Anita Sarkeesian Never Supported #cancelcolbert: Debunking the Latest #gamergate Lie

After Anita Sarkeesian’s debut on the Colbert Report, #gamergate and KotakuInAction jumped on the supposed hypocrisy of inviting her on the show:

When you look carefully at the source, however, you find a different story entirely.

She never says anything about #cancelcolbert. Her entire text is here:

Another short excerpt from this must read article by Katherine Cross on the vile oppressive backlash women like Suey Park, Adria Richards and I face for speaking up about social issues online.

Never once did she espouse any opinions about #cancelcolbert. In much the same way that even people who do not agree with Sarkeesian find the way she’s been treated abhorrent, her speaking out about the abuse Suey Park faced is not (and never was) an endorsement of her views.

She makes no mention of supporting #cancelcolbert. All she mentioned was finding the obscene backlash Suey Park faced to be abhorrent. To conflate that with “she wanted to cancel the Colbert Show!” is disingenuous or ignorant at best, and an outright attempt slandering her through misrepresentation at worst.

She did tag the #cancelcolbert hashtag at the end of her post, but there’s a simple explanation that doesn’t imply endorsement at all: she wanted to enter the conversation about #cancelcolbert and as such tagged it so it could be found through the hashtag. Much in the same way tagging #gamergate is not an endorsement of #gamergate: it just means you want to interact with the hashtag and the people in it. The sentiment being expressed matters, not the hashtag.

It’s also worth noting that Stephen Colbert himself used the hashtag in question.

Unfortunately, as with most #gamergate lies, facts seem to matter little to those forwarding them.

On School Shootings, #gamergate, and Bigotry

In the aftermath of the recent tragic school shooting, #gamergate became quite inflamed at the comments of Anita Sarkeesian.

Below are the comments in question:

#gamergate seems to perceive this as an attack on men, rather than an attack on the societal forces, scripts and gender roles that influence men in ways that enable this sort of thing to happen.

Responses like these were common:

(The images above come from David Futrulle’s article on We Hunted the Mammoth, which does a great job of documenting the toxicity on display here.)

My concern here is not the toxicity of the messages in question, but the outright rejection of what she’s saying as some sort of attack on men. What she’s saying is precisely the opposite of an attack on men; it’s an attack on the societal values pressed onto men.

And in comes Thunderf00t. He has what can only be seen as a typical response given his anti-feminist stance: he interprets this as an inappropriate assault on men. There’s his usual problematic content– victim blaming, pretending Sarkeesian is somehow “playing the poor, demure persecuted woman,” etc.

But things take a turn for the unexpected. His bigotry towards men comes out.

He goes on to talk about the role testosterone plays in aggression. He’s correct, it does. But he takes this even further– it quickly crosses into the threshold of biological determinism.

In other words, he believes the fact that men are committing school shootings and killing sprees as frequently as they are when compared to women is a fundamental, intrinsic and unchangeable part of being male.

To deny cultural forces affect your behavior (not to mention affect your biology!) is profoundly ignorant. It’s a complete rejection of what we know about social science and psychology.

Worst of all, however, is that it’s downright bigoted.

Anita Sarkeesian is saying the problems are cultural and can be changed. Thunderf00t is saying the problems are intrinsic to being men and are unchangeable.

#gamergate should be outraged, but they’re outraged at the wrong person.

Milo Yiannopoulos Violated the SPJ Code In His #gamergate Coverage

#gamergate likes to bring up the SPJ quite frequently. They have an ethical code of journalistic conduct they refer to frequently. However, they don’t seem to realize their favorite journalist violates this code in his coverage of Quinn.

He Needlessly and Recklessly Revealed Personal Information

He reveals her legal name, which was private information. The context he does this in is particularly important: hundreds of thousands of people are incensed (you can see the youtube views of internet aristocrat for evidence of this fact) via lies and slander told about her. The SPJ has the following to say on the matter, under the subsection of minimizing harm:

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage…

…

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

…

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

It is at least hypothetically possible there was some compelling need to share her legal name. If that was the case, this compelling need should have been shared:

Be Accountable and Transparent

…

– Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.”

He Stereotypes Feminists and Engages in Gossip, Not Journalism

Under “Minimize Harm” the SPJ states to “Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do” yet the article in question has irrelevant personal gossip included, even if the title of the article– “Lying, Greedy, Promiscuous Feminist Bullies…”

Her alleged promiscuity has no journalistic relevance what-so-ever, other than to slut shame and to engage in character assassination and stereotyping. Which, by the way, the SPJ also condemns:

– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

The “anti-#gamergate” side has no opposition to ethical reporting and bringing up ethical issues. If #gamergate is concerned with ethical issues in journalism, they need to confront Milo Yiannopoulos immediately, demand a retraction, apology and update to the article in question.

John and Hank Green Need to Speak Out Against #gamergate

As most people reading this blog entry are either viewing this because of #gamergate or because of their opposition to it, I should clarify who John and Hank Green are for anyone unaware:

John and Hank Green run a pretty awesome series of vlogs and educational videos. John Green’s also known as the author of The Fault in Our Stars.

I had always hoped they would speak out against #gamergate, as they’ve been known to be pretty progressive and inclusive socially. Both of them also occasionally post on their gaming channel. It’s clear that at the very least, John Green is aware of what has been going on in gaming circles these past few months as he posted in support of Felicia Day’s recent harassment after she spoke out.

Up until now, this has mostly been a “it would be really nice if they chose to speak out” in support of women, minorities and feminists who feel like they’re suddenly under attack and unwelcome in gaming circles. But things got a little more complicated recently.

The Fine Young Capitalists, the organization that’s partaken in much of the slander that enabled the unjustified abuse to be aimed at Zoe Quinn, recently claimed “the vlogbrothers charity” supported them.

This is a group that publicly espouses its “feminist” ideology while agreeing to include a mascot from #gamergate supporters that’s a reference to a rape joke. It’s a “feminist” group that refused to condemn the harassment, slander and lies aimed at Zoe Quinn– in fact, it participated in many of those lies directly.

If either John or Hank happen to read this: please take the time to understand what’s going on thoroughly and speak publicly about it. You’ve been an amazing voice and ally for the disenfranchised for a long time, and we really need your support. At the very least, please clarify what happened with The Fine Young Capitalists.

Cameragirl’s Continued Sexual Harassment of those Opposed to #gamergate

I feel the need to establish why this is so troubling.

Many of these women feel incredibly threatened and unsafe by the climate created by #gamergate and what’s been happening as of late. As such, many of them are speaking out against it.

In many of these cases, the women are incredibly distressed and upset in the very conversation immediately before this happens.

If this was an isolated incident, it might not be as damning. But it’s happening over and over again, even to women that have explicitly said they’re uncomfortable with what she’s doing. #gamergate seems to have no issue with any of this.

Here’s a link to the imgur album documenting all of this.

Update: For whatever it’s worth, although she admitted no wrongdoing, Cameralady agreed to stop hitting on “anti-GG” women as a result of the opposition to her actions.

Collection of #gamergate Misconceptions & Lies

There are two possible ways to interpret these factually incorrect statements: either they’re an outright, direct lie or they are reckless misinformation being forwarded as fact without fact checking. In either case, they’re guilty of slander. There’s a reason actual journalistic outlets fact check and offer retractions.

• Zoe Quinn slept with people for reviews: never happened, no one she had a sexual relationship with ever reviewed anything she made.
• … Well, then, she slept with people for positive press: Still no. This was investigated and debunked by Kotaku. This was also confirmed to be impossible even by Zoe’s ex.
• Zoe Quinn launched a DDoS attack on The Fine Young Capitalists. The Fine Young Capitalists admits this never happened. Their website did accidentally go down after Zoe tweeted about it (via what is known as the Slashdot effect) but this is not the same as a DDoS attack.
• Zoe Quinn won an award at Indiecade because of her personal relationships. She never won an award at Indiecade, nor was she even a finalist for one of them.
• Zoe Quinn never donated a portion of her game’s proceeds to charity, despite claiming she did: this was proved completely baseless within 24 hours of the original accusation.
• Zoe Quinn is accepting donations for Rebel Game Jam, despite having no way to differentiate between those donations and personal donations to her through her own site: again, incorrect. You can find this out yourself live by clicking the donate button on the Rebel Jam site.
• Zoe Quinn created the Rebel Game Jam to benefit from the publicity over TFYC, as a direct competitor: Completely baseless, as can be seen from the description on the site itself. TFYC as a project where they’d make a game based on an idea from a woman. Rebel Game Jam is not woman-only, it’s not a contest, they don’t make the game for you, and the goal of the whole thing is to document the game jam process and upload videos of it to youtube in a documentary style. They literally have nothing to do with one another.
• Zoe Quinn’s criticism of TFYC was baseless and unfair: she had plenty of completely legitimate problems with how TFYC was being run and who was running it. You can disagree with her criticism of them, but there is no way you can say it was baseless– they’re not teaching women to make games, they’re making them for them, and these people have never made a game before, among other things.
• Phil Fish hacked himself to make #gamergate look bad: these kind of conspiracy theories are disturbingly common in #gamergate, but this one’s even more absurd than most. If he just wanted to make it look like he was hacked to make #gamergate look bad, he wouldn’t have released personal information of his employees. This would open him up to enormous lawsuits. All to… smear random people?
• Anita Sarkeesian lied about talking to the police. The reporter who made this original claim retracted it fully. She was dealing with the FBI this whole time, even as people were screaming “she lied! she never contacted the police!”
• Jenn Frank refused to disclose her patreon contributions in her article in The Guardian: She did disclose, The Guardian removed it. For this she was harassed out of the industry. The Guardian looked at the disclosure and determined it was not relevant.
• Maya Kramer colluded with IGF to get The Stanley Parable awards. The only award won was voted by the public.
• Anita Sarkeesian made up or faked the mass shooting/massacre threat: When a threat like this occurs, it is the job of law enforcement to determine of the threat poses a real, immediate risk to the public or not. Saying it does not (as was later determined) does not mean the threat was “faked” or made up.
• Anita Sarkeesian says all gamers are sexist and/or misogynistic: This is an issue with comprehension. She never says this, anywhere. Art and pop culture both reflect and shape pop culture, often in subtle ways. The thesis is never “if you play games you’ll become a horrible misogynist.”
• Jonathan McIntosh is the “real voice” behind Feminist Frequency: this is both absurd, unfounded, and insulting. Yes, he is a co-writer and a producer for the show. This does not invalidate that it is primarily Sarkeesian’s work. She wrote her master’s thesis on representation issues in geek portrayals of women in media; she clearly had an interest in the subject matter long before any association with McIntosh.
• Brianna Wu used a “serious autism picture” to mock #gamergate: This originated here despite being completely baseless. It’s a stock photo of a child throwing a temper tantrum. That stock photo was also once used in one site about autism.. That doesn’t make it a “serious autism picture.”
• “Game Journalism Pros” involved collusion among writers: People are confusing “collusion” with “people talking about what they write about, and the ethical considerations of their coverage.” There’s a reason only Breitbart picked up this story; there’s no substance to it. It was sensationalism, nothing more.
• “Gamers Are Dead” was a coordinated attack and the result of collusion: Leigh Alexander’s piece was the original (which was aimed at developers, not attacking consumers). The other pieces are direct responses to Alexander’s piece. In other words, this isn’t the result of collusion, but dialogue around an idea forwarded by her.

These are some of the absurd claims that have proven to be patently false upon even moderate inspection, yet they’re still being used to slander these people to this very day. These kind of baseless accusations are ruining peoples lives and invading their privacy.

Nevermind the incredibly bizarre preoccupation with people like Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with journalism.