Gamergate revisited

A piece I wrote on Gamergate back in September went viral. It called the defeat of Gamergate inevitable because of the forces of cultural inertia stacked against it. The actual outcome was in some ways predictable, but otherwise quite surprising.

Gamergate didn’t win – but it didn’t lose

I attributed Gamergate losing to a phenomenon that in fact did come to pass. The groovy media intelligentsia did everything in its power to paint Gamergate as a simultaneously laughable yet dangerous hate movement that exposed male geeks as crypto-Nazis. To any normally socialized and status-conscious type of person, the media gambit would have led to the spiral of silence that I foresaw. The important factor here is that geeks, by definition, are not normally socialized and status-conscious people. This is particularly true when speaking ex cathedra from their identity as geeks; the threat of looking uncool doesn’t work because they are already uncool. They are already pariahs with ‘lame’ hobbies. Media elites and uncool nerds are two fundamentally different types of people.

Every single dominant cultural institution was stacked against Gamergate. Nobody had the intellectual bravery to side with a movement that was apparently just bitter nerds being prejudiced. Gamergate was rapidly becoming a dirty word in the mouths of anyone concerned with looking sensitive and enlightened. Thousands upon thousands, armed with roughly zero information on the controversy, were tripping over each other to signal their righteous “socially aware” status. “Misogynerds” were in the crosshairs.

And to their credit, the geeks came out pretty unscathed. Only through their tenacity and lack of concern with their image did Gamergate not get nuked from the chic heights of media that stooped to notice it. The desperately fashionable media displayed its contempt for nerds for “not being with the program.” The problem is that they only had a little less contempt before this fiasco. This is just another example of the people in media, entertainment and academia having a values dissonance with pretty much everyone else. That’s what a cultural elite is – a set of people with values not necessarily shared by the general public, but with a near-monopoly on cultural soapboxes to promulgate their ideas.

Gamergate slavishly played the left’s identity game

People of Gamergate

The figures elevated to the top of the Gamergate movement had one of two qualities – their identities as white males were concealed or played down, or they were not white males and such identities were played up. These people are certainly thoughtful, intelligent individuals that deserve to have their voices heard. That’s not being contested. I just think it’s clear that, mutatis mutandis, the same ideas from a black/female/trans Gamergater will get more shares than they would if they were from a white male. This isn’t as much ignoble as it is just a Darwinian survival response to an environment (the media, old or new) that operates on top of hard-left ideological assumptions about truth itself. To the ideologue, truth has nothing to do with any facts concerning objective reality; it has everything to do with the realities of the supposed power status of the class that the individual taking a position is supposedly a part of.

Look at Alejandro Arganonda’s “People of Gamergate” gallery. The red portraits are anti-GG folks and blue portraits are pro-GG. Notice how the vast majority of the anti-Gamergate “bad guys” are shown to be white males, whereas the pro side has only a handful. The bulk of the Gamergate personalities with a significant bully pulpit are not white and/or not male. Those with pictures that aren’t of their faces can only be assumed to be white males. If they were female or non-whites, why wouldn’t the leverage that to score some points in a game that your opposition cannot help but play?

Instead of saying “fuck you, identities don’t matter, only arguments do” or even “It’s OK to be a white male,” Gamergate played ball. Proof of the movement’s righteousness and honesty did not come from the facts or arguments, but from the volume of pro-GG commentary coming from non-whites and non-males.

It can’t be stressed enough that this isn’t an indictment of Gamergate. It’s an indictment of our cultural climate. Gamergate wanted to see journalists actually have, you know, ethical standards. Gamergate wanted to stop neo-Marxist fanatics from imposing politics on the hitherto apolitical. To stay alive in the war for public opinion and actually achieve these goals, this had to happen.

Gamergate learned from its opposition and used their tactics

There were clearly fake public threats against pro-Gamergaters. These directly mirrored the original bogus threats made against anti-Gamergate personalities.

As underhanded as it seems, this tactic was probably necessary. It’s a powerful co-opting because basically three things can result from it:

  1. The threats are given roughly the same weight as the threats to the anti-GG camp are given
  2. The threats are treated as farcical, thus recognizing threats in general and on the other side as possibly (probably) fake
  3. The threats are ignored, and then unfair contrast of media coverage can be pointed out.

What happened was a whole lot of number three. The media had already shot its wad with politicizing Gamergate, and even if there was a desire for fair coverage of threats, the news hook was stale. This is a valuable lesson to anyone who is a victim of shitty false-flag sympathy tactics: do the same thing. It’s an arms race of dishonesty, but I just don’t see any way around it. The arms race needs to continue until it collapses under the weight of its own farce, and dishonest or otherwise sympathy garnering ad hominems are no longer part of the discourse.


The roaring flames of #Gamergate have since become guttering embers, but it’s not an isolated incident. It is merely a battle in the war between those who want to limit the scope of ideology and fanatics who believe that their dogma needs to be implemented everywhere. So even if you’re a third party who doesn’t care about video games, you should give the next Gamergate your moral support, whatever it may be. The aspects of our society that haven’t yet been politicized are a precious few.


  1. The problem is that GG can’t call up the New York Times and get it’s voice heard. The antigamer crowd is very well connected and has to only pick up the phone to make the front page of the culture section. A bunch of gamers will never be press darlings.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. On the other hand, we have the benefit of actually buying games. So the economic advantage to the software publishers and software developers of supporting their audience is very strong, far more so than a bullshot in the NYT.


      1. Bingo, as a gamer I have personally never been very concerned about the actual games being ruined by SJW’s. The invisible hand of economics, combined with the number of Japanese and Eastern European developers, is just too much for the enemy to overcome. A few gay characters in Mass Effect is not a big deal, and games like “Gone Home” are not exactly taking over the industry.

        Thats not to say that Gamergate was not important though, it was very much the front line of a culture war.


    2. I don’t think you understand; the goal of Gamergate never was to be press darlings. The media, both on the left and on the right, has been attacking video games for decades and their opinion was never going to matter. What that matters is that the gamers get the message that their hobby is under attack, and by that measure Gamergate has already been a stunning success. Gamergate has only just begun, there’s less noise over it ATM than it was at its peak, but ultimately its final success will be measured by the amount of websites closed and corrupt people put out of jobs because of it, and if you think Gamergate hasn’t won you are in for a massive surprise in the upcoming years.


  2. Well stated.
    The only distinctions I would make it there were FAR more credible threats (some carried out) against gamergate.
    None of the threats of antiGG seem to have proof, or even direct association with gamergate at all.
    The promotion of threats (genuine or suspect) was also largely done with full acknowledgement of the farce of the whole thing.
    It wasn’t so much a demand to take all threats equally seriously, it was more to outline exactly what you do with your three points on the issue.
    Prominent GG individuals would essentially mock the threats targeting them.


  3. False Flag attacks are VERY rarely justifiable, and now is not one of those times. If you’re using False Flag attacks to indirectly make a point about False Flagging, just make that point. If people don’t listen to you when you make your point directly, politely, honestly, and above all else without using False Flag attacks, then you’ve done your due diligence and at least you know you didn’t make things worse because you believed in something.


    1. The point is that false flagging had to be done in response to show the inanity of socjus’ false flagging. Just saying “don’t false flag it’s lame, we have proof” doesn’t work when your enemy propagandizes it as “omg they’re belittling OUR HARASSMENT”. False flagging in response to false flagging drags ‘harassment’ as a front into a broiling turmoil where no one can claim victory, for GG in this case it was a good thing.

      Just knowing you believed in something and “did your due diligence” is a pretty shitty award when taking action would actually fix, or at least stave off, an anti-intellectual assault. Like anti-GG provoked GG into playing the “feels over reals” game by boosting minority spokespersons, GG provoked anti-GG into playing the “facts about harassment” game. Or more accurately, they tried to and anti-GG decided to stop playing (at least on a large scale) because they lacked the facts.


  4. “There were clearly fake public threats against pro-Gamergaters.”

    Clearly? Then you can provide clear cited evidence?

    Because it sounds to me like you are taking an uncontroversial hypothetical (fake threats were possibly made by pro-GG), making it real, and then hold it up as a deliberate and decisive strategy in … not winning and not losing?

    I disagree that GG used their opponent’s tactics. GG demonstrated what their opponent’s tactics actually say about their own values. They didn’t swarm people with outrage, they posted facts and logic. It’s just that people unused to being disagreed with confused that with harassment.


  5. Gamergate was important for two reasons.

    1. It put a spotlight on some truly bad journalistic practices in the industry.
    For far too long the standards of games journalism has been too low and this movement, at the very least, separated the good from the bad.

    2. It pushed back against the narrative of the “evil trolling gamer.” After years of being told that our hobby is made up mostly of women hating basement dwellers, people finally started looking around and saying, “Wait a sec. That’s not me or anybody I know. How can that possibly be the norm?”


Sound off

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s