The #GamerGate vs. Gawker War

Posted on Comments

Gawker’s irresponsibly cruel “outing” of a Conde Nast executive — a laughable farce, and yet also an exercise in horrendous sadism — prompted Vox Day to remind his readers of #GamerGate’s “anti-Gawker action, Operation Disrespectful Nod, which has already cost Gawker more than $1 million in advertising dollars.” This would appear to be the kind of activity that the #StopRush mob used against Rush Limbaugh and I am therefore ambivalent. Is turnabout fair play? Do we degrade ourselves by using the Left’s tactics against the Left? Or, if we refuse to fight fire with fire, are we engaged in a self-defeating unilateral disarmament? Knowing what damage the Left so gleefully inflicts on its chosen targets (because I have been such a target), I hesitate to condemn retaliatory counter-offenses, but I also have qualms about advocating such measures, however necessary they may sometimes be.

Guerrilla warfare tends to bring out the worst in people, but when the gamers found themselves in the cross-hairs of the Social Justice Warriors, did anyone expect them to just roll over for the likes of Anita Sarkeesian? Oh, hell, no. “War to the knife and knife to the hilt” — the targets of cultural aggression vowed to destroy the aggressors.

So, why did #GamerGate go to war against Gawker? It’s a long and complicated story, but a major focus of #GamerGate rage has been the Gawker-owned game journalism site Kotaku:

If anyone from Gawker or Kotaku had bothered to interview someone like Sargon of Akkad, Christina Hoff Sommers, Mundane Matt, Ashton Liu, Adam Baldwin, LeoPirate, Allison Prime, Jennifer Medina, Daddy Warpig or any of the moderators from Kotaku in Action, it would have been made abundantly clear that it wasn’t that Kotaku avoided talking about journalism ethics, it’s that Kotaku avoided doing anything about their failure at upholding even the most basic of ethics principles in the world of video game journalism.

This involves a controversy at the heart of #GamerGate, the affair between “Depression Quest” developer Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson, who wrote for (Gawker-owned) Rock Paper Shotgun before joining Kotaku. You can read more about this scandal at “A People’s History of GamerGate,” but the essence of it is this: Quinn was accused of gaining favorable coverage of her work — which is allegedly useless and awful — by providing Grayson and others access to her nasty poontang. And when these allegations of quid pro quo were published by one of Quinn’s embittered ex-lovers, Quinn’s defenders accused her critics of misogyny.

Let us stipulate that two things can be simultaneously true:

  1. The field of game development attracts a lot of Alpha Nerd males who may have bad attitudes about women;
    and
  2. Zoe Quinn is an opportunistic hustler who realized she could use sex as bait to garner lucrative advantages, including “free” publicity from unprincipled journalists who would accept graft in the form of occasional access to her nasty poontang.

Both of these things could be true, but because of the leftward bias in media, Misogynist Alpha Nerds is an important story, whereas in contrast, Zoe Quinn’s (Alleged) Opportunistic Poontang Hustle is something that no bien-pensant can acknowledge.

While I know nearly nothing about the videogame industry, I’ve spent the past two decades covering politics and therefore know a lot about corruption and opportunistic hustlers. And I also know that there are journalists whose stock in trade is not their skill as writers, but rather their slavish loyalty to the Democrat Party and the Politics of Social Justice. Many writers of limited ability have learned that they can attract unmerited praise — indeed, as in the notorious case of Stalin’s journalistic henchman Walter Duranty, they can win Pulitzer Prizes — if they are willing to tell lies that benefit the Left.

Speaking of writers of limited ability, Adam Weinstein got fired by Gawker last month and offered these comments in a blog post about the tawdry mess made by Gawker’s gay “outing” story:

Relatedly, none of this vindicates any of the psychotic, hateful, performatively sanctimonious self-marketing of Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yianawhatever, “gamergaters,” and the bevy of cold, craven, retrograde pre-fab apartment-dwelling souls who are waging an inane jihad against Gawker Media, feminism, and cultural justice. They are wrong. They are twisted. They are abusive. And I could give three hot farts about their crocodile tears for David Geithner and his family. What pisses me off the most about this lapse in editorial judgment is that it’s (again) enabled this barely coherent rabble of internet bullies to signal boost their dumb assertions about Gawker en masse, and to get them taken seriously for a dumb nanosecond. Gawker is not that bad, and those critics are not that smart.

This gratuitous smear of Dr. Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos and #GamerGate — “psychotic, hateful . . . retrograde pre-fab apartment-dwelling souls . . . barely coherent rabble of internet bullies” — tells us more about Adam Weinstein than it tells us about his enemies, and it may also tell us a lot about the underlying problem at Gawker. Whether or not publisher Nick Denton is a leftist ideologue, he has apparently employed leftist ideologues who in turn have made Gawker into a hive of leftist ideology. Like so many other modern media enterprises, Gawker is like one of those Stalin-era “progressive” organizations that, having failed to exclude Communist Party members, were taken over by Communist Party members. By the time Ronald Reagan realized that Communists were trying to take over Hollywood unions, Reagan himself had already unwittingly joined two Communist “front” organizations.

As anyone who has studied the Cold War knows, the Communists relentlessly smeared their enemies. Character assassination was elevated into an art and science by Soviet propagandists, and Reagan himself was among the many enemies of Communism who learned what vicious methods the Left employs against those who tell the truth about the Left. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not cure the Left of its habitual dishonesty, and hired liars like Adam Weinstein continue to practice the deceptive arts that were pioneered by the Bolsheviks and their stooges many decades ago. You may think it is unfair to compare 21st-century leftists to Comintern agents and their “progressive” dupes of the 1930s and ’40s, but to whom is it unfair? At least Walter Duranty could imagine that the socialist utopia was a viable possibility, whereas the Left in the post-Cold War era can have no excuse for their dishonest promotion of “social justice” delusions. They are not leading us toward a Progressive Proletarian Future, because they know that no such secular Heaven on Earth can ever exist. Rather than Building a Better Tomorrow, the Left is now inspired by nothing but abject nihilism, destroying society because they hate society and, also, because they enjoy destruction.

I would call Adam Weinstein a terrible human being, but that would not be accurate. He is an inhuman being, an amoral monster who delights in perverse cruelty against honest people. Firing him was one of the few good things Gawker has ever done, but I suspect that the editors who fired Adam Weinstein are actually worse than he is. He is like Trotsky, an evil man who was assassinated by an agent of the evil he helped create.

Ramon Mercader could not be reached for comment.





 

88 comments

  2. Weinstein’s “pre-fab” remark is supposedly meant to refer to unsophisticated white trash or some such. The truth is there is no more unsophisticated group on Earth than the social justice clan which uses racial defamation and incitement against an entire sex to fight racial defamation and incitement against an entire sex. The sick lesbian feminist racist ideology which attacks heterosexuality, men and whites with equal fervor doesn’t pass the Paul Atriedes Test. That is essentially a metric which divides humans into two groups: that which can put people on the Moon and that which stands in front of a cart of oranges all day and proclaims equality to those who put people on the Moon.

    People like Andrea Dworkin, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu aren’t civilized by any metric I’ve ever heard of. However, how further down the evolutionary scale are men like Weinstein and SFF author John Scalzi who lack the awareness to not be led around by their noses by these self-important fish-wives? I don’t even give credit to such dullards for smearing their opponents since they have no idea what right and wrong is let alone who their opponents are.

  3. It seems to me, the key here is the nature of the opposition. If they are the kind willing to bury hatchets, to live and let live, then ENDLESS retaliation is unwise. A little is good for anyone, just to keep them honest.
    The question is: does this description match with what we know about the SJWs?
    I say, “no.” They are totalitarians, and you do not bargain with such people. At some future date, when they see the short-sightedness of their schemes, THEN reconciliation may be possible.

  4. I concur.
    It is a mark of social anxiety to attack someone for their markers. How many times have we seen some leftist snob mock good Americans because they eat at Olive Garden?
    *Gasp!*
    As if this meant something significant.
    I cannot tolerate the gratuitous public preening of those who imagine themselves better, but who are demonstrably INFERIOR.

  5. Question for conservatives: if you’re a liberal at severe odds with this side of the left, and label themselves an “anti feminist” are you still a liberal?

  6. I notice when arguing with feminists or SJW’s they love to tell you how “uneducated” you are, which makes it obvious that for them “educated” means absorbing, and regurgitating leftist dogma, and nothing more.

  7. Of course you are. Being against a hate movement is simply being against a hate movement. Even liberals are targets if you’re straight, white and male.

  8. It depends on if you can keep your mouth shut.
    Liberals (by which I mean “leftists”) rely on coalition politics. Many of the coalition members have disagreements with other members. As long as those differences can be minimized or squelched, they can remain in the group.
    Example: feminists were either silent or supportive of Bill Clinton’s misogyny.
    If you don’t like RadFems, but keep silent about it, you can be a liberal. Personally, I would call that “being a hypocrite.”

  9. For them, it’s not about actual accomplishment. It’s about the markers or credentials of accomplishment.
    It’s all about status.

  10. Adam Weinstien joined Gawker and wrote their national security blog, Phase Zero. I know of friends who snarked Weinstien about it on twitter because Weinstien is a little left of the normal democrats about national security. Then it was funny to watch Phase Zero descend into something worst that Alex Jones, Donald Trump and that weird guy at the bus stop talking about aliens and offering up hats in aluminum to protect you from the rays.

    If you read his rant at his blog about why Gawker sucks, he even admits to giving up trying to temper the crazy after a while. That Gawker editors gave Phase Zero and the specific writer Weinstien mentions so much rooms is that it plays into Gawker’s limitied view of the world and national security. It makes Greenwald look sane and righteous, to paraphrase a friend.

    I think it is even funnier when the rest of the Gawker editors have called out fellow Gawker editors for being so stupid. It is like the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone. They too have committed similar transgressions, but its all cool because those are enemies of the cool girls clique and they all want to be inside the clique. I just hope that Terry “The Hulk” Hogan can cut down Gawker as well with his lawsuit.

  12. “ENDLESS retaliation is unwise. A little is good for anyone, just to keep them honest.”

    Here is what we should have learned about totalitarian imperialism from the lessons of the 20th century: Totalitarians must always attack enemies — attack! attack! attack! — in order to maintain the morale of their movement. If there is no actual threat to the regime, the revolutionary in power must manufacture threats — exaggerating or creating enemies — to justify their own exercise of power.

    It is never safe to appease totalitarians, because every time they “win” a confrontation, this incites them to further aggression. Therefore, it is always safer to be a declared enemy — to invite them to open combat, on ground of one’s own choosing — than to feed the crocodile, hoping to be eaten last. Only by arming yourself and denouncing the totalitarian in no uncertain terms can you hope to attract allies and encourage resistance. Make yourself known as a dangerous enemy — prove yourself able to inflict damage on those who attack you — and thereby you discourage aggression.

    Do not wait around for them to attack you. When you see totalitarians attack others, join in the defense of the person attacked, and fight as hard as you can, striving always to improve your skill and augment your resources. Those whom you defend will be grateful for your assistance, and you will gain a reputation as A Man Not to Be Fucked With.

    This is a very valuable reputation to have.

  13. “Example: feminists were either silent or supportive of Bill Clinton’s misogyny.”

    So you remember the entire news landscape from those days? Ah huhhhhhhhh

  14. Mock? All of a sudden you guys can’t take a joke? REALLY, I mean I knew you guys had no sense of humor but this is the kind of point you’re trying to make?

    Hey dude! Olive Garden is actually a terrible restaurant. It’s been so bad that they’ve been reworking their menus for almost 3 years. Darden was close to closing all Olive Gardens.

    The facts are the facts.

    Sorry liberals like supporting independent businesses and not companies that serve frozen meals.

  16. I just remember the highlights:
    “Media Research Center Chairman Brent Bozell reacted with only modest surprise at the admission by former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh that she would give President Clinton oral sex ‘just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.’ Ms. Burleigh’s eye-popping confession comes in an interview with the Washington Post after her revealing essay in the latest issue of Mirabella magazine in which she admits she would have been open to having an affair with Clinton.”

    http://archive.mrc.org/press/1998/press19980706.asp

  17. Matt you’ve found another great web source! This ranks almost as good as that time you used Amazon book reviews to cite evidence!

    “The MRC Network

    The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias”

    Great source man! They won’t have any bias!

  18. Burleigh said it, it’s a fact. You can Google it. I’m pretty sure it was even covered by the NYT and other liberal rags.
    Nice try at disqualification though.
    Loser.

  19. Yes true Matt, it’s no where near the reporting level of thefederalist:

    “Apple’s Siri Doesn’t Know That Bruce Jenner Is Still A Dude”

  21. Olive Garden might actually be a bad restaurant. The thing is, I would never imagine that implied something about the character of the people who ate there, because I’m not an idiot.

  23. “Olive Garden might actually be a bad restaurant” I find it hilarious that you can’t even admit when you’re so off base. Literally, everyone knows Olive garden is unhealthy garbage.

    Neither do we! Guess what dude, no one cares where you eat. If you can’t take a joke, turn off your tv and radios and don’t leave the house.

    Weren’t you talking about smack about Whole Foods! WAHHHHHHH IM SO HHURTZZZZZZZ my character hurtzzzzzzzzz

  25. You sound like a 6 year old. How can anyone take you seriously when you sound like this?
    I’m guessing you get a lot of your news from the Daily Show.

  26. I’ve never really watched The Daily Show in my life, a few segments here and there. I prefer John Oliver who actually takes corporations and other craziness to task without too much bias.

    But I’m glad that you brought that up. The very description of The Daily Show “doesn’t hide the fact that it’s not a news program and only uses newsworthy stories as a jumping-off point to satire.” Oh my gosh, it literally says that in that description. Satire is a key word though but does it really matter when you have zero sense of humor?

    But you’re right I should be getting my news from places like mrc.org: “The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias”

    Anything else Matt?

    Are you going to tell me KFC is good for us and they have the best fried chicken?

  28. When I see Puffington Post call anyone out for bias or poor ethics, I simply laugh. It’s similar to Stalin calling Hitler or Mao a mass murderer.

  29. “…I hesitate to condemn retaliatory counter-offenses, but I also have qualms about advocating such measures, however necessary they may sometimes be.”

    Doesn’t it get hard to straddle that fence all the time? Pick a side and fight!
    “It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!”
    ?Obi-Wan Kenobi

  31. There’s a difference between liberals and leftists. Liberals still mostly agree with the old Voltaire line “I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”, whereas leftists will shut down anyone that disagrees with them at any opportunity. There are many liberals that are distressed at where the leftists are taking Team Blue.

  32. Anyone who subscribes to intersectionality is either mentally ill or so naive as to be morally insane. From the outside both look the same: cold-blooded confusion.

  33. You may think it is unfair to compare 21st-century leftists to Comintern agents and their “progressive” dupes of the 1930s and ’40s..

    To the contrary, someone had to say it.

    It’s like this: Let’s say that you are a witness after the fact to an incident involving a man who stood nonchalantly on railroad tracks while a train sporting a hammer and sickle logo bore down on him, plowed into him and splattered the dude all over the surrounding landscape, with the train all the while sounding no warning.

    Sometime later, if you see a man standing nonchalantly on railroad tracks while a train sporting a hopey-changey logo bears down on him without a warning, then you’d be a morally bankrupt asshole (at the least) if you didn’t shout out a warning yourself.

    An out-of-control train is an out-of-control train no matter what logo is on it. On the other hand, a great many people are blind, deaf and dumb (and not in the sense of being mute) these days apparently.

  34. …the Left is now inspired by nothing but abject nihilism, destroying society because they hate society and, also, because they enjoy destruction.

    Wow, that was a way harsh, but yet absolutely true assessment. Why does the phrase “whited sepulchres” come to mind?

  36. The comment was deleted before I saw it, but I just like it when you attack idiots. It makes me smile.

  38. I can not be degrading to use ones enemie’s tactics against them, as I’ve long insisted we need to be better AT IT than they are not merely better than they are. Just as it is appropriate to use their current tactics against them now, it will be appropriate to use the old Bolsheviks tactics against this new crop of Bolsheviks when the time comes.

  39. You might be a classical liberal, or even a left-libertarian. SJWs are basically left-authoritians with center-authoritarian (and even right-authoritarian) allies.

  40. I just knew that “guy” would eventually take a flying fu@k at a rolling donought and lo and behold, he did. Huh, imagine that.

  44. Strangely related propaganda from my Goonfleet days, though nowadays one could apply it to real life…say, in Charlottesville.

  46. I disagree with the end of the post. There are certainly a lot of race-sex hustlers, sociopaths and naive dupes one will find in any “anti-oppression” movement where the edges of oppression are so soft as to be virtually non-existent. That doesn’t mean naive people don’t believe they exist. One thing I’ve noticed about social justice crusaders who seem to be passionate in their beliefs is they don’t get out much. That means their view of the world is infinitely malleable. Some of these people are merely stupid. I recently saw an SF Twitter race hustler call out some guy who’s written extensively about “SJWs” and she said he’s full of hate. In fact his writing is a principled examination of the SJW movement in SF whereas the accuser is a legitimate hate-Tweeter. She seems as legitimately stupid; there’s no cure for that. What would you expect of a stay at home mom with almost 200,000 Tweets over 5 1/2 years, many of them passionately and obsessively anti-white? That’s not a life, that’s a cave. What’s 80 Tweets a day, day in and day out over that period of time. In the old days she’d have been watching daytime soap operas.

  47. You know that I respect your opinions. However…and correct me if I’m wrong…but it seems to me as if the whole point of libertarianism is small government. And I’m not grasping how that meshes with any form of leftism, which seems to me to be all about big government. Forgive my ignorance in this matter…

    No matter how someone else defines it, ’cause, you know, I think I’m right about everything, lol, just ask Mr. DM.

  48. Thanks for your response. Honestly, Jeff, you don’t always respond, and frankly, you’re a smart guy, and I value your opinion. All I can say is, even though I’m a woman, I can say that stupid is as stupid does, regardless of gender. As a Christian, I know that God will separate the “wheat from the tares”; the good from the bad, and He’s going to do it soon. And also, as a Christian, I know that God has different roles for men than for women, and if we each embraced our genetic, God-given roles, how happy we’d be.

    In the meanwhile, those who are not stupid are going to, by necessity, be exposed to idiots.

    I completely agree with everything you say, as usual. I would say, I agree with you 99.9% of the time. And it has nothing to do with gender, but rather, it has to do with stoooopid vs. not stupid.

    I don’t know about you personally, but I’m 56, and I’ve noticed that there’s way more stupid than there used to be. I’m appalled.

  49. “Or, if we refuse to fight fire with fire, are we engaged in a self-defeating unilateral disarmament?”

    yes it is unilateral disarmament, its why my bio at sites I have the pleasure of having one is “Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &

    does not destroy him is his own enemy”

    I live my life with those words.

  50. No, the difference between a “liberal” and a leftist is that the “liberal” just isn’t YET willing to go to all the places that the logoc of the leftist assumptions demand. BUT HE WILL go there when the leftists get serious about demanding he go there, because he already accepts the leftist premises.

Comments are closed.