The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The #GamerGate Hate Hoax

Posted on | October 16, 2014 | 62 Comments

Anita Sarkeesian (@femfreq) and Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) are feminist critics of the videogame industry who seem to be trying to cash in on the fact that they are feminist critics of the videogame industry. This involves portraying themselves as victims of horrific harassment and criminal threats. Who is engaging in this harassment? Who is making these threats? We don’t know, because it seems to be coming from a lot of anonymous online accounts, and I strongly suspect that some of these threats are fake. But whether it’s fake or real, the harassment is being blamed on the gamers who, using the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, have been blowing the whistle on some of the sleazy tactics by which feminists have been trying to turn gaming into a Political Correctness Zone and — oh, just by the way — cut themselves in on a slice of the multibillion-dollar videogame industry pie.

Thursday, the feminists got themselves a front-page puff-piece in the New York Times, after Sarkeesian cancelled a university speech in Utah claiming she felt unsafe because of a threat. Click here to see the threat. You tell me if that looks legit. It looks phony as hell to me, but here’s the thing: I DON’T CARE IF IT’S REAL OR FAKE.

What’s important to me is that we learn the truth. I want an all-out law-enforcement investigation of these threats, I want some arrests and prosecutions, and I want to know the names of the responsible parties, because I’m sick and tired of this bullshit about “Oh, we’re courageous feminists and people say mean things about us on the Internet! Help! Help! We’re victims!”

People say mean things about me on the Internet every day, but that’s not a front-page story in the New York Times, is it?

Either arrest some people, or else shut the hell up. But this Courageous Feminist Martyr act has become tedious and annoying.

 

Comments

  • Daniel Freeman

    Not enough of one to be disallowed from feeling threatened, apparently.

  • Daniel Freeman
  • Adobe_Walls

    “Common sense” would obviously tell you no.
    This is becoming somewhat frustrating/terrifying. Responses like yours encourage me to doubt MY command of the English language.
    Our argument for denying felons gun ownership is that they have forfeit their rights as well as the vote. This is a somewhat tangential discussion I’ll end for the moment with, just for the record, I’d sooner allow former felons gun ownership than something as dangerous as a ballot.
    Are you suggesting disabled (blind) people have limited rights to free speech?
    Delusional is an exceedingly subjective term. I’d argue if we let them serve as president surely they can own guns.
    As for “non compos mentis” (in the modern legal sense) people who are dangerous to themselves or others should be institutionalized or other wise looked after.
    As for my absolutest argument;
    here is the point at which gun control opinions baffle/terrify me. The 2nd amendment reads in part “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The 7th commandment reads “thou shalt not commit adultery”. Not even the most die-hard atheist would argue that ”shalt not” meant “most of the time”. Why are you?

  • Daniel Freeman

    So we disagree on blind people, and also on sufficient documentation to enforce our minimal restrictions — which means that most humans would look at us as virtually indistinguishable Americans, with bizarre ideas about a natural right to guns that must be minimally infringed.

  • Adobe_Walls

    I don’t feel like researching it but I don’t know that blind people are denied their gun rights if they are shame on us. If by sufficient documentation you mean no documentation at all, then I suppose we agree. If by minimal restrictions you mean gun ownership by people who have been hanged or are still in prison then I suppose we agree on that too.

    As for ”a natural right to guns that must be minimally infringed.”

    Let me find that “Rosetta Stone English” CD apparently I need to brush up on my English.

    P.S. Shotguns work for blind people also as long as they don’t deliberately shoot the piano player because his playing keeps them from hearing their attacker.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Why should he until his message is heard by all so-called Constitutionalists?

  • Pingback: Barry Ties to Pay for Something but He Can’t | Regular Right Guy()

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: We’re An American Band : The Other McCain()

  • bet0001970

    I know I’m totally late to this party, but…

    Does anyone thinks it’s a strange coincidence that the writer of the this “threat” chose Lepine? Because that’s important for several reasons.

    1. The shooting event involving Lepine occurred 25 years ago. Most university students are around 18-23 years of age. They wouldn’t have been born when this happened and would have no cultural reference for it. I would wager that virtually none of them would even know who this guy was.

    2. The shooting event referenced happened in Canada. If this threat were real, why wouldn’t the writer call upon an incident they would be familiar with? One that happened here in the US. Not one that happened more than 2000 miles away in a foreign country. Why wouldn’t they mention something closer to home and more recent? Say…the Elliot Rodger shooting from just a few months ago in California.

    3. Which is what brings me to this next point. People tend to unconsciously go to what they know. Guess who is from Canada? Specifically the Toronto area, which is about 350 miles or so (Think Houston to Dallas) from Montreal, where the Lepine shooting occurred.

    Anita Sarkeesian.

  • http://akazip.com Baron Von Zipper

    Now, I was just browsing here and came across that “minimally infringed” hyperbole. That sounds like the “why can’t we compromise on gun control” line that gets thrown around. To compromise means that both sides have something to give to the equation. Taking away, even minimally, any natural right is not a compromise, because nothing of equal value is given. And bringing up the blind and the criminally insane is just an attempt at distraction.
    Zip – out.

  • http://akazip.com Baron Von Zipper

    Since you have nothing to bring to the table, maybe it’s you that should STFU.

  • Pingback: News of the Week (October 19th, 2014) | The Political Hat()