not approve and did not want them supporting sites that did this.
Some might consider this hypocritical and censoring, but it was turning the enemy's tactics against them and holding them to their standards (Alinsky Rule 4)[93]. In protesting what Gamergate was doing and decrying it as censorship, their opposition only succeeded in exposing themselves as hypocrites. They could hardly complain about people mobilising in the exact way that they had used themselves to push their agenda.
Personally, I was never really comfortable with this tactic. I prefer to take and keep the moral high ground if at all possible. I have been the subject of boycotts – albeit based on bad information and lies – and that makes me wary of trying to harm companies – even Gawker – by going after their bottom line. It just doesn't strike me as fair, especially when such
action can stem from bad information or moral panics. There's no denying the effectiveness though.
#NotYourShield
The narrative that Gamergate was entirely made up of white, heterosexual, cisgender men was never particularly convincing, even though that remains the majority market for games (at least in the west). Nor was it clear why this, rather than what they said, did or wanted was particularly damning, unless you're sexist, racist and cisphobic. Still, this was the claim from the start as some way of trying to de-legitimise Gamergate as a reactionary wave of racism and male fragility. Needless to say, this frustrated a lot of female and minority gamers who were fully on board with Gamergate – or at least were fed up with white, middle-class college activists presuming to speak on their behalf.
Indeed this was a striking thing throughout Gamergate. Consistently the anti-Gamergate groups and speakers lacked in diversity, while gaming events, conventions (and Gamergate itself) were a whirlpool of diversity – in thought as well as gender, colour and sexuality[94]. Thought to be the one that matters.
NotYourShield was set up as a counter-narrative to these claims made against Gamergate's diversity. Self-identified Gamergaters (and others) who had minority status spoke up, using the hashtag, appealing to journalists and activists to stop presuming to speak for them and to stop attacking a cause they believed in. None of them took up the challenge, despite continuing to claim to speak for minorities.
Inside Gamergate Page 9