GamerGate's Image Problem

[AntiChri5]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamer Gate with, and all the negative connotations that comes with it (as well as the stupid name, Gamer Gate? Seriously? It's fucking video games for christ's sake).

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

Because she had sex with games journalists.
A games developer, having sex with games journalists.
Do you not see the issue?
If it had been anyone else, no one would give a shit.

No, she had sex with a single games journalist who, it has been proven, has not shown her any favoritism.

 

[Mr. Omega]

We just want to read game news without an agenda shoved down our throats. I hope when this is all over our community here won't be fractured.

Yeah, GG lost any right to make that claim when Breitbart entered the picture. And they wren't exactly safe in making that claim beforehand, what with such fine folks like Adam Baldwin and Davis Aurini on their side before the name was even coined. GG embraced an agenda right at its outset. And that's what bugs me more than anything: GG is a right-wing rage mob that insists that theirs is the neutral view when it clearly is not.

I get that not everyone associates with them, but there has to come a point where one must realize the overall movement is past a point of no return. That the movement doesn't actually want what they said they wanted when you joined. I tried to overlook the ugly start of GG and hope they'd actually try and do something good. But they've only been getting worse.

 

[aliengmr]

You know, I want to point out one small issue.

I get the impression that Anita Sarkeesian is reflective of the "SJWs" that is the enemy of GG.

I don't see her in that way when it comes to the games industry.

I am trying to simplify the disconnect we may be having.

 

[runic knight]

You know, I want to point out one small issue.

I get the impression that Anita Sarkeesian is reflective of the "SJWs" that is the enemy of GG.

I don't see her in that way when it comes to the games industry.

I am trying to simplify the disconnect we may be having.

So what if I say that I think sexism is a thing, and that in the games industry it is something that need fixing. That its okay to criticize social issues in games with the understanding that it doesn't reflect on you. That's its at the developers discretion to take those criticisms to heart and the gamers discretion to purchase games they want to play.

I would say that, yes, I have moderately feminist views and want those discussions to take place, but no inclination to force those views on games themselves. Criticisms? Yes. I want that.

Am I your enemy?

Not in the least. Actually, you would be arguing from the same position I do as well in that vein.
It isn't that gaming doesn't have issues, or that it can't have political, social or cultural discussions within it. Actually, doing so shows the growth of it as an artform and an industry.

The problem arrives when the discussions on that are skewed with a moral absolutism that is used to manipulate and manufacture outrage that is then directed, be it to deflect legitimate criticisms or to attack people.

An example of the difference would be thus. Spec Ops: The Line is largely regarded as a great game for the twist in the story and the way it forced people to think about their actions as a player. The first Bioshock was an exploration of a very Ayn Rand philosophy run amok. They were smart games that tried to use gaming to tackle the ideas involved in a way that only gaming as an interactive medium could. They were not perfect, but they were criticized fairly for their failings and still stood out as examples of how to do that right.

On the flip side, since the relation of its creator in all of this, Depression Quest is a terrible game. Barely constituting as a game because of a lack of scoring or "win" condition leaving it a computerized choose your own adventure story, the way it handled the subject matter and what was presented about it was very flawed. However when criticized, the criticism was called misogyny and detractors were attacked because they failed to meet a moral standard in the exact same tactic as someone being called a "communist" would be in the Red Scare.

That is as clear example of the difference I can think of off the top of my head.

as for Anita, she represents the latter, as criticisms of her work were dismissed as "misogyny" with the same sort of tactics. That is why she is largely seen reflective of the issue with "sjw" as a whole.

 

[entelechy]

Now to sum up the thread so far, it seems like the best suggestion we've gotten is the idea of a SourceWatch for gaming news sites. That's an idea that I think anyone could support regardless of their "side."

But the dominant response to this thread from pro-gamergate posters has been to either claim that the image problem is purely a result of "lies" spread by opponents or that this image problem cannot be solved without damaging the movement in some way, and thus they have to live with it. The first of these arguments is at odds with the facts. Awful behavior by the anti-Quinn movement (and the later gamergate movement as well) is well documented. So, the only real argument is that the image problem is real, but that this is a price worth paying in order to maintain cohesion, momentum and/or key contributors.

This is an interesting claim. It essentially means that the toxic anti-Quinn people within gamergate are considered indispensable to the movement. I realize that not everyone would share my view that Internet Aristocrat (who made the videos in the original #gamergate tweet) is a sexist jerk. However, I think it is undeniable that a major concern and motivation of his is specifically to counter feminist and social justice critiques of video games. So, if IA is an indispensable part of the movement, then gamergate is explicitly a movement about anti-feminism. It may have other issues, but if IA is an indispensable part of the movement, anti-feminism is definitely one of gamergate's core issues.

It also appears that at least some pro-GG people would actually agree that fighting Social Justice Warriors is an important goal of the movement. I don't think that view is universal, but it is at least there. It's also easy to see why Quinn and Sarkeesian would keep getting brought up (even in GG echo chambers) by the part of the movement that is riled up about fighting SJWs.

So, my questions to pro-GG posters are:

Do you think anti-feminism (or even anti-some-feminism) is a key issue that gamergate is fighting for?

If you answered no, do you feel that people who answered yes are something to be concerned about?

 

[Nirallus]

We just want to read game news without an agenda shoved down our throats. I hope when this is all over our community here won't be fractured.

Yeah, GG lost any right to make that claim when Breitbart entered the picture. And they wren't exactly safe in making that claim beforehand, what with such fine folks like Adam Baldwin and Davis Aurini on their side before the name was even coined. GG embraced an agenda right at its outset. And that's what bugs me more than anything: GG is a right-wing rage mob that insists that theirs is the neutral view when it clearly is not.

It's not difficult to fall to the right of groups like DiGRA and Silverstring Media. Their side has already said fuck objectivity [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSNFZYvgVY4&index=3&list=FLai_3N9Qf7bQcp9GsxttutA], it's more important to undermine the heteronormative hegemony [http://i.imgur.com/xWXKwRg.jpg].

If that puts me on the right wing, so be it: These people and their penchant for censorship, feeding us controlled narratives "for our own good" because they know better, legitimately scares me. I hate to use such a loaded term, but what are these people if not Cultural Marxists?

 

[epicdwarf]

The biggest problem with gamergate is that the people against it do not see the entire picture.

Most anti-gamergate folks are unaware of most issues like the mailing list, doxxing by Quinn and Leigh, feminist support of gamergate, notyourshield, and ect. They only look at the surface and think "MRA vs SJW" and don't look deeper. We need a source of information to inform people of what is really going on. We also need to inform people that this is not some MRA vs SJW shit show.

 

[runic knight]

Your dismissing that the recent tend in the gaming media to brand people as misogynists, or to try to call all of gamergate that merely shows either you are oblivious to it or you are just being sort of dishonest about the whole thing.

Or that you're still incredibly oblivious to the fact that they outed themselves as misogynists from the beginning.

Some of them are still obsessing about attacking women. There are posts in the epicthread going after Moot's SO now (picking a fight with Moot seems like a bizarre decision, but no more bizarre than anything that came before was, I guess). You're deluded if you think Garme Journalizm just pulled all of that out of thin air. They got criticized that way because that's what they showed themselves to be, it's incredible that you're still incapable of facing that. (Yes, yes, You're Not One of Those. But once again you're reliant on distorting and mischaracterizing other people's arguments and pretending not to understand or apprehend plain facts. And you're mystified as to why nobody's taking you seriously.)

-sigh- Alright, I'll bite. Please, show me where they are attacking a woman for being a woman. Not attacking a person who they dislike who happens to be a woman. Not attacking a person who claims they want women in gaming through misrepresented and cherry picked arguments. Not attacking a person who claims they are coming to the defense of women. Show me actual hatred to women for being women alone.

Because for all the claims to the contrary, all I have seen, all I have ever seen on gamergate that is labeled misogyny has been how people react to individuals for how they act as individuals, or groups for how they act as groups, and never women for being women alone. And that is a very important distinction, because it is the difference between actual misogyny (when you hate a woman for being a woman), and just hating a person for who they are irregardless of the gender they happen to be. Because I will tell you right now, that second one, that dishonest assertion of misogyny that bastardizes the English language to assert a moral authority, that is straight up sexist.

 

[runic knight]

Now to sum up the thread so far, it seems like the best suggestion we've gotten is the idea of a SourceWatch for gaming news sites. That's an idea that I think anyone could support regardless of their "side."

But the dominant response to this thread from pro-gamergate posters has been to either claim that the image problem is purely a result of "lies" spread by opponents or that this image problem cannot be solved without damaging the movement in some way, and thus they have to live with it. The first of these arguments is at odds with the facts. Awful behavior by the anti-Quinn movement (and the later gamergate movement as well) is well documented. So, the only real argument is that the image problem is real, but that this is a price worth paying in order to maintain cohesion, momentum and/or key contributors.

This is an interesting claim. It essentially means that the toxic anti-Quinn people within gamergate are considered indispensable to the movement. I realize that not everyone would share my view that Internet Aristocrat (who made the videos in the original #gamergate tweet) is a sexist jerk. However, I think it is undeniable that a major concern and motivation of his is specifically to counter feminist and social justice critiques of video games. So, if IA is an indispensable part of the movement, then gamergate is explicitly a movement about anti-feminism. It may have other issues, but if IA is an indispensable part of the movement, anti-feminism is definitely one of gamergate's core issues.

It also appears that at least some pro-GG people would actually agree that fighting Social Justice Warriors is an important goal of the movement. I don't think that view is universal, but it is at least there. It's also easy to see why Quinn and Sarkeesian would keep getting brought up (even in GG echo chambers) by the part of the movement that is riled up about fighting SJWs.

So, my questions to pro-GG posters are:

Do you think anti-feminism (or even anti-some-feminism) is a key issue that gamergate is fighting for?

If you answered no, do you feel that people who answered yes are something to be concerned about?

I don't think anti-feminism is a key issue in the least so much as anti-moral authority posturing under the guise of feminism. And it is because of that I would answer no to the second one as well. I have talked to a lot of people because of this, and it seems every time I talk to them about this, even if they rabidly hate "SJW" types, it is very easy to help them see that it is not those promoting social advocacy that are the ones they have a problem with, but rather those who abuse the causes to manipulate and manufacture outrage.

Hell, posted in the main thread, this sort of sums that up entirely.

 

[entelechy]

Because she had sex with games journalists.
A games developer, having sex with games journalists.
Do you not see the issue?
If it had been anyone else, no one would give a shit.

No, she had sex with a single games journalist who, it has been proven, has not shown her any favoritism.

Leaving aside the lack of a real conflict of interest, a more important point is that this particular incident was initially dubbed the Quinnspiracy, rather than GraysonGate. The curious focus was and continues to be on the female game dev who had an ethical obligation only to her boyfriend rather than on the male journalist who had an ethical obligation to the public. Gamergate supporters should really stop and take some time to think about why the focus was on someone other than the journalist.

 

[runic knight]

runic knight, I'm just going do a quick search and see if your comment contains the words "cherry picked." And if it does, I'm going to be very, very disappointed in you.

...

Not attacking a person who claims they want women in gaming through misrepresented and cherry picked arguments.

Sigh.

Is it going to improve, at least?

Show me actual hatred to women for being women.

Double sigh.

Good Lord, man. That's the single stupidest sentence you've written in this entire thread.

I do not believe you genuinely want it explained to you how harassing and threatening a woman with rape and death on the word of a screed by her ex is "hatred to women." You're determined to avoid seeing what's staring you in the face, full stop. And I'm done with you.

I'm sorry, did I not answer as you expected? Did my call for you to actually use the word the way it is defined not fit right? Or did my mention of the reasons why people hate an individual who happens to be a woman and thus not actual misogyny happen to circumvent the attempt to, once again, dishonestly present the movement as something it never was?

Because, no, threatening a woman, harassing a woman, doing anything to A woman is not instantly misogyny because A woman does not represent ALL women. This is why I said that is a sexist ideal, because it deprives women of individuality. You are saying that a woman is not an individual, she is a part of the whole, she represents all women and thus an attack on her as an individual is an attack on all women.

This is your disconnect and this is your fallacy. Actions to an individual does not represent actions to all groups that individual adheres to unless you dishonestly present it.

What you are trying to argue here is that a man is an individual, but a woman is a collective. You are treating a person differently based on their gender alone, the very definition of sexism itself.

Tell me, is every insult towards a woman misogyny?

I asked you to show me misogyny and instead you scoffed again. It seems that is all you will ever do when asked to present an actual argument.

 

[KokujinTensai]

Hey Runic, although your efforts to engage with the opposition are admirable it appears evident that both sides are entrenched. I learned alot from this topic. Hopefully we can take some valid criticisms here and help fix the negative views some people who are unfamiliar with the situation may have. The key is to leave all emotion out of debate. Rational thought will trump emotion always.

 

[runic knight]

Hey Runic, although your efforts to engage with the opposition are admirable it appears evident that both sides are entrenched. I learned alot from this topic. Hopefully we can take some valid criticisms here and help fix the negative views some people who are unfamiliar with the situation may have. The key is to leave all emotion out of debate. Rational thought will trump emotion always.

I am glad you learned some at least. But I think I will keep posting just the same. There is a lot of value in the thread to be had even with those entrenched. May not be able to argue rationally with all people but I can certainly try to get a better understanding of how gamergate itself is viewed, which does help to understand how to improve things.

 

[RexMundane]

As an aside, and in a doomed attempt to try and bring this back to the original topic, I'm becoming of the opinion that Leigh Alexander is about to be dubbed Literally Who #3, in that it lately feels like they can't shut up about her, but might yet realize that, much like Zoe and Anita, it's problematic to their public image to be seen fixating on her, but since they can't stop themselves, they'll start using the nickname in the hopes of fooling anyone at all. Maybe I'm talking out my ass, maybe my psychic radar is acting up again, just a hunch is all.

 

[Nirallus]

Rational thought will trump emotion always.

Not in the court of public opinion, which is the only place where this whole mess will have lasting impact. Will the SJWs, Special Snowflakes, and far-left academics be exposed for what they are? Or will they further entrench themselves in the public consciousness as "the side you have to be seen to support in order to be a good person"?

 

[aliengmr]

runic

Okay, I will agree that hyper-sensitivity is an issue all round. But I don't agree that none of the criticism toward Anita Sarkeesian came from a misogynistic point of view. In fact I would say she got quite a bit of hate coming from people like that. Genuine criticism likely did get misinterpreted as misogynist in nature, I agree, but I just don't agree it was "any and all criticism of her is misogyny". More to the point I think its fair to say she weathered quite a bit of hate and that it might have altered her own lens to a degree.

I think Bob did touch on an important point though. It may not have been you or anyone you personally know, but the fact remains there was quite a bit of misogyny going on. It got bad. Now I know people have tried to move away from that, and that's good. But I wonder if it hadn't effected GG more than people realize.

There seems to be a lot of distancing going on, as expected. But I get the sense that it may be going too far. Like people are so angry and ashamed that they are seen this way but have genuine concerns. They can't attack those responsible for the bad stuff and so are lashing out, trying to create enemies everywhere. They're frustrated that they are being ignored and are perceived in a very negative light that they themselves are aware of on some level and the anger just keeps building and building. I've noticed some very sharp rhetoric coming out mega thread and its been getting harsher and harsher as they keep trying to define who is and is not the enemy.

Mega thread is honestly the strangest thread I've seen, ever. Don't take that as an insult, but its hard to find the right words to describe it.

I really think a good course of action would be getting some level headed folks together and start talking to the Journalists to start addressing the transparency and corruption side of things. There are people out side of the debate that will back that. The social stuff will have to come later, tempers are too hot right now. The industry and media people I've heard speak about this are having a hard time with the bad side of GG. In fact their social view have only strengthened because of it. There is no other option I can see at this point if you genuinely want change.

This has to be done fast while the interest is high.

 

[aliengmr]

Hey Runic, although your efforts to engage with the opposition are admirable it appears evident that both sides are entrenched. I learned alot from this topic. Hopefully we can take some valid criticisms here and help fix the negative views some people who are unfamiliar with the situation may have. The key is to leave all emotion out of debate. Rational thought will trump emotion always.

That's not whats going on, even a little. Mega thread is ALL emotions. Its fast becoming a problem because few, if any, see it.

For all that I disagree with runic, he/she is one of the few willing to brave the area outside the echo chamber of mega thread.

 

[runic knight]

runic

Okay, I will agree that hyper-sensitivity is an issue all round. But I don't agree that none of the criticism toward Anita Sarkeesian came from a misogynistic point of view. In fact I would say she got quite a bit of hate coming from people like that. Genuine criticism likely did get misinterpreted as misogynist in nature, I agree, but I just don't agree it was "any and all criticism of her is misogyny". More to the point I think its fair to say she weathered quite a bit of hate and that it might have altered her own lens to a degree.

I think Bob did touch on an important point though. It may not have been you or anyone you personally know, but the fact remains there was quite a bit of misogyny going on. It got bad. Now I know people have tried to move away from that, and that's good. But I wonder if it hadn't effected GG more than people realize.

There seems to be a lot of distancing going on, as expected. But I get the sense that it may be going too far. Like people are so angry and ashamed that they are seen this way but have genuine concerns. They can't attack those responsible for the bad stuff and so are lashing out trying to create enemies everywhere. Their frustrated that they are being ignored and are perceived in a very negative light that they themselves are aware of on some level and the anger just keeps building and building. I've noticed some very sharp rhetoric coming out mega thread and its been getting harsher and harsher as they keep trying to define who is and is not the enemy.

Mega thread is honestly the strangest thread I've seen, ever. Don't take that as an insult, but its hard to find the right words to describe it.

I really think a good course of action would be getting some level headed folks together and start talking to the Journalists to start addressing the transparency and corruption side of things. There are people out side of the debate that will back that. The social stuff will have to come later, tempers are too hot right now. The industry and media people I've heard speak about this are having a hard time with the bad side of GG. In fact their social view have only strengthened because of it. There is no other option I can see at this point if you genuinely want change.

This has to be done fast while the interest is high.

My problem with claims like "there was a lot of misogyny going on" is that they are based on nothing but a blind assertion that it simply is the case, and that I do have to call into question. Even sidelining how the entire thing was written off as misogyny and the behavior of the media to paint all criticism as such, there is still this sort of assertion that there is misogyny involved and I don't get where it comes from on this other then the fact the woman involved was, well, a woman. Do we think about it being misandristic when thunderf00t was harassed on youtube, even though he was expressing a dislike of feminism? Most likely not, even though it is the mirror of what happened with Anita.

Using the definition of misogyny as an actual hatred to women on the basis of them being women, it becomes sort of absurd to me to think that for all the very valid reasons why people would hate, insult or even harass the likes of Anita on an individual level (Anita is a controversial personality with many unhappy with how she presents her videos and uses tactics like the journalists currently called out), that instead it is just a general knee-jerk hate reaction based on gender on a large scale? Something just seems very off about that sort of logic. An unspoken accusation to all people who interact with women where one women is always representative of the whole.

Do keep in mind, my complaint is not that the treatment she got was acceptable or that it was justified, but rather that it was not motivated by what everyone keeps trying to claim it was motivated by. And regardless if that is your intent, when you say "this is misogyny" you are claiming that the motivation of intent was a hatred of women. Misogyny is a claim of motivation in the end, not of action.

If I argue against a woman, the act of doing so is not because she is a woman, but because I am arguing against her as in individual. If I insult a woman, the same remains true. And this is why I see so many painting this as misogyny as largely doing the word injustice. A bunch of gamers harassed Anita on twitter and youtube not because she was a woman, but because they disliked what she said. Why is that less likely then as a group they were motivated by a hatred of women in general? Not saying there isn't some misogyny involved, same as I would not argue that some misandry wasn't invovled in the response thunderf00t got on youtube, but the amount of that paint being used with such broad strokes just seems to belittle the word into nothing but an insulting buzzword of late.

 

[runic knight]

Hey Runic, although your efforts to engage with the opposition are admirable it appears evident that both sides are entrenched. I learned alot from this topic. Hopefully we can take some valid criticisms here and help fix the negative views some people who are unfamiliar with the situation may have. The key is to leave all emotion out of debate. Rational thought will trump emotion always.

That's not whats going on, even a little. Mega thread is ALL emotions. Its fast becoming a problem because few, if any, see it.

For all that I disagree with runic, he/she is one of the few willing to brave the area outside the echo chamber of mega thread.

I... you know what. You might be on to something about that. Many people I have talked to on this got tired of people dismissing, laughing at them or attempting to shame or derail them in other threads when they tried to talk for too long about the topic and have sense just sort of stuck to the major thread since so many have just felt that it wasn't worth it to keep dealing with that crap and at least the megathread they had enough of a presence to let the newsroom aspect of it remain and be able to deal with the dozens of people posting about how much they don't care about this or how it is a shock that people still care.

But you are right, they seem to have sort of gotten used to that and they should probably break out and argue against the negative view associated with that thread some. I guess even I assumed it was just a lot less stress for everyone, mods included, to try to keep it isolated to that thread and let everyone have their space, even if they wanted to laugh at us behind our backs. But perhaps I should try encouraging them to speak out in the other threads some and try to show we aren't the crackpot misogynists we are painted as.

 

[Lunar Archivist]

And as you can see, when you remove the hyperbole the situation looks a lot different.

It looks a lot different because you're engaging in hyperbole of your own.

First of all, there's an awful lot of strawmanning and appeals to ridicule going on here...

Straw man: An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Appeal to ridicule: An argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

...so you pretty much lose a lot of your credibility in this debate right off the bat, but let's just see how many other fallacies you've invoked and logical errors you've made in all this, shall we?

They claimed to be standing up for women and minorities as far as representation in video games was concerned, but when #NotYourShield started up, they {showed conclusive proof that some of} the women and minorities standing up to them didn't exist, were sockpuppets, {and many of the others exhibited signs of} internalized self-loathing.

{showed conclusive proof that some of}

So you're implying that because some of the women and minorities did not exist, that somehow magically negates the existence of all the others that did? Wow. There's a term to describe that, and it is...

Fallacy of composition: Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

And on we go...

{and many of the others exhibited signs of} internalized self-loathing

Do you have any evidence for this horrendously offensive accusation? Just so we're clear here, people, Entelechy just claimed that many of the women and minorities who came out as pro-GamerGate secretly hate themselves and don't know what they're saying. And I really hope he does have evidence handy, because if he doesn't, he's just committed the fallacy of...

False attribution: Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

They go on and on about some of GamerGate's {most prominent video bloggers} attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, but conveniently fail to address how {some of} their unruly members attacked Jayd3 Fox (an Asian woman) {for making a really lame parody of Anita Sarkeesian's videos} and about four gaming sites all {informed the public about the conservative employer of, and lack of evidence presented by} Christina Hoff Sommers when she attempted to debunk their claims that {much of} the anger was coming from straight, white males.

{most prominent video bloggers} attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian

So the act of prominent video bloggers criticizing women counts as misogyny just because the people they're criticizing happen to be female? By that dubious logic, the anti-GamerGate people are all misandrists because they hate straight white men.

{for making a really lame parody of Anita Sarkeesian's videos}

Nice to know that making parodies justifies being attacked now.

Also, this entire argument is ignoratio elenchi...

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): An argument that may or may not be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

...because it utterly fails to address the hypocrisy of why the anti-GamerGate side only grabs the pitchforks and torches when the women they favor are being attacked but don't seem to care when the women they don't favor are.

{informed the public about the conservative employer of, and lack of evidence presented by}

Are you implying that being a conservative is somehow evil? Also, she presented plenty of evidence, though I understand your confusion, because Sommers managed to cram more raw data and facts into 7 minutes than Sarkeesian did into around 70 minutes of video. You also seem to not be aware of the following checklist...

https://medium.com/@cainejw/the-factual-feminist-a-factcheck-f5ae584f56da

...where each and every statement Sommers makes is factchecked and verified. Which, I'm afraid, is more than can be said for you at this point. But even though we've hit rock bottom, fear not! We'll just break out the pickaxes and keep on digging...

They claim they want more women and minorities in the game industry, but Quinn {denounced} The Fine Young Capitalist's Kickstarter {due to their questionable trans policy motivated by the fear that dudes might pretend to be trans to get that sweet, sweet 8% of profits} and Leigh Alexander {said that} one black man on Twitter {might have a hard time getting into the industry after being a giant douche to so many of the people working in it} and actually seemed to {be pleased that the industry she works in will not hire people who are openly an asshole to their potential colleagues}.

{due to their questionable trans policy motivated by the fear that dudes might pretend to be trans to get that sweet, sweet 8% of profits}

Ah yes, self-identification as the sole criteria is controversial even though it adheres to Canadian law and is actually pretty liberal when you look at it. Given how utterly awful your arguments are, I'm pretty sure you're no lawyer, so I'm really not sure you're the most qualified person to question an entire country's legal system.

Oh, and 8% of the profits is the standard fee for a producer in television shows.

{said that} one black man on Twitter {might have a hard time getting into the industry after being a giant douche to so many of the people working in it}

No, no, she quite clearly threatened the black guy here, actually:

The entire context is here:

https://twitter.com/IncrediRoe/status/464526542853640192

Nice to know that "a dozen women" disagreeing with someone constitutes "the vast majority of women". Also nice to know that what counts as truth can be determined by an impromptu Twitter vote.

I will admit that we do seem to be getting two issues confused here, as this seems to refer to a separate incident:

{be pleased that the industry she works in will not hire people who are openly an asshole to their potential colleagues}.

There seems to be a misconception about the exact details of that conversation. Here, let's clear that up by allowing a Reddit user who actually went through that entire thing before it was conveniently deleted to summarize it:

I went through that developer's Twitter feed. What started it was Vlambeer posting a tweet about rampant gender inequality women face in the games industry, which the developer disagreed with. Other indie devs and journalists joined in with Vlambeer, pointing out that the developer should be ashamed for not acknowledging his white male privilege, which he counters by saying that his family was poor and he wasn't asked to be born white. Vlambeer responds with:

You misunderstand. Being a 'white male' was handed to you.

They unanimously conclude that he's racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, and possibly a misogynist, and that it will be difficult for him to pursue a career in the games industry.

Hmm...that seems quite different from your summary of events. Also, please note, everyone reading this, how you can earn the label of racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, and misogynist just for disagreeing with the anti-GamerGate Social Justice Hivemind.

To everyone still reading this who isn't Entelechy but is still in the anti-GamerGate camp, I respectfully request that you mentally review everything you think you know about this entire situation and ask yourself whether this was a conclusion you came to yourself or it's an opinion you adopted because someone pushed an anti-gamer narrative at you. Take a step back, check out the actual evidence out there as opposed to what people merely claim is true, and then decide for yourself.

In fact, I'll lapse into immaturity for a moment and double dog dare all of you to factcheck everything I've said here and call me out on any gross misrepresentations of the situations I've made. I may not have gotten everything 100% right, but I did my best to tell the truth.

Which is more than some people can claim.