Gamer Felicia Day on Gamergate

I’ll grant you that there may be a small population of genuinely well-meaning people who are naive and/or really bad at PR, and have decided that Gamergate is the ideal wagon to hitch their genuine concern for games journalism to. I’m uncertain about calling those people “reasonable,” though.


Gamergate has been compared to Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads.

I’ve witnessed the stuff they say firsthand live in person, via a high school club I work with. These young men read something and agree with it 100%, whether or not it’s true, because it seems that some lady was reported to have done stuff that will ruin the gaming industry if allowed to continue unchecked.

I asked them point-blank if it was OK to issue death threats to these women, and they said that that was ridiculous, of course not. So the ones issuing the death threats must be a different breed from your average clueless gamergate lot. Or maybe they just wouldn’t admit to that in public. Whatever, the venom is real.


That’s an excellent summary.

I mentioned in an earlier comments thread that I sat next to a guy at work who was in the “hates the misogynists but really and sincerely believes they’re a distraction from the real issue of conflicts of interest in games journalism” camp. There are people here who really are well-meaning and who are supporting the #gamergate side out of personal integrity – on the one hand, I can understand their frustration in being lumped in with a bunch of horrible people who constitute (I hope) a loud minority; on the other, well, they’re the ones who decided to latch onto this issue right as it was raised in the context of a jealous ex-boyfriend airing private details about a woman’s sex life.


I suspect that an awful lot of it is defensive. There have been a lot of headlines that seem to treat “gamers” as a monolithic group, talking about misogyny in gamer culture and, famously, asking if this scandal is the end of gamers (“Are gamers dead?” was the headline, if I’m not mistaken).

Most people don’t want to be called misogynists, or lumped in with misogynists. A person is likelier to respond to such criticism by becoming defensive, rather than listening critically.

Me? I’m not much of a joiner. I play a lot of video games, and I’ve been playing a lot of video games for 25 years; I don’t really think of myself as a capital-G Gamer. Maybe that’s why, when I see headlines talking about misogyny in gamer culture, my first thought is “Yeah, that’s a real problem” instead of protesting “But I’M a gamer and I’M not a misogynist!”

I dunno. As I’ve said elsewhere, I talked to a coworker a week or two back about #gamergate, and it was interesting to hear his perspective on it. I get the impression that there are probably a lot of guys like him who are well-meaning, who consider “gamer” to be a very important part of their identity and who get upset at seeing negative headlines with the word “gamer” in them, who don’t understand the harm of the various sexist tropes that are prevalent both in the medium and among fans, and who really would rather talk about inappropriate relationships between publishers and reviewers.

I’m not trying to excuse the #gamergate crowd, and I can’t say as I really agree with my coworker. But I think I got a little perspective into their side.

That is, the ones who AREN’T threatening and harassing women. Fuck the guys who are.


Gamergate: Trolls pushing buttons.


Seriously, how many people are really worried to the core of their being about the integrity of games journalism? And why is the discussion and anger skewed towards women?

I’d really love it if some of these apparently well intentioned and misunderstood crusaders for purity in games journalism felt as strongly about journalism in general, which is currently dying in the gutter, apparently without attracting much attention.



Go read “Are gamers dead?”

It is an article extolling the acceptance of video games & those that play them by mainstream popular culture. That has occurred.

Everyone that plays video games & consumes media has or will differentiate between people who play video games and Gamergate “gamers”. Except the stupid fools who are so stupid they have provided a foolproof way to identify a certain brand of fool. You get them to assign a hashtag to themselves while behaving as they normally would.

These people have done that, now anyone/puppet that speaks up for Gamergate is immediately identifiable as

A. of the 99%+ of Gamergate supporters/losers who are openly misogynists or quietly supportive of them.

B. of the oft-hailed, never seen .01% of Gamergate supporters/losers who are crying butthurt for being lumped in, while doggedly demanding to be lumped in.

In any case, they’ll have to hire each other, serve Alec Baldwin food, give rough blowjobs to Cernovich, or otherwise live with having been so willfully, blindly, stupid.

It doesn’t end well for any but the repentant who complete a remedial course set including certification in Empathy, Humanity & Human Rights, Equality, Public Relations & Marketing and How to Lie Convincingly, even though they’ll be expected to do the last one only as punishment for lying so poorly to begin with.

All you said is that a lot of guys with a dumb hashtag & fake cause are ridiculously stupid in the context of being alive in 2014. That’s it.


that is one patient spam bot…just biding his time! :slight_smile:

1 Like
Seriously, how many people are really worried to the core of their being about the integrity of games journalism?

Dunno. I’ve met one. Possibly two?

And why is the discussion and anger skewed towards women?

My coworker’s answer would probably be “Because the media are focusing on the issue that makes better headlines.”

My answer is “Because it’s pretty fucking hard to start a conversation with a guy posting misogynistic smears against his ex-girlfriend and NOT have the rest of that conversation be about misogyny.”

I'd really love it if some of these apparently well intentioned and misunderstood crusaders for purity in games journalism felt as strongly about journalism in general, which is currently dying in the gutter, apparently without attracting much attention.

Mentioned this in an earlier thread – when I said something like that, my coworker responded, “I can’t do anything to change the corruption in the mainstream press. I CAN do something to change the corruption in video game press.”

And hey, if this DOES help shine more light on inappropriate relationships between publishers and journalists (like, say, the story about pre-release Shadow of Mordor videos being allowed on Youtube only if they were positive), then I think that’s great. But I really think the people who are trying to use #gamergate as a vehicle for that conversation have picked the wrong wagon to hitch themselves to.

(Wagons are vehicles, right? I think that prevents that sentence from being a mixed metaphor.)

1 Like

I say this a lot these days, but goddamnit I wish that were funnier.

I’ve never met a person so shallow as to consider ethics in consumer marketing journalism to be core to their person while simultaneously dumb enough to find merit in something that’s only related in a fake way to begin with.

I’m not sure I’d admit to having a coworker like that. You should have made him your subordinate.

It is an article extolling the acceptance of video games & those that play them by mainstream popular culture. That has occurred.
That's the thing, though: we're talking about a section of the population that is UPSET by that, people who think that it's Very Important to distinguish between people who play Angry Birds and people who play, I don't know, Destiny and shit. They think "Gamer" is an important label and a part of their identity, and when people point out that the label is essentially meaningless, that upsets them.

For my part, I think the whole thing smacks of gatekeeper pretentiousness. But then, a lot of people are pretty insecure.

All you said is that a lot of guys with a dumb hashtag & fake cause are ridiculously stupid in the context of being alive in 2014. That's it.

At least you came away from my post with some idea of what I was saying. Can’t say the same for yours; it sort of descends into gibberish at the end there. What was all that about Alec Baldwin? Even if you meant “Adam” I’m still not quite sure what the hell you’re talking about.

I’m just trying to offer a little perspective. I chatted with a guy who I respect and like and I’ve tried to understand his viewpoint a bit even though it doesn’t match my own. Calling people “ridiculously stupid” on the Internet is easy; engaging them face-to-face as human beings comes with a different ruleset.

People are people. People are flawed. People fuck up. You can choose to believe your “99%+” and “.01%” numbers that you just made up, and hey, maybe they’re right. I choose to believe most people are probably well-meaning and the ones who are horrifying are a very loud minority.

I don’t suppose it matters; the end result is really the same. I think it’s way too late to suggest people with different beliefs just sit down and talk to each other civilly. Hell, I would never have done that myself if I hadn’t found myself sitting next to somebody who brought it up.


It´s kinda sad how she sais “everything has always been cool” but now that “the media” has blown it out of proportion she is in fear again.

Think about that when you write your next blog post. Is it something important that needs to be said or is it argenda and personal opinion driven stuff that actualy makes a ton of good suddenly apear as a whole and entire “big bad”.

All of this discusion is so missguided. People don´t have problems because they are heavy gamers. Just as everyone agrees that no one goes to shoot kids in a school because of videogames no one should agree that all men are rapist assholes because of boobs in games. It´s just not like that. It´s not. It never was.

If you meet someone thinking he is an asshole it will show. If you meet me with that argenda OBVIUSLY i will not react to it like a care bear undless i put tremendus amounts of energie to it. And why would i do that? Your just someone on the internet calling me an asshole because i game and i am male. It´s much easier to think “your an asshole” aswell and move on with life. And BOOM you got your next story - look at me and how i acted like an asshole towards you. Downward spiral. GG (Good Game)

1 Like

I think it can be summed up in one word: Diversity.

The traditional audience that the video game industry caters to is mostly young and male. The gamerhaters don’t like the idea of the video game industry opening up to females, and especially not to females creating non-traditional games. Nor do the gamerhaters like the game industry being called out for the sexist treatment of women in video games. And they’re resorting to harassment, rape and death threats, as well as exposing the details of peoples’ personal lives, to show their disapproval.

The idea that gamerhate has anything to do with journalistic ethics is a bullshit cover story based on lies.


If they wanted civil conversation, they’d stop threatening, doxxing, sockpuppeting, derailing, terrorizing etc. But they continue to this day.

I know that most people are well-meaning, that’s why the end benefit of Gamergate will decidedly not be any improvement or light shone upon ethics in consumer marketing journalism.

It’ll be the fact it has provided a identifying tag for a particular subset of the horrifying very loud vocal minority -and your coworker- and the vanishingly small number of people like your coworker, un-named, unspoken, unheard, who are dumb enough to doggedly demand they are GamerGate but not like those other guys, typically referenced in third person accounts?

Adam and Alec need to be served food by someone & serving food is honest work and provides just enough income to allow for a low-rent home with broadband. Thank god Adam can get them all jobs, all the ones that Cernovich can’t use anyway.

You’re dead wrong about most people involved with GamerGate being well-meanng. Which you infer in this paragraph

Look at the information provided above, the analysis of the convo on twitter. These are an extremely small number of the huge numbers of game players. But they are the primary body of Gamergate. Even at the beginning, but even moreso now, GamerGate is not & never was a well-meaning body with a vocal minority. It never happened.

OR can you show different numbers, or journalistic accounts that support your well-meaning, apologistic-shaded inferences?


Ms. Day did not say “everything’s always been cool,” and she never mentioned blaming the media for feeling scared.

That is, however, the Gamergate-approved talking point response to the article: “Felicia’s cool, it’s too bad the media scared her away from nice gamers.” There is literally no way to read her post and come to that conclusion. She is scared of Gamergate, full stop. And she is right to be.


Nobody is saying that—at least nobody anybody is listening to. Not even the Nasssty Sarkeesianses. No, what you are doing is posting agenda-driven stuff to make something with a ton of good look all bad.

Sorry, argenda-driven.


That she’s fearful to talk about gamerhate has fuck-all to do with “the media” and rather more to the gamerhaters making those “abusive and condescending tweets” she refers to.


The data suggests that those concerned about journalistic ethics are a minority and that gamergate’s focus is largely cultural not ethical.

Speaking of data, the gater’s are now employing it to try to argue that their movement is not about the LWs. They’re using what I’ve christened the “Now with only 2% LWs!” argument. Someone on Ars Technica pointed out, correctly, that less than 10% of gamergate tweets mention the LWs. This is a really deceptive number and it reminds me of lowfat milk.

Bear with me here. A carton of lowfat milk will advertise itself as possessing only 2% fat. This is a trick designed to make people think that 2% of the calories are from fat when, in reality, it means that 2% of the weight of the product is fat. Now milk is about 90% water and water has zero calories which means that only ~10% of the weight of the product has any calories. Therefore 20% of the weight of the caloric part (two is 20% of ten) is fat. Since fat has twice as many calories per gram (~8.8) as a gram of protein (~4.4) or a gram of carbohydrates (~4.4) the fat calories are actually even more than 20% of the total. The USDA requires food companies to list the total number of calories from fat per serving on the package so you can easily check this discrepancy yourself.

How does lowfat milk relate to gamergate tweets? As Humbabella pointed out in the previous thread, if you add up the total number of mentions of not just the LWs but also all the alleged corruption scandals as well as everything on that boycott list it only comes out to about 10% (10.2674237%) of the total number of gamergate tweets (161,688 out of 1,574,767).

Among those 10% of tweets that mention any of the things gamergate complains about, only 9778 are about any of the alleged corruption scandals (Grayson, Shadow of Mordor, Australian games journalism, Hernandez-Anthropy, IGF/Indiecade, the gamejournopros mailing list, and DMCA abuse). If I include Rock, Paper, Shotgun (who published Grayson’s article mentioning Depression Quest) and Kotaku (where Hernandez works) the total is 18,452. The LWs (excluding Alexander) are mentioned 31,101 times, 68% more frequently than the corruption allegations. If I add in the term SJW (like the gater did in his topsy search), the total is 52,574, nearly three times (2.849230436) as many mentions as the corruption allegations. If Alexander is considered an LW, the total is 60,374, more than three times as many mentions as the corruption allegations. So, in the best case scenario, the LWs are talked about 68% more frequently than allegations of corruption.

Here’s an interesting question: What’s in the other 90% of those tweets? Humbabella said most of the tweets she looked at contained no real content beyond the hashtag itself. Now this is, of course, anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. But whatever it is in those tweets, it sure isn’t the alleged corruption scandals. Maybe those other tweets are the water in the milk.

Here’s the gater’s link:“Sarkeesian”%20-“Anita”%20-Quinnspiracy%20-%40Quinnspiracy%20-“Zoe”%20-“Quinn”%20-“LW”%20-“LiterallyWho”%20-“LiterallyWu”%20-“LW1”%20-“LW2”%20-“LW3”%20-feminism%20-feminazi%20-“Brianna”%20-“Wu”%20-SJW%20-women%20-woman&via=Topsy

You’ll notice that the link contains a number of search terms I didn’t research in my post: femfreq, quinnspiracy, lw, literallywho, literallywu, lw1, lw2, lw3, feminism, feminazi, women, and woman. Had I included them in my numbers it would have tilted the results even further in favor of the LWs.


I like that there’s people who don’t go off all half-cocked the way I do.

1 Like