This is Comedy Gold


This is one of those great and clear examples of how some people can’t be please because they don’t want to be pleased so you’re wasting your time to try to please them.  A lot of folks don’t want things to be “better” (better as defined by their worldview), they just want to bitch (like that person who was dumping on Sentinels of the Multiverse because boobs and diversity or something).  But it also got me thinking about how I kind of hate Link now and wonder how he got to be such a popular hero.  I mean, I’d say that he’s coasting off the games where he was genuinely badass, but the N64 Link is probably the most beloved and iconic incarnation.  The problem is, it sucks!

I’ve been playing Ocarina of Time on an off for a while now, and I’ve got a confession to make.  I think that Link is a shit protagonist.  It’s weird, too, because when I was a little kid, I thought he was pretty badass.  Then again, when I was a little kid, I’d only played a few bits here and there of the first NES Zelda at a friend’s house, but I’d seen the cartoon and read the choose your own adventure books, and he seemed pretty cool to small child me.

Somehow, I’d never gotten around to playing Ocarina.  Never had the system.  When a friend at college got the GameCube collection I’m playing now, I was more stoked at the chance to play Zelda 2 again without the emulator bugs from the NESticle version.  Zelda 2* Link was about as close as he ever got to being a “man”.  Before the retcon, it was one of the later games in continuity, so we had something of a tough, brooding and battle hardened Link who was on a quest to drive the darkness from himself while stopping the evil cultists who wanted to resurrect the wizard lord who’d put a curse on his true love.

Now that I’m playing Ocarina, though, I’m seeing a Link who is kind of wuss.  His silence comes across as uncertainty** rather than stoicism.  He is surrounded by friends and beautiful damsels who are clearly into him, but he can’t be arsed to acknowledge them, thank them or really do anything other than briefly scowl and be on his way.  I want to see Link tell the fish girl she’s crazy and needs to back off.  I want to see Link tell Saria he actually appreciates her friendship.  Hell, even if he didn’t tell her he loved her, it would be nice to see Link as anything but indifferent toward Malon.  Nope.  He just sort of scowlingly stumbles his way through the story coming across as unempathetic and extremely unlikable.  I really feel like there needs to be SOME explanation for why he never says anything if he’s got all of these people opening up to him without him ever saying anything.  It’s like that kid from Goodburger; in the movie when they explicitly avoided the implied involvement of copious amounts of pot, the kid goes from being a stoner to a mental defect and it’s more sad than funny.  If Link doesn’t have his tongue cut out, then he’s just an asshole.

So what does this have to do with a gender-flipped Link?  Having a female Link would significantly change our underlying expectations for what a good fantasy hero is.  The silence becomes shyness and reserve rather than uncertainty and unconfidence.  Would it make Link more likable?  I don’t know, but I think it would make me hate him less.

*:Z2 has by far aged the best of any of the Zelda games, is still a ton of fun and I would probably venture to say is the best in the entire series.

**: Yeah, I know he’s supposed to be a ‘kid’, and kids are scared of stuff, stories about overcoming fear, yadda yadda yadda, but from the 2d era to the 3d era, Link goes from being something like Taran from Prydain to someone who is constantly emoting self-doubt and insecurity and grows up without really growing.

Minor update:

I watched this video a long time ago, before I played Ocarina and had totally forgotten about it.  I watched it again today.  This guy is pretty much right about everything.

Anita Sarkeesian is the Dan Brown of Video Games Criticism

Anita Sarkeesian is to cultural criticism what Dan Brown was to historical fiction; for better or for worse, entire cottage industries have sprung up around illustrating what they’re wrong about and why they’re wrong. While the reaction to the DaVinci Code gave us lots of cool stuff from historians and archaeologists on DaVinci and Grail history, the reaction to Sarkeesian has given us a lot of nuanced content exploring gender roles in video game media. Sure, there’s lots of “Fuck Sarkeesian/Brown, s/he is an idiot who has no idea what the fuck s/he’s talking about and is wrong about everything”, but there’s also been a lot of really good and thought provoking stuff to come out of it, too.

That might not quite be what Liana K is getting at in this article, but this article (along with several others by the likes of Jenn of Hardwire & Liz F) is definitely part of that “good” to come out of it.

Recap, Dame Celeste, and James Desborough

Lots of games over the weekend were played. Shadow over Alfheim was brutal and there was nearly a TPK that was averted largely because of my generousity to roleplaying. I played several games at someone’s tabletop games birthday bash, and I also continued by journey through Kongregate. As much as I wanted to get through Hardmode of Starwish to unlock the ultimate ending (seriously, getting through the first two acts without dying to unlock the final conversation with Ginny is ridicuhard, and I wasn’t going to start over and try again a 3rd time), the call of other games lured me away. I’ll be talking about the first one I played today.

Dame Celeste is an 8-bit-style stealth game that is something of an homage to Anita Sarkeesian’s “The Last Princess”. There are several differences between Dame Celest and Sarkeesian’s proposed stealth game, but if the obvious similarities weren’t enough to clue you in at first, the game eventually smacks you in the face with it (a non-hostile Hammerhead Shark named Lady Sharkeesian complains about misogyn and the fact that the cat-guards are of indeterminite gender is lampshaded in a conversation where a cat-guard complains to a mouse-chef that the big-bad is goign to start forcing female cat-guards to wear bows so you can tell them apart; “damsel” is even in the protagonist’s name).

In Dame Celeste, the evil walrus king has taken all the water in the desert kingdom for himself and Dame Celeste, who has been thrown in the dungeon for refusing to marry him, has to escape the palace and recover water droplets to bring water to the people.

The gameplay is entirely stealth-based, with a ‘costume’ component. One of the first and most obvious shoutouts to The Last Princess is Dame Celeste’s default purple outfit which bears a striking resemblence to the Princess’s. She also has a fancy dress in her inventory, but if it has a use, that use is somewhere past where I was able to get. Patrols have sight-ranges which can be reduced by wearing the appropriate clothing: cat-guards/guard-outfit, mice-chefs/chef-outfit, shark-court-ladies/ball-gown, etc.
Getting into an enemy’s sight range results in the enemy making a bee-line for you. If you run gob-smack into them, you’re found out immediately and are sent back to your cell (actually the last check-point you reached). If you can get a little distance but are still caught, several phrases will appear moving accross the screen, forming a multiple choice response to make to whomever caught you on the fly. Get it right, they let you go; get it wrong, you get sent back to the last checkpoint. There are several things that you can hide in, such as suits of armor, cauldrons, or even bushes that you can take with you for a ways, to evade detection. Getting through some spots requires planning, timing, and sometimes a bit of luck.

One thing about Dame Celeste worth noting is that it is hard. Incredibly hard. Not quite as bad as the NES port of Metal Gear, but still rough. The main thing that keeps it from being Nintendo hard is that there is no limit on how many times you can get caught. I eventually got stuck on the 3rd level in a spot where you have to go from bush to bush across a giant ballroom filled with Hammerhead sharkladies (that describes lots of places in the level, but this one was extra hard). After getting caught a dozen times in this same spot, I eventually gave up. Despite the cute graphics, this game would take some truly grim determination to get to the end of.

I’ve pointed out already that Anita’s game idea wouldn’t hold up to her own criticism, and TL;DR saves me the reiteration.

Seriously, though, my favorite part of her idea is that the princess, who was overthrown by a ruling council that wanted to do away with the monarchy, overthrows the ruling council so she can do away with the monarchy. Quite the little Napoleon there, huh?

If I wanted to, I could use FemFreq style feminist criticism to shit all over Dame Celeste (“Dame Celeste’s inability to protect herself when confronted with foes is inherent to the expectations that we force upon Celeste as a woman as a non-combatant hero, because self-protective force is only seen positive in the realm of the male protagonist”), but I won’t, because Dame Celeste is a pretty awesome game and worth checking out.

It does make me re-examine City at the Top of the World a bit. One of the reasons I wrote it with a female protagonist was that I felt that with a male protagonist, there would be more of an expectation for Aeryn to ‘fight’ his way to freedom. In the same way, if Dame Celeste were Dude Celeste, would people find the gameplay disappointing because Dude Celeste could not clobber the Cat-guards? Is it because Dame Celeste is a female character that we can resign ourselves to going peacefully when we’re caught?

Anyway, you can find and play Dame Celeste for free on Kongregate and visit their development page here.

Coming up soon, I’ll do my Shadow Over Alfheim recap and talk about Defender’s Quest, a tower defense game that just may be the model I’m looking for in regards to a tabletop adaptation.

As a final note for this morning, I’d like to say that what is happening to James Desborough, aka Grimachu, and Postmortem studios is messed up. RPG pundit has weighed in, as has Jeffro. I myself have already sent an email to DriveThru. Note that it’s not just Evil Hat who has put pressure, though they are the first developer I’ve heard mentioned by name. Lots of people have been dogpiling this, or at least bragging about having dogpiled this on twitter. Game developers should be scared shitless about this. For every Jennifer Dawe whose game benefits from an outpouring of love when slanderous boycott attempts backfire and fail, there will probably be at least one James Desborough who will be isolated and ground down by the haters. I’ve said before that we’ve been living in an unprecedented time of unprecedented access to the tools and avenues of publication, where anyone can be a game designer and anyone can get their game published, but these halcyon days may be on their way out if things continue the way they have been and ‘concerned individuals’ can get developers excluded from the market because of ‘feels’.

Geordie Tait Interview Transcribed – Pt 5

Disclaimer: I am offering, without commentary, the transcript of the Geordie Tait interview as a service to the Gamergate community and is not intended for commercial use.  As it is rather long, I will be posting it in installments.  I have faithfully transcribed the conversation to the best of my abilities and will attempt to complete the transcription so that the information is available in a timely manner.  The opinions and statements made by individuals within reflect their own opinions and ideas and are not reflective of Cirsova or any other individuals.  The transcription begins with Geordie Tait’s arrival on the stream and will end shortly after his departure.  The full audio interview can be found here.

KOP:Let’s kind of go into your article a little bit, your second article, where you kind of…

GT: Sure.

KOP: …went into this.  Now, I’m going to read something that you said, and, um, we’re going to go into this.  “I don’t care if Anita Sarkeesian’s kickstarter was called ‘Help me fund my kickstarter, Kill a Man, Inc., P.S. I Hate Testosterone’, don’t you understand it doesn’t matter?”  So, let me ask you this: does it really not matter?  That if Sarkeesian were to put in there “Kill all men”, it… you’d still fund it because it’s Anita Sarkeesian, and not…

GT: I think it’s a fucking joke that you guys deflect and have the intellectual dishonesty…

KOP: I didn’t write it.

GT: complain…

KOP: I didn’t write it.  You wrote.  And no one’s deflecting.  This is exactly your words, so I’m just asking…

GT: Why are you interrupting me?  I wasn’t even talking about that.

KOP: Oh, okay, I’m sorry.

GT: You were interrupting me on the basis of something that you expect me to say, and I was not going to say it.

KOP: Oh, well, I thought you were answering my question.

GT: I am answering your question.  I am telling you that the point of that sentence is it’s a satire of the behavior of gamergate in that they complain about manhating and so-on, and I’m saying it doesn’t matter.  I mean, she could just say “I hate men, Fund Me” and get $100k, and I wouldn’t care.  Good.

KOP: I’m sorry, I have to interject.  Doesn’t that make no sense though?  If you’re for women and saving women, why would it not matter since, as you said before, Anita Sarkeesian is of prime importance to this and it made you even say “wow” yourself, “look at all the good they’re doing”.  If she was talking about genociding all men, “I hate testosterone”, as you said in a satire way, it wouldn’t matter.  Wouldn’t that kind of be contradictory to what she wants?  That’d be like the complete opposite of what it is.

GT: No, let me explain.  Let me try to explain.  There was a time when I believe there was like some gerrymandering being done or like an early voting law was removed, and it was done to stick it to the Democrats.  I forget exactly where it was, but it happened in the United State and was implemented by some Colonel Sanders looking fuck who went on the Daily Show and got fired (unintelligible) for it.  So, the question was asked in that interview, “how many people used to vote twice, the thing that you’re trying to prevent?” and the answer was one or two.  And I think that basically gamergate’s complaints about anything amount to the one or two people voting twice.  It’s enough voter fraud to swing zero elections, it does not matter.  The Much more important thing is the, y’know, keeping that early voting law so that minorities are able to come out to the polls, or in the case of this giving women a chance to do the things that are important to them and like finally break into the industry and the various narrative in a way that is healthier for people to experience and doesn’t reinforce all these negative things that, y’know…

KOP: Okay.  Alright.  Fair enough.  A lot of people want to explain NotYourShield to you, and I have a 6 minute video here that if you want to watch it on my stream, and we’ll be quiet so you can watch it, so that maybe you can get a… and then we want to hear your opinion after seeing it.  Is that okay?

GT: You want me to watch the whole thing on the stream?  Alright, if you say so.

KOP: No, I’m asking you, is that okay?  I’m not telling you.

GT: It’s okay with me.  I’m just… if it’s okay with you.

KOP: Yeah, so we’re gonna watch 6 minutes 14 seconds.  It’s basically giving a voice to the voiceless, the NotYourShield Project.  It’s just explaining in detail what that is and then we’ll go on from there, just to show you.

GT: Sounds good.

KOP: So, we’re watching this.

Sargon: Can you send me a link to this, Pol? Cuz I’m going to have to…

KOP: Yeah.

Sargon: Can’t watch it on the stream.

KOP: No problem, it’s going to be right here in chat, so we’ll watch this and then, afterwards, you and Sargon can go on to discuss more onto the topic.

KOP: Okay.  Wrap up.  You’re still catching up?

GT: I, uh, think it’s done.

Kop: Okay.

Sargon: Yeah, I watched it.

KOP: Okay, after seeing that, I want to reask you the same question again, do you believe that the gamergate community, after seeing that, deserve to be pushed in gas chambers, as you put it?  Do you think that they’re as evil as you put it?

GT: Yeah, they’re evil.

KOP: After seeing that?  Did any of that come off as very evil or inherently bad?

GT: It came off as thinking that corruption in video game journalism… – let me just stop and say who fucking gives a shit? – is more important the plight of half the fucking world’s population.

Sargon: We give a shit, what are you talking about?

GT: I don’t care if you give a shit.  You shouldn’t.  You should sure care about something that’s actually important.

KOP: This is important to us, cuz it’s our hobby.  It’s what we enjoy.  Some people, as you saw on there, it’s more than just a hobby, it’s their livelihood.

GT: It’s my livelihood too.

KOP: But then why should we… you not care as much as we not care?  Isn’t that kind of contradictory?

GT: I believe, I think that the so called ‘corruption’ in video game journalism is way overblown.  Uh…

KOP: How so?

GT: I mean, I can’t even imagine the amount of corruption there would have be in video game journalism for it to be more serious than the current problems, as they’re called, with social justice in the gaming industry.  And, by the way, Social Justice Warrior is an utterly, unbelievably stupid term that denotes, just…

KOP: Okay.

Sargon: Hang on, let him finish, Pol.

GT: I don’t know what word I’m looking for, hatred, I guess, for, for, uh, people who believe in social justice, which is far more important than fucking, y’know, hunting down examples of video game journalism ethical breaches.  It’s just ridiculous.

KOP: Well, let’s talk about that for a minute

GT: Yep, go ahead.

KOP: … talk about Matti Leshem and the game jam that was ruined by that.  Or we can skip on to, let’s say, Ubi-soft giving Nexus 7 tablets to journalists to write better reviews, or we can talk about TB’s interview – Total Biscuit, the one we’re discussing – uh,

GT: Total Biscuit is a fuck, too.

KOP: …where he talked about being given… somebody trying to give him a $3000 laptop just to play their game included on their stream and get a good review.  We can talk about how game journalists got PS3s just to play a game.

GT: You’re preaching to the choir.  I believe all of that is wrong.

KOP: Okay, so, how is that not corruption in video games journalism.

GT: It is, it is, but I don’t care, relative to (unintelligible) happening.

Sargon: Right, okay then, can we talk about something you do care about then?  I’m very curious about, um, misogyny

GT: Yep.

Sargon: Could… I mean, could you define it for me?  What do you think misogyny is?

GT: What do I think misogyny is?  Well, it mostly takes the form, uh… I would say, of contempt… Most of it is just not caring about what is an obvious problem.  At least in gamergate.  But there’s also just a lot of really repugnant comments and like stupidity.  You know, prejudice against women.  That’s what I would say misogyny is.

Sargon: Right, cuz the definition everyone else is working to is, um, the hatred of women by virtue of them being women.  That’s… That’s the definition that everyone else works on, so when you say someone’s a misogynist, they’re like “well, there are women that I don’t hate”.  So, when you say that…

GT: Well, I’m sure that there’s plenty of women (unintelligible).

Sargon:…they’re a misognynist, it doesn’t make any sense to them.

GT: I mean, it’s possible to be a misogynist and have women that you don’t hate.

Sargon: Sorry, say that again.

GT: It’s possible to be a misogynist and have women that you don’t hate.

Sargon: I don’t think that’s true.

GT: It is obviously true.

Sargon: Why is it obviously true?

GT: (unintelligible).  Okay, I’ll tell you how it’s true: you have contempt for women who are trying to, you know, rise up from their position of being chattel and marginalized and, you know, not allowed into the best spots in industries and underpaid.  Having, you know, all of that stuff.  So, you don’t like that, but you’re totally fine with your, you know,  meek and cowed wife who you driven down into the ground over the course of 8 to 10 years, and you’re fine with, you know, the, uh, the women on twitter who says, you know, “I don’t believe in feminism”, uh, “I’m fine by myself”, and like “I have my own definition of feminism” and “I don’t care about this other thing and I don’t hate men and I don’t hate anything that’s going on” and, so of course you’re fine with that person, even though you’re a misogynist, cuz she’s tapdancing on top of the fucking dugout.  So…

Sargon: But hang on.  Okay, so, you’re saying that I like some women if they’re traditional women, traditionalist women, right?

GT: Yeah, but this is not…  This is just one example.

Sargon: I’m really just trying to understand what you’re trying to tell me, because you’re not working off the standard definitions that everyone else uses, so I really am trying to give what you’re saying credence.  Like, so, there are some women that I like because of the way they act, and there are some women that I don’t like because of the way they act.

GT: Yep.

Sargon: Is that… And so that’s what makes me a misogynist.

GT: Uh.  That isn’t what makes a misogynist.

Sargon: That’s part of, sorry, that’s why you’re calling me a misogynist: because there are some women I don’t like.

GT: That’s one way a misogynist could be.  They could also hate all women, as you say, or they could hate one woman because she’s a woman, like every other woman still be a fucking misogynist.  (unintelligible)

Sargon: What if I don’t like certain women because of the things they do?

GT: Depends what they do.

Sargon: Well, okay, maybe, um, uh, I don’t know, maybe they’re trying to defame… deface an Argentinian cathedral?

GT: Okay, are they doing that because they’re women?

Sargon: Yeah.

GT: So, you think that they’re doing that because they’re women?

Sargon: No, that’s not true, they’re doing it because they’re feminists.

GT: Oh, you think they’re doing it because they’re feminist?  That’s not the same as…

Sargon: Oh, I know they were, that’s what they were saying.

KOP: Hold on, Geordie, he’s, hold on.  I don’t think Geordie knows.  Geordie, he’s referring to a recent, not too long, a couple months ago, there was a radical feminist group, the – I can’t remember the name off the top of my head, I know, Sargon, you know what I’m  talking about – in Argentina and they went on a riot against a church where there was a priest, a couple priests, while they rioted and destroyed everything because they hated men.

Sargon: Yeah, so I don’t personally, very… like those women very much, because they’re trying to deface someone else’s property, and because the people they were attacking hadn’t done anything to them.

GT: They hadn’t?

Sargon: No, not at all.  Not as far as we know, anyway.  I would find it hard to believe a small group of very religious men had done anything to this 7 or 8 thousand strong mob of feminists.

GT: I actually disagree that someone who’s hyperreligious is less likely to have done something to women.

Sargon:  It doesn’t matter if they’re likely or not, it’s just that we have no evidence to suggest they did anything.  So…

GT: It sounds like there hasn’t been much information come out, but like if they didn’t have a reason to do that, then fine, you know, they should’ve expressed themselves in a different way.  But I think they’re justified in just generally being mad at men.

Sargon: Okay.  But if I say I don’t like those women because of what they did, am I misogynist?

GT: That’s a tough question. You’re giving me a real corner case here.  It… Y’know…

Sargon: I’m just trying to understand.

GT: I would have to really examine.  I would have to really examine those women and what they did and why.  And I would have to know your background, like, do… are you a religious person?  How do you treat other women in your life? And you know, stuff like that.  And so, you know, I would need more information.

Sargon: Okay. Um, okay, so, it’s possible to be a misogynist who doesn’t hate all women though.  There can be some women I like.

GT: Yes.  Yep.

Sargon: Cuz, it, the way that it sounds like your describing misogyny is anti-feminism.

GT: Not quite. I mean… But it takes the form of, y’know, anti-, I don’t know what I would call it.  Women who are… uh, standing up for themselves in various ways?  So… You know, sometimes that’s the case and sometimes it’s just there’s no reason for it and you dislike a very meek and cowed woman just for her nature of being a, y’know, very, sl…, just, “pathetic”, you would think, “look at her with her head hung.”  You know, meek and scared when I raise my hand, I don’t like that, so I don’t respect that, so I don’t like that woman.

Sargon: I don’t ever raise my hand to women, man.

GT: Of course, sorry, I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about a hypothetical other misogynist.

Sargon: Right, okay, so you… you kinda seem to be talking about like a guy from the 50s or something.

GT: What? No.

Sargon: You just said like “When I raise my hand to her she’s all meek and stuff” and I’m  just thinking in my own life experience and I don’t think I’ve ever met a meek woman.  Um, most of them are quite outspoken, do you not find?  I mean, I don’t know what it’s like in San Francisco.

GT: Um, I mean, I think that I’ve met women who are easy to manipulate and, y’know, I could’ve taken advantage of easily.  And of course I’ve met women who are just real firebrands, that would never be possible.  Um, I mean, I don’t know.

KOP: Let me ask you this.  Do you think that all men are inherently bad?

GT: No.

KOP: Okay.  Do you think that the majority of men are very bad.

GT: I wouldn’t say very bad, but I would say that the majority of men are shaped by society to contribute to the… you know, the reinforcement of the way things are and make it hard for… to change these circumstances, as a result.  So they unconsciously do it almost.

Sargon: Okay, I have question.

GT: Go ahead.

Sargon: Okay, so like, how exactly, and you don’t have to give me like the comprehensive description of how society does it, but a few examples would be good, if you don’t mind.

GT: Okay.  Let me try and think of a few. There’s so many.  Um.  Alright.  Men.  Like.  Something as simple as sports culture being what it is.  There’s a lot of attention paid to male sports culture, where women’s sports are not really followed closely, with the exception of tennis, I guess.   But otherwise, the male leagues and competitions are much more important, and that suddenly rubs off on everyone.  Same thing with the military, I’m sure that, uh, women are allowed in the military, but I’m sure that they are marginalized in there. I mean, you can’t tell me that they’re not.   They’re not.

KOP: Well actually, they’re kinda not, not to the extent, at least not in America.  There’s actually some things going on with that, but um.  I have to ask you a question that a lot of people want to know.  The question that a lot of people were asking on is… are there any women… Is there a woman that you’ve ever disliked?

GT: Me?

KOP: Yes.

GT: Ann Coulter.  And like, a bunch of others that are similar to that.  Michelle Bachmann.

KOP: Okay, so according to your own definition, that would make you a misogynist, correct?

GT: No.

KOP: How so?

GT: I don’t dislike them because they’re women.  I dislike them because of their stupid political views.

Sargon: Okay.  I take it they’re right wing, are they?

GT: Yeah, they’re really right wing.  I also dislike every woman who is in gamergate.  Because of their stupid views, essentially.  So, those are other women I don’t like.

KOP: Okay, alright, that’s all I wanted to hear.  Alright, go ahead, continue on.

Sargon: Yeah, yeah, okay.  Could you tell me exactly why you like the right-wing so much?

GT: Because it’s wrong.

Sargon: Because it’s what, sorry?

GT: Wrong.

Sargon: Why’s it wrong?  What’s it doing that’s wrong?

GT: Uh.  I don’t…  I can’t even go down the whole list of why the right wing is wrong.

Sargon:  Any examples are good.  Honestly, right (unintelligible).

GT: How about everything that comes out… Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh talk?

Sargon: Yeah, he’s a bit mental, isn’t he?

GT: Yeah, anything that comes out of his mouth is an example of the right wing being wrong and there are plenty of people who believe those things.

KOP: I have to stop and interject here as the moderator; that’s very blanket statement and you can’t just say what Rush Limbaugh says is the word of god in the sense of right-wingers, or the word of all republicans or right-wingers in general.

GT: Alright, okay, so are they the people who are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood?  If yes, then they are wrong, and evil.  So, yes, they’re evil and wrong.

Sargon: So… Okay… I’m curious about the comment ‘evil’.  Why do you think they’re evil?

GT: Because I’m tired of half-measures in terms of the speech that I use.  It is evil to shut down Planned Parenthood.  You are crushing the lives of women who need those services.  And, you know, it’s as simple as that, and I’m not afraid to say so.  And I’m sorry if I’m offending people, but…

Sargon: No, no, you’re not.  You’re not offending me; I’m actually in favor of women to be able to have access to abortion.  Um, so.  I don’t agree with the Republicans on that issue, but I wouldn’t say that they were evil for holding that position.

GT: I would.

KOP: Uh…

Sargon: I mean, they’re not murdering women, are they?

GT: Okay.  What about in the case of a woman who, woman who because she doesn’t have access to safe abortion, y’know, dies as a result of some sort of extra hospitable – extra hospital – attempt to get rid of her baby (unintelligible)

Sargon: I can only speak for my own country, but in Britain, if the woman who’s pregnant is in danger of losing her life due to her pregnancy, her pregnancy will be terminated to save her life.  Don’t they do that in America?

GT: That’s also true in America, but in order to facilitate those circumstances there have been plenty of occasions where women try to put their lives in danger and end up killing themselves, just as one example.  I mean, what.  Just let them have the services.  It’s just.  It’s just puritanism, it’s fucking bullshit.

Sargon: I-I…

KOP: Here, I want to interject here, guys, for just a minute, um, just to get a little back on topic for a moment with gamergate.  Let me ask you this, Geordie, if say with your views, right now…

GT: Yep.

KOP: Okay, if your parents, let’s say your mom and your dad, or your brother your sister, your family was inherently… gamergate.  Let’s just for the instance of hypothetically, they were pro-gamergate.

GT: Yep.

KOP: Would you cut them out of your life or would you remove…

GT: Yes.

KOP: You would cut your family out of your life.

GT: Well, my father’s dead.

KOP: Nothing personal, this is hypothetical.  I’m saying the people who are alive and in your family now, if they announced to you “I don’t agree with you”, I’m pro gamergate, would you cut them out of your life?

GT: I would not talk to them.

Sargon: Why, just out of interest?

GT: Okay, what you don’t seem to understand is that I believe this is an intensely moral issue.  So, them believing in gamergate is akin to them believing that you can stone women to death.  Because (unintelligible) the Koran.

Sargon: But that’s really… that’s not what gamergate’s advocating for, though.

GT: No, that’s my… that’s my judgment, though.  Like, you believe that’s not what it’s advocating and I believe that is what it’s advocating.

KOP: Okay, fair enough on that, Geordie.  Would you say that… Would you say… would you try…  Let me ask you this, Geordie.  You kept saying in your writings that people should listen to you to know the truth and join, in a sense, come to your side, or come to the anti-gamergate side, to understand better of what gamergate is.  Would you say that you would want to bring new people into the ideology that gamergate is inherently evil and they need to be genocided?

GT: Yes.  Well, I don’t know.  That genocide thing, everyone got really upset about that.

KOP: But just in general, you would want to bring them to your ideology on what gamergate is, that they are inherently evil, correct?

GT: That, okay.  Yes.  The genocide thing?  All I’m trying to say is that, like, I’ve gotta have the courage of my convictions.  I’m not going to half-ass it.  Because I believe gamergate is evil, because I believe it is an intensely moral issue, and they are perpetrating, y’know, moral wrongness upon a group that needs support, I have to say “Yes, the world would be better off without these people”…

KOP: Yes, fair enough.

GT: …and I happen to say “Stick them in the gas chamber”.

KOP: Okay.

Sargon: Yeah, but isn’t that what the German said about… the Nazis said about the Jews, though?  They (unintelligible)

GT: I mean, they were wrong about the Jews.

Sargon: Yeah, but you’re not considering that you might be wrong about gamergate, either.

GT: I’m not.

KOP: So…

Sargon: That’s my point, though, that’s exactly my point, I mean.  I think…

GT: I’m not wrong

Sargon: …that Hitler probably would’ve said the same thing about the Jews.

GT: Yeah, he would’ve been wrong, and I’m not.

KOP: Okay, well, Geordie, with that being said, though, you would say that you would be bringing… and you would want people to listen to you so that you would bring people to the anti-gamergate side to understand why gamergate is inherently evil in your vision.

GT: I guess, yeah.

KOP: Okay, yeah.  That’s all I… Okay, alright, um.

Sargon: Okay, um…

KOP: Go ahead, Sargon.

Sargon: I’m kind of hung up on the, um, the… the… you’re not wrong.  How do you know that?

GT: I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous to ask someone how they know they’re not wrong, I mean everyone inherently believes that they’re not wrong if they believe strongly about something.  It’s like asking me “do you know you’re not wrong that women should have access to abortions?”  Yes, I fucking know that.

Sargon: Yeah, but no one in gamergate is asking for women to lose their right to abortions.

GT: By several degrees of separation and many years of time, yes they are.

Sargon: Right, go on and explain how gamergate is advocating anti-abortion.

GT: They are generally saying that women’s rights and social justice are to be ridiculed and are not important, let’s talk about, y’know, ethics in journalism?  Who gives a shit?  And because of that attitude, if they become more successful, if more people join gamergate, the entire world is going to be filled with these dickheads, so yes, I want them gone.  And like their staying will just hinder and hamstring women and their various rights and privileges.  Yes, it won’t… it’ll be hard… y’know…  It’s hard to see the direct…

Sargon: How?

Kop: Hold on, Sargon.  So with that mindset, would you say that there’s no life outside the context of the group gamergate?

GT: I’m sorry, I don’t understand you.

KOP: with what you had to say, would you say then that you feel that there is no life outside the context of the group gamergate?

GT: No, I wouldn’t say that.  I’m not sure what brought you to that.

KOP: What I’m asking is is that if you’re pro-gamergate, is there any… do you feel there is no life outside of that context, that you are pro-gamergate?

Sargon: If you were pro-gamergate.

KOP: If you’re pro-gamergate, is…  would you feel there is no life outside the context of that group? Or in your aspect , would you feel, as anti-gamergate side, that there is no life outside the context of anti-gamergate?  If you are inherently pro-gamergate, then you must die?

GT: Um, I think that the world would be better without you, but it’s not gamergate that I believe is a, y’know, all encompassing thing.  I believe that it is women and their rights and their plight that is the all encompassing thing

KOP: alright, let’s get back on topic here.  I want to address something else we had a conversation with, more toward the gamergate side and that was radical feminism and Cultural Marxism.  Now, we did talk about this when we were prepping earlier.

GT: a little bit, yeah.  You have a much better understanding of it than I do, I think, though.

KOP: And I would like to get into that discussion.  Now, I asked you the question, I’m going to ask it here for both of you guys to discuss.  Would you say that radical feminism is just another form of cultural Marxism, they just replaced class with gender.

GT: Do you know what he’s talking about?  I have trouble answering that question.

Sargon: Yeah, do you mind if I go back to the line of inquiry I had, Pol?

KOP: If you want to wrap that up, go ahead.

Sargon: I just want to explore it a bit more, because I don’t really understand how you see the world, Geordie.  So, I…  Right.  So, do you think that the only way to be pro-human rights is to be involved in social justice?

GT: Um…. That’s an interesting question.  I think that… What’s the bigger basket there?  Human rights or social justice?  Which one fits inside the other, do you think?

Sargon: Um.  I don’t think that they necessarily fit inside each other.

GT: Oh, I do, I do, I think that it’s…  I think it’s… Human rights probably fits inside social justice, social justice is the all encompassing thing.

Sargon: Right, okay.  So.  Right, okay.  So, but do you think that it’s possible to be in favor of human rights without being part of social justice, without believing what you believe?

GT: You see this stupid picture that’s scrolling up through the chat?  This is exactly what I’d say that 80-90% of gamergate is like.  But anyway…

Sargon: That’s not what I asked, though.

GT: Sorry, I didn’t answer your question, can you repeat it?

Sargon: Yeah, yeah, do you think that it’s possible to be in favor of human rights for men and women and not be in favor of this sort of social justice that you believe in?

GT: No, I don’t think that’s possible.  There’s too much overlap.

Sargon: So, you think it’s mutually exclusive.  You can either be…

GT: No, you’re saying that.

Sargon: No, no, no, let me finish…

GT: Okay, go ahead, sorry.

Sargon: you can either be… you can either be for social justice, as you describe it, or you are against human rights?

GT: Uh, yes.  I think that’s accurate.

Sargon: Right, okay.  Um.  Is there any chance you’re wrong?

GT: No.

Sargon: Right.  Um.  Okay.  Uh, sorry, yeah, Pol, we can go to the next subject now, thanks.

GT: That’s like asking me if punching someone in the face is wrong.  I don’t know how you think I can be wrong.

KOP: Okay.

Sargon: Well, I think that everyone could be wrong about everything.

GT: No.

Sargon: Okay, okay, thanks.  Pol, your question.

KOP: So the next topic, the next question was, do you think that radical feminism, uh, is basically cultural Marxism in a nutshell.

GT: I mean, can I, uh… interrupt you.  You see this picture scrolling up through the chat?  “Insulting men is okay, insulting women is sexist”.

KOP: uh, no, I don’t see it.

GT: It’s actually one of the moderators.

KOP: Yeah, I see it.

GT: That’s actually true.

KOP: Okay.

GT: Even though he’s trying to make a joke, it’s actually, yes, that’s the case.

Sargon: Sorry, hang on, say that again, I missed the picture.  What was the?

GT: Insulting men is okay, insulting women is sexist.  Which is intended as…

Sargon: and you think that that’s legitimately…

GT: a criticism of feminism.  It’s actually true, that statement.

Sargon: Right… how do you know that?

GT: I just know it, because men are empowered.  And so insulting them rolls off their back, water off of a duck.  Insulting women who are underpowered IS in fact sexist, because it’s based on their sex, y’know, something that is cruel, because they need to be lifted up.  They don’t need to be further downtrodden.

Sargon: I mean, there’s something you’ve said there that’s true.  If you insult women for being women, then that would be sexist.  But what if I insult a woman because she did something stupid?

GT: Um.  I mean, obviously, I’d need more information.

Sargon: Well, okay…

GT: Let’s say that you’re completely telling the truth for sake of argument.  Obviously I’d need more information.  Then no, that’s not sexist.

Sargon: Do you think I’m lying to you at all in this?

GT: Uh, we’re just talking about a hypothetical case of a hypothetical man insulting a hypothetical woman because of… she did something stupid.  That is not inherently sexist, we both agree.

Sargon: Right, okay, so why is the, um, that meme wrong then.  Or right, even.

GT: It’s right.

Sargon: The fact that they’re trying to make a joke of that is wrong, isn’t it?

GT: Uh, they’ve failed, I think to make a joke of it, and it’s a stupid… it’s a stupid meme, but it’s right, and the reason that it’s right is because men are empowered.  Men are superman, they’re Kal’el.  Shit bounces off men, because the way society has been built for a plethora of reasons.

Sargon: Does it bounce off you?

GT: Yes.  Haven’t you been able to see that?

Sargon:  I… I wouldn’t dare make that judgment.

GT: It does.  Look at this chat; I’ve been reading the whole thing, and I still don’t give a fuck.

Sargon: Okay.  But do you not think there are women who have you opinion on that, like, you know “people can insult me and I don’t give a fuck”?

GT: Yeah, that’s their choice, but sure.  But that doesn’t mean that they should say that other women should be like that too.  You know, which is what the NotYourShield people essentially are saying.

KOP:  Isn’t that what you said as well, though, I mean contrary to belief, “If you don’t agree, you all should just listen to me, because you’re all wrong”?  I mean, you kind of did say that.

GT: Well, I mean, I happen to believe that they’re wrong, so I’m saying that.

Sargon: Aren’t you worried about the amount that use the word ‘believe’?

GT: It’s just a synonym for “Know” or “have discovered”.

Sargon: Okay. Okay.

GT: I’m not really worried about it.

Sargon: It’s just you couch a lot of things in what, from an outside perspective, could be religious terminology, so I want to get more to the sort of factual information.  So, I mean, I’m having trouble processing some of the things you say.  But… Do you think it’s your job to protect women?

GT: I’ve chosen to do that.  As best I can.

Sargon: You don’t think women can protect themselves?

GT: I believe that they can.

Sargon: So, why are you protecting them?

GT: I mean, my best friend can protect himself, but if he were in danger, I would protect him.  I don’t think It would be insulting to him.  So this is the same situation, basically.

Sargon: You don’t think it takes away his agency, though?

GT: No.

Sargon: Right, okay.

KOP: The next question is here, Geordie, you talked about gamergate being inherently evil.  Let’s use me for an example here.

GT: Okay.

KOP:Uh, my stream here, if you subscribe or if you donate, all the money goes straight to charity…

GT: I did donate.  I gave you $5.

KOP: I saw that.  Thank you very much.

GT: No problem.

KOP: But none of it goes to me, all of the proceeds go to charity.  I just recently got my first monthly money from it and I gave that, and you can go look on my twitter, to the Marine’s Toys for Tots foundation.  All of the money.  Now, if I was inherently evil, why would I donate all money and proceeds that is for a good cause?  Like giving kids toys for Christmas.

GT: There’s all sorts of, like, Republicans who are closing abortion clinics who donate tons to charity, who think that they’re like the nicest laughing Colonel Sanders looking old men you could ever meet.  They’re still fucking evil.  And if it took getting them off the fucking face of the earth to reopen those clinics, I would say yes, do it.  It’s the same for you.  I like you, but I mean, if you’re going to be advocating this bullshit…  Like, these people in your chat are the scum of the earth.  And you don’t seem to care, so I mean…

KOP: Well, I’ll explain why I don’t care after you’re done, but go ahead.

GT: But yeah, you understand my answer, right?

KOP:  I think so.  But now, you asked why I don’t seem to care about my chat.  And the reason why, and I’m not going to sugar coat this – the reason why I don’t care is that everybody has their own opinions and they’re entitled to it, and as long as it’s not something that is warranting distress, i.e. like a real death threat that will most likely happen, or doxing or harassment of any sort that is very dangerous or obviously legitimate, then it does not bother me.  Now, I have recently gone through a lot of shit from the gamergate community, and I brought it upon myself, to be honest…

GT: No, you fucking didn’t.  You didn’t.

Sargon: Yeah, he did.

KOP: No, I really did.  I really did, there’s no getting around that, and I own up to those things.  The difference is, I’m an adult and I have to accept the responsibilities of my actions.  I cannot just blame the others for the responsibilities of what happens to me, it doesn’t work that way, and society can’t do that.  And as adults, as you and myself, uh, Sargon here, we have responsibilities that we have to own up to and subject ourselves to regularly.  So, um, in that aspect, I really… that’s why I don’t care about my chat for the most part, is that things happen and shit comes around, but if you are inherently a part of the reason why, at least try to understand and subject yourself to what is going on on that side and get both sides of the story to come up with a basis that makes it right or wrong.  I think we lost Sargon here.  You still there?   Hello, Geordie?

GT: I’m here.

KOP: Okay, we did lose Sargon.  Um, in that aspect, that’s how it is.  So, I did get a lot of shit, and I did get doxed and harassed and death threats from people who were using the gamergate hashtag at that time…

GT: and now you’re fucking apologizing to them?

KOP: I’m not done.  But.  But.  It was not the majority.  It was only a few (unintelligible) voices, and it was apparent it was only a few voices.  But does that make it… does that mean that all of gamergate adheres to that logic that they condone harassment?  And that they are for death threats and misogyny and stuff like that?  No, it doesn’t.

GT: Yeah, it does.

KOP: No, it only goes to individuals, the select few that did it.  It does not go to gamergate as a whole, and even then, so…

GT: Hold on a second.  Hold on a second.  Um, say, I’m not sure how many people consider themselves part of gamergate…. It’s quite a few, isn’t it?  It’s like 50,000 or something like that.  Not sure.

KOP: It’s a high number, sure.

GT: It’s pretty high.  How many people were screwing with you?  Six, seven people, or more?  I’m not sure.

KOP:  Uh, it depends.  I would say, maybe probably about 100 at the most.

GT: Okay.  So only 100.

KOP: About 100 to 200.  Around there.

GT: Okay, around 100 to 200 people, and only 100 to 200 people bothered to, uh, fuck with you.  That doesn’t mean that only 100 to 200 people in gamergate are assholes.  It means that those people decided to fuck with you.

KOP: Right.  They’re individuals.

GT: Uh… They’re part of gamergate.

KOP: No.

GT: Yes.

KOP: No.  No, no, no, they’re using a hashtag to do it, that’s different.

GT: So they were part of gamergate.

KOP: No, that doesn’t mean they’re part of it.  It’s not a movement, it’s not an organization, it’s a consumer revolt.  You can just use a hashtag yourself and do it.  It doesn’t take more than 2 seconds to go do it.  I could do it now, you could do it now. It doesn’t mean that they are, it just comes from those people.  Some of them were anonymous, but the majority of them, which, like you said yourself, 50,000 or so, do not speak for the minority.  A loud vocal group is not what it is, and I took my lickings, if you will, and it was very extreme to the point where I had a mental breakdown, but… But…

GT: I can’t believe what I’m hearing.

KOP: No, I’m telling you how it works.  But as a responsible adult and things that happened, things happened, and you have to deal through that, but is it worth it to slander the entire majority vs. a minority of vocal loud people with a megaphone.  No.  No, it is not. It doesn’t work that way.

GT: Sargon just said you brought it on yourself.

KOP: Right, and I did, and I said that, but it doesn’t make it… what I’m saying is that the majority, all of gamergate, did not do it.  A minority did.  So, what I’m saying is that just because a few bad eggs say things bad that can make you think that gamergate is inherently evil, does not mean all of gamergate is inherently evil, it just means the individuals.  That as adults, we have to take responsibility that are given to us for the actions we received.

GT: Let me ask you a question.

KOP: Yes.

GT: I’m sort of hearing from you that some people were really hitting you hard…

KOP: Yes

GT: …but you believe they were justified because…

KOP: No.

GT: They weren’t?

KOP: No, what I’m trying to give you an example of is that a minority of loud megaphones do not justify all of gamergate.  You say that all of gamergate is inherently evil because they are misogynist and they hate women and they harass people and all that kind of stuff, correct?

GT: I mean, more or less, yeah.

KOP: Right, more or less, and I’m telling you as a real example that it is a small minority, not all gamergate that use the hashtag to do these things, but aren’t about what gamergate stands for or what the consumer revolt is.

GT: Oh, they really are against what gamergate stands for, or they’re not about it?  Well, where were the other 49,800 people stopping them?  They were fucking nowhere.

KOP: It’s not their job to stop them.

GT: You…. Are you fucking kidding me, Pol?  Like, if I was there, I would’ve tried to stop them if they were making you have a mental breakdown…

KOP:  And, no, and that’s a nice gesture, Geordie, but it’s not their job to stop them.

GT: Yes it is, to be a decent human being.  Yes, it is their fucking job.

KOP: Even then, gamergate does have a majority, they have a group called the Harassment Patrol that do do that.

GT: Yeah, well, where were they?

KOP: I don’t know.  I can’t tell you.

GT: Yeah, because they didn’t give a fuck, Pol, this is… this is fucking disgusting, this just reinforces my belief that they should just take everyone in gamergate and just launch them into the sun.  The world will be better for it.

Transcript will resume tomorrow at the point where Sargon returns.  Seems I forgot that Oliver didn’t show up until the 3rd hour.

Geordie Tait Interview Transcribed – Pt 4

Disclaimer: I am offering, without commentary, the transcript of the Geordie Tait interview as a service to the Gamergate community and is not intended for commercial use.  As it is rather long, I will be posting it in installments.  I have faithfully transcribed the conversation to the best of my abilities and will attempt to complete the transcription so that the information is available in a timely manner.  The opinions and statements made by individuals within reflect their own opinions and ideas and are not reflective of Cirsova or any other individuals.  The transcription begins with Geordie Tait’s arrival on the stream and will end shortly after his departure.  The full audio interview can be found here.

KOP: There he is.  Did you finally get your tea, man?

Sargon of Akkad: Hello.  Yeah, no, I was actually having a bacon sandwich for breakfast.

KOP: Motherfucker… Alright, bro.  So, we’ve got Sargon in here now.  Geordie, I want to throw in this topic here.  Now, I asked you this before, and you were talking about Anita Sarkeesian, and you said that you write radical feminist articles, would you still say that now?

GT: Yeah.

KOP: Okay, and I asked you why it seemed that the portrayal of white men in society was a bad thing, or men in general, and we kind of went into the history of men in that aspect.  With gamergate, do you believe the saying that the majority of gamergate or all of gamergate is white cis men?

GT: No, they’re not, I know they’re not, but they, like…  Gamergate does act as a group and they have centralized places where they organize the things that they’re going to do and so on, right?  Is that true?

KOP: It’s not really organized, it’s more of a revolt.  I mean, everyone kind of can join in and do whatever they want with it, which is what we’ve seen thus far.

GT: Did… would you say that there are certain things that all gamergate people have in common in terms of their ideology?

KOP: Uh, I can’t speak for all gamergate, but I’d say that the majority if that was the case would say they’re for against video game journalists… journalistic ethics being proper, and they would want a proper… I’m sorry.  Video game journalism ethics should not be about collusion or corruption or nepotism and that there should be proper journalistic ethics and integrity when it comes to things, and that we… the… I would say that the majority of gamers that use the gamergate hashtag are tired of these very pseudo-political ideologues that are pushed onto them, and the fact that the majority of them are probably angry that 10 articles came out August 28th saying that “gamers are dead, gamers are over, the identity of gamer itself needs to go and die” and ridiculed those people and mocked the people that read their articles.

GT: Okay, I mean, I’ve got certain problems with that…

KOP: Okay.

GT: …we would, we’re going to get into an argument about…

KOP: Well, I don’t think we’re going to argue, we’re just going to debate it like we are now.  I don’t know.

GT: Okay, well, this… Okay, so all of that… I have seen that.  And there is a lot of tangential stuff that I have seen that is just really repugnant that a lot of gamergaters have in common.  I mean, you can deny it if you want, uh, and I believe that the women are portrayed…  and the acceptance of it… and the refusal to engage in conversations about the inappropriateness of aspects of it because they believe that it is a political… something that they don’t want to discuss.  That general feeling is really negative, and you know I believe that the plight of women is the new moral exemplar.  You know, you can name them.  It’s like, you know, betrayal and death of Christ, World Trade Center, Holocaust, Plight of Women.  But people look at that and they say “Plight of Women? That doesn’t even belong on the list.”  I will tell you, I think that it is actually worse than all of the other three combined and really not even particularly close.  So, you know, that’s why I say I want gamergate gone.  Dead.  Disbanded.

KOP: Okay, now let me ask you this.  Um, I’m going to read something that you wrote, and then I’m going to ask you if you think this sounds hypocritical, okay?

GT: Okay.

KOP: You said “I assume you have had some problem with something I said on twitter about gamergate.  Well, guess what? Fuck gamergate, every worthless piece of shit in it, yes the women too, yes the minorities too.  I’d say the same about women and minorities who join the KGB or the Nazis.”  Now, you say you’re for women, but you’re wanting to burn anybody who’s a minority or a woman as well because they use the hashtag.

GT: I mean the same way…  To use this labored comparison again, you know, I would do it the same way that you would immediately shoot a traitor who was like giving the Nazis information about your sacred escape route from Birkenau.  I mean, you know like, these are, these are basically, y’know, traitors that are making the world worse for every woman in it.

KOP: Okay.

GT: Every future woman, so yes, I don’t care.

KOP: Okay.  Okay, fair enough.  Alright.  I’ll let… Sargon’s here now, and I know Sargon has some questions and I know that Sargon has some questions and I’ll let you guys go in.  Once again I’ll say this, I will moderate what happens between you, what you have to say, what Sargon has to say, if anybody gets too heated or interrupted, or interrupts too much, I will have to interject to stop that.  So, is everyone okay with that?

GT: Okay.  Sure thing.

Sargon: Works for me.

KOP: Alright, go ahead, Sargon.

Sargon: Okay, um.  I’m not really sure how to phrase this, but… If I were to ask you “Are you part of a cult?” what would your answer be.

GT: No.

Sargon: Right.  Do you know what the only right answer to that question is?

GT: I’m not sure what you mean.

Sargon: The word “no” when you ask if you’re part of a cult is the wrong answer.

GT: How so?

Sargon: Because if someone was saying to you you were a part of a cult, the only right answer is “Why would you think that?”  Because obviously someone who is part of a cult would say no.

GT: No, but I don’t…  I have no reason to think “Why would you think that?” cuz I know why.  Cuz you guys are a bunch of stupid assholes.

Sargon: Right.  Okay.  But this is my point: a lot of people really think that this sort of deification of women is kind of cult-like, and instead of addressing why people think it might be a bit cultish, you just flat deny “no, we’re not a cult” even though that’s the sort of thing that someone in a cult would say.

GT:: Uh, according to probably the most intellectually dishonest and stupid collection of people on earth.

Sargon: No, according to anyone.

GT: No, not according to anyone. That’s not true.

Sargon: No it is, I can send you a link.  It’s absolutely according to anyone.

KOP: Hold on, hold on, guys.

Sargon: According to the signs we use to indicate who is part of a cult or not, that’s the difference.  You can’t just say no.

GT: I have no idea what you’re talking about.  I mean, I don’t agree with you at all.

Sargon: That’s fine.

GT: I don’t acknowledge that that’s true.  I think you’re full of shit.  You got any other questions?

Sargon: Yeah, no, well, yeah, but…  Okay, no, that’s fine.  That’s…  The thing is, right, the way you’re responding is hyperdefensive about that.  If someone had said that to me, I would just say “what am I doing that makes you think that?”  But you’re doing all the things that would then reinforce that perception in other people.

GT: Hmmm…

Sargon: So, do you see why people would probably be looking at you thinking, y’know…

GT: Yes.  Because you are misogynist dirtbacks.  I already know the answer.

Sargon: No, no, do you know what I think?

GT: Okay, I don…

Sargon: Can you read my mind?

KOP: Hold on, hold on, stop, stop, time out, time out.  Time out.  Geordie, you’re saying that they’re misogynists because he asked you if you’re in a cult or not.

GT: *paaah*  Obviously not because of that.

KOP: Hold on, hold on, I’m just the moderator.  Can you explain why they would be misogynist for asking if you were in a cult or not and can you explain why you don’t agree with that.

GT: Sure.  Because it’s a stupid leading question that had its genesis in a bunch of really moronic tweets, and the idea that there’s only one way to answer that question is and that… and that social justice is a cult is utterly ridiculous.

KOP: Okay, Geordie, now if I can just interject here as the moderator…

GT: Go ahead.

KOP: …would you say if, um.  Would you say that if anybody were to question, let’s say, Anita Sarkeesian’s views, do they also deserve to “meet the gas chamber” as you put it?

GT: No.  Not necessarily.

KOP: What if they doubted it?

GT: It would depend on their motives for doubting it.

Sargon: But you don’t know their motives.

KOP: Hold on, Sargon.

GT: I can judge their motives.

KOP: Whoa, hold on.  But when you say “depend on their motives”, if they doubt it, is it just a simple yes or no, should they meet the gas chamber if they doubt Anita Sarkeesian’s views?

GT: It’s not a simple yes or no, no, their motives have to be…

KOP: Would you say some people might, and some people won’t?

GT: Uh, no, because I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

KOP: I’m asking you, with Anita Sarkeesian’s views, if somebody doubted them, you said it’s not a yes or no question, so would you say that it depends what they view, whether or not they should “meet the gas chamber” as you put it in your other facebook post or not?

GT: I would judge whether or not they should ‘quote-unquote’, cuz you insist on using that, “meet the gas chamber”…

KOP: I’m just using it because it’s what you suggested for gamergaters, so…

GT: Yeah, sure, yeah, okay.

KOP: Okay.

GT: But I know that it’s kind of inflammatory, right, just to keep repeating that?  Anyway, um…

KOP: Okay, alright, anyway, so, continuing on, I think we’ve got the understanding of what you think on ‘cult’. Geordie, do you have any questions for Sargon before Sargon asks you the next question?

GT: Well, I haven’t answered your question yet.  Let me just quickly finish.  Uh, I think that if someone were to ask me “What do you think of this person who disagrees with Anita Sarkeesian?” and at first I would say “Well, I don’t know anything about them, so let me look at some of their other tweets and the people they associate with and their previous behavior, previous articles they’ve written, statements they’ve made, so on and so forth.” And if I thought, from reading that or talking to the person that they were just a misogynist and like… even if they claimed, it’s, um… they don’t like Anita Sarkeesian because they think that she’s, y’know, was given too much money, and just, y’know, not worth the $100k, they’re jealous or whatever, or they’re just a misogynist.  Any of those reasons?  They’re just, y’know, a force of evil.  And for that reason, if they died, I would not care.  Y’know, good.

KOP: So, Geordie, just to follow this up, to wrap this up, would you say that basically the anti-gamergate side’s ends or goals that you guys have would justify whatever means necessary to basically make that – the politically correct term – against gamergate?

GT: Uh, no, I wouldn’t say that.  I don’t think I’m like other anti-gamergaters at all.

KOP: Okay.

GT: I can’t really speak.. I wouldn’t want to speak for them because I know I say things that are a lot more extreme than the things that they would say.  But I would have no… I would literally have no problem if all these fucking, y’know, Republican fucking d-bags…

KOP: Okay.

GT: …would just vanish of the face of the fucking earth.

KOP: Okay, I think we got an understanding from there.  Alright Sargon, you have another question Sargon? Go ahead.

Sargon: Well, yeah, I want to know how you know what their motives are?

GT: By reading what they’ve written.  And seeing who they associate with and what those people have said to them.  So on and so forth.

Sargon: Is your motive to start another Holocaust?

GT: Obviously not.

Sargon:  I’ve read what you’ve written.

GT: but it would be totally…

KOP: whoa, whoa, whoa…

Sargon: Let me finish.

GT: Okay

Sargon: I’ve read what you’ve written, and that’s essentially what you’re saying.  So it would be unfair for me to assume…

GT: It’s not even close.

Sargon: …your motive is.  Shut up, right?

KOP: Whoa.

Sargon: It would be unfair for me to say that your motive would be genocide because you’ve written this really hyper emotional “I hate gamers” post.  So, for you to then go round and say “I know that he’s a misogynist because of the way I interpreted what he wrote”, that’s… do you see why that’s a double standard?

GT: You… Like…  My head hurts from the stupidity.  It’s not even close to the same thing at all.  Even if I did manage to shove everyone in gamergate into a gas chamber, they’re not, like… the Jews were innocent.  That’s why it was such a tragedy.  People in gamergate are scumbags.  It’s a huge difference.

KOP: Okay, so you would say that Gamergate is not innocent and that the Jews were and…(unintelligible)

GT: It’s like a house landing on the wicked witch of the west.

Sargon: Do you know what a principle is?

GT: uh… it has multiple meanings.

Sargon: Okay, could you give me any of them?

GT: Headmaster?

Sargon: Uh… okay.  A principle as in, um, a method of action or a method of reason.  The principle of something, rather than…

GT: I mean, I know what you mean.  That definition seems…  I can’t really think of the exact definition but I do know what the word means and what you’re talking about.

Sargon: Yeah, so, this is… but a principle is… I’m just going to quickly look it up: “A guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct”, right?


Sargon: That’s a dictionary definition of the word ‘principle’.

GT: Okay.

Sargon: Do you know how that applies… do you know why I’m asking you about principles right now?

GT: Uh… It’s a leading question as usual so you can try to…

Sargon: Well, it’s actually directly related to what you have literally just said.  You think that the Holocaust was bad because it happened to Jews and, as far as you’re concerned, Jews have done nothing wrong.  I don’t know either way, I’m just saying what you’ve said.  And then, but, you are happy to apply the principle of genocide to gamers, because, in your mind, gamers have done something wrong.

GT: No, I think assholes have done something wrong.

Sargon: Whatever.  Whoever.  The people who are supporting gamergate, whatever you want to call them, you say they have done something wrong…

GT: Yeah.

Sargon: …and therefore you think they deserve gas chambers. Right.

GT: Or whatever method (unintelligible)…

Sargon: …but that is the same principle the Nazis were operating under.  You’re just changing the noun.  You know, you’re changing Jews to Gamers or whatever you want to call them, but the principle of pushing people into gas chambers is what’s wrong.  Do you understand?

GT: Nah.  I don’t think so.  I mean, what’s wrong is that they were innocent and they were pushed into gas chambers.

Sargon: No, it’s what’s wrong is that they were pushed into gas chambers, regardless, for being Jews.  That’s the thing that’s wrong.

GT: Yeah, that is wrong.

Sargon: Right.  And so you’re saying you want push, I don’t know, gamergaters, or whatever you want to call them, into gas chambers for being gamers.

GT: No, for being fucking assholes, misogynist pricks.  Right wing dickheads, fucking guntoting dingleberries.

Sargon: So you think they deserve it for being right wing?

GT: I think they deserve it for being an actual damaging force in multiple countries and societies in the world over that are sabotaging women, have been for years.  I’m finished with them.  I’m totally finished.

Sargon: Do you know…

KOP: Hold on, Sargon.

Sargon: …that the Germans said exactly the same thing about the Jews in Germany?

GT: They were wrong.

Sargon: Yeah, but… that makes you wrong.

GT: I’m not fucking wrong, I’m absolutely right.

KOP: Hey, hey, hey, timeout, timeout, everybody cool it for a second.  Alright, let people speak between it, and then go on from there.  Go ahead.  Go ahead, Geordie.

GT: Well, I don’t know, what do you want me to say?  I was listening to him.

KOP: Okay, go ahead, Sargon, finish what you had to say.

Sargon: Yeah, um.  Look, you… I… I…  I’m amazed you think it’s okay to say the things that you’ve said when you’re also complaining about the Holocaust and the Jews.  It’s… you’re arguing for the same principle.  This is what I mean.  You don’t seem to understand what a principle is and how it’s applied to both sides of a story.

GT: No, I don’t…

Sargon: I know you don’t.

GT: I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Sargon: I know, and that’s the problem.

GT: no, it’s not a problem.

Sargon: No, no, it is, it’s everyone’s problem with social justice as a general rule.  No, no, I’m telling you it is, right, (unintelligible)

GT: Well, I don’t care what you’re selling me.

KOP: Whoa, whoa, hey, easy. Just listen, Geordie, then you can respond.

Sargon: But that’s your personal opinion, and that only matters to you, where everyone else, their opinion is ‘wow, this guy is kind of in favor of what would, in principle, be a Holocaust,’ so why would anyone not have a problem with the things you say?

GT: What is that supposed to mean?  There’s nothing wrong with that.

Sargon: (unintelligible)

KOP: Hold on, I’ll come in as the moderator.  What he’s trying to say is as a principle, he means you’re advocating… you’re advocating the same things with the same type of belief system, just using gamergate and not Jews ,and not using… and just using not Nazis but anti-gamergate, for gassing all gamergaters, whether, it’s…, they’re innocent or not.  It doesn’t make it right.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, and you’re advocating that and that means you’re following the same guidelines and same principles as, say, Adolf Hitler did and the Nazis did.

GT: No.  Well, I mean, I couldn’t disagree more about pretty much everything he said.  The key difference for me is that the Jews were utterly innocent and at the mercy of monsters, terrible people, and I think that really, uh, gamergate is no different than the KKK or the Nazis themselves and I would have no problem just shoveling them off a cliff, no problem at all.

KOP: Okay, alright.  I think we established that.

Transcript will resume with more questions from Sargon and the arrival of Oliver from the NotYourShield project.

Geordie Tait Interview Transcribed – Pt 2

Disclaimer: I am offering, without commentary, the transcript of the Geordie Tait interview as a service to the Gamergate community and is not intended for commercial use.  As it is rather long, I will be posting it in installments.  I have faithfully transcribed the conversation to the best of my abilities and will attempt to complete the transcription so that the information is available in a timely manner.  The opinions and statements made by individuals within reflect their own opinions and ideas and are not reflective of Cirsova or any other individuals.  The transcription begins with Geordie Tait’s arrival on the stream and will end shortly after his departure.  The full audio interview can be found here.

King Of Pol: If Sargon’s not ready then I’ll…  Okay, Sargon’s not ready, I’m gonna bring Socks in here.

Geordie Tait: Who is this?

KOP: Socks?  This is Rina – Socks – she does daily videos on youtube of what’s going on in the gamergate world and what’s going on about it, just articles and stuff like that.  She does a pretty good job of it.  I usually do the daily news with her on a weekly basis.

GT: That sounds pretty cool.

KOP: She just wants to talk to you about it, and I’ll bring on Sargon right after.

GT: Alright.

KOP: What’s up buddy?

Socks: Hello.

KOP: Hey, socks. Socks, Geordie, Geordie, Socks.

Socks: Hello, Geordie.

GT: Hello.  Hey, I recognize that picture.  Someone with that anime picture has been telling me to fuck myself for weeks.  Probably the whole week.  I don’t’ know if it was you.

Socks: Not me.

GT: Okay. No big deal.

KOP: Okay, so, Socks, I know you had some questions for him in here I’ll let you go ahead and ask.

Socks: I did.  But first, I wanted to reference the Fine Young Capitalists, first I wanted to make clear that I put the… I will link it in the skype chat so you can do some reading if you want.  That’s totally up to you.  If you scroll down it details their reality, they believe in the patriarchy theory.  They are radfems, I’ve spoken with several of the members of the Fine Young Capitalists at length, and what they do have to say is that women are valuable and tech companies aren’t hiring them.  So, they’re trying to bypass that and promote women in video game production.

GT: That sounds great.

Socks: it is, and…

GT: How could they possibly be involved with gamergate, who are just such a giant group of woman-hating-assholes?

Socks: But we’re not a giant group of woman-hating assholes, it’s only your perception…

GT: You absolutely are.

Socks: Oh, I beg to differ.  Um, I do actually have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind.  How in the same breath can you list actual real life issues that are affecting women all over the world and have been affecting women throughout history – I agree with you there – and, you know, one of the greatest tragedies to ever occur in the, you know, span of human history, to the greatest ethnic cleansing ever and then go on to advocate the return of those said death camps to be used against members of gamergate and to belittle, dehumanize and erase the thoughts and opinion and agency of thousands of women and minorities who do support gamergate on the basis of ethics of video games journalism and the industry as a whole?

GT: Well, it’s pretty simple.  I disagree with every one of Gamergate’s tenets.  I believe it’s an evil organization that is doing nothing but dragging women down.  Any feminists that are participating in it are basically sabotaging the overall cause, in my opinion.  And, for that reason, I am totally comfortable with saying give it, I’m fine with everyone in gamergate, you know, rolling off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings, and you know, unfortunately some of those people are going to be…

KOP: Geordie.  I don’t mean to interject, but can you explain how they’re evil though?  Did you find the links yet or anything you can show why we’re evil or explain in detail?  I think a lot of people want to know why we’re evil, if you think that way.

GT: If you guys don’t realize it, then me showing you is not going to make you realize it.

Socks: No, no, that’s not how, no no, I’m sorry, Geordie, that’s not how reality works.  If you are accusing us of being an evil organization – we’re not an organization, we are a consumer revolt; at best, we’re a movement in some cases, but an organization? No, and there’s no requirements for membership.  Anyone can walk up and slap a tweet up on twitter with the gamergate hashtag.  I have not seen any, like, what… Inherently evil or actively misogynistic tendencies from anyone in gamergate.

GT: Oh, wow, you have not seen any actively misogynistic tendencies from anyone in gamergate? I don’t even think…

Socks: No, I haven’t.  I have seen…

KOP: Hold on socks, hold on socks.

Socks:. …ignorant sexism, but go on.

GT: unbelievable.

KOP: Hold on.  If this is the case then that’s why I said ‘can you provide proof’, trust but verify.

Socks: Please.

KOP: Because if you can show us the misogynist and explain why it is evil, inherently evil misogynistic and give us an understanding.

GT: Let me just. Okay. What do you mean I?  I have to explain why misogyny is evil? It just is.

KOP: No…

Socks: No, no, we know misogyny is bad.

KOP: … I’m asking if you can show us…

GT: Alright, let me try, let me just take a quick look through the gamergate tag.

KOP: Okay, no problem.

Socks: Please, do.

KOP: That’s all I’m saying is if you can show us, and give us a link and say this is why you guys are evil, then it gives us a better understanding of what it is that makes gamergate evil.

GT: Let me try one thing first.  Would you say that it’s fair to say that gamergate generally is against the various efforts and statements of Anita Sarkeesian?

Socks: Anita Sarkeesian is intellectually dishonest and does present flawed feminist theory.  Just like Jack Thompson presented flawed theory on how video games perpetuate violence in society.  But it was totally fine to send Jack Thompson death threats and a lot of them actually actionable and he had to be under armed guard. But go on.

GT: What do you mean ‘But, go on’?

Socks: No, no, do go on, we do disagree, a lot of us disagree with what Anita Sarkeesian says, it is true that…

GT: Okay, in general, then gamergate…

KOP: Hold on.  Go ahead, Geordie.

GT: I believe that a lot of people.  When she asked for X amount of money and then out of nowhere people donated – does anyone remember what the final number was?

KOP: It was a little over 100k, go ahead.

GT: A little over 100k which just blew everyone’s expectations out of the water.  Now, me personally, and a lot of other people that I talked to thought that that was a sign of a silent majority that were so tired of just the general bullshit having to do, y’know, the, of women in video games, the many different shortcomings that needed to be rectified to have them as in the positions narrative, and, uh, otherwise that they should be.  So that’s why she got all that money.  I’m sure she was completely surprised by it and I’m sure that she didn’t have the expertise to use $100,000.  But I don’t care.

KOP: I just have to say, though, getting money doesn’t make your ideology right.  Lenin killed and took over and created communism, but that didn’t mean communism was right just because people thought it was a good idea at the time.

GT: Well, I think she’s right.  I think she’s right, so…

KOP: That’s a fair assessment, but that doesn’t mean it is right, just means you think that.

GT: Jesus Christ, I know that, that’s common sense, but I think it’s right.

KOP: What does  that…

GT: Because I think it’s right, and morally correct and very important and because you’re… the gamergate organization generally is against her efforts, and you know, has tried to sabotage her in various ways or, you know, I don’t know what I would call it. I’ve got to apologize because my vocabulary is not where it should be, not only have I been awake for 24 hours…

KOP: It’s okay, man, you don’t have to.

GT: Okay, so, let me just finish my point.  Because I believe she’s right, absolutely with all of my heart, I have no doubt, I’m not going to change my mind, no one can ever change it.  Because I believe that and because gamergate is, in general, against her efforts.  I believe gamergate is evil because I believe she is good.  I believe she is a force of absolute good and thus I believe gamergate is a force of evil.

Socks: okay, let me, for one second.

KOP: Hold on, socks, I have to ask… But Geordie, disagreeing with what Anita Sarkeesian believes in, her ideology or ideologue, that doesn’t mean that gamergate is evil.  They just disagree with what she has to say.

GT: No.  That’s Not true.  It’s not like she’s saying is saying that she enjoys sprite over 7up. She’s saying that women deserve X things that they’ve been denied, and gamergate is saying “No, they don’t, fuck ‘em.”

Socks: No, that is not what gamergate is…

KOP: She’s not really saying that, though.

GT: Again, that’s where we disagree again, I’m saying that you’re saying that.

KOP: Let’s not butter this, let’s be detailed.  She states that there is sexism in video games and the damsel in distress trope is a real thing, that if you play a game and save Princess Peach in that extent then you can be inherently misogynist or sexist in real life.  Now let’s use that in comparison of video game violence vs. real world violence; we had many studies on that by scientists and they were peer reviewed many times, over and over again, and actually suggested, studies showed many times over that it’s proof factual that the only thing that video games has ever adhered to is possible gambling addiction types or escapism and not any actual video game violence.  It actually curbed violence in statistical scores.

GT: Wait.  Good.  I agree.  It doesn’t cause violence.  But okay, where was the peer reviewed, show me the peer reviewed paper that studied misogyny.

KOP: Okay, give me a minute on that, Geordie.  I’ll pull up about 10 different statistics.  Socks, you can do it, while I’m discussing.  But what I’m saying is video games do not make people kill people in real life, why would me saving Princess Peach make me hate women or be sexist toward women or be misogynistic toward women in real life?  You can’t have your cake and eat it to, it does not work.

GT: Yeah, you…  I’m not having cake and eating it too, I’m.

KOP: It’s a metaphor.

GT: I know.  I’m using your same metaphor.  I know it’s metaphor.  Violence is, I’m having cake and I’m having, you know…

Socks: Oh, you guys, no, Jesus fucking Christ.  Here’s the line: if video games don’t make you a crazy psychopath, going out to kill people, how do they then make you a crazy misogynist out to oppress women?

GT: It’s more subtle than that.

Socks: How does it reinforce the patriarchy theory in society, then, how does it perpetuate that?

GT: It’s really straight forward.  I mean, it’s a straightforward and subtle, you know, impact on society.

KOP: You’re saying that violence in video game is nothing compared to being sexist and misogynistic. We can attribute misogyny to real world violence easily.  Look at domestic violence.  A prime example, if you want to be stereotypical, is “My dinner is cold, bitch,” or things like that.  But that is real world violence.

GT: Yep.

KOP: Because obviously the response to that would be, what. He would hit his wife, right?

GT: Yeah, but that’s caused by misogyny, not the video game.  0

KOP: What I’m saying is, if video game violence does not create real world violence, then games, you saving a princess, is not going to make you sexist or misogynistic or start…

GT: How do you know that, they’re two different things?

KOP: It’s not that very often, if one thing does not adhere to real world attribute, then another will not, it is kind of a blanket thing, you can look at it all the way down the (unintelligible), it doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t change anything.  Like I said, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  If one thing does not do it, the other will not. It just doesn’t affect that.  Video games do not make you do things in real life unless you were already mentally unhinged.  It’s the same thing as I used with the John Lennon statement, what happened to him.  A book will not make you go out and shoot people if you read it unless you are mentally unstable to begin with.  Then there is a 3rd party involved, so you cannot just say that, it does not work that way.

GT: Well, I believe that there might be some sort of subconscious impact, but it doesn’t actually matter because the video games, just like the movies that have objectionable content in terms of misogyny or, you know, picture sets, or whatever the fuck.  Y’know, magazines.  They reflect society, they don’t create it, you know.

Socks: Exactly, I agree.

GT: Okay.

Socks: Art reflects society, yeah.

GT: Well that’s what she’s doing and, of course, it’s full of fucking bullshit.

KOP: But that’s art.

Socks: But it’s there because that’s what in our society.

GT: Yeah.  We should fix that.

Socks: Absolutely.

KOP: But to get back onto gamergate for just a second.  Geordie, you’re talking about Anita Sarkeesian’s stuff like that, and there’s a lot of things I have to say to that, and one thing I really want to know, from your opinion, since you said you follow her so much, is, you know, we live in a free market society; you know what a free market is?

GT: Uh, I have a basic idea.

KOP: A free market society system, which is what we have now in the US and many other places around the world, anywhere you really go, for the most part, means that whatever… the consumer dictates what the market is, i.e.  if I like your bread – say you have a farm and you make bread – if I like your bread, I will buy your bread.  If I don’t like your bread, I won’t buy it.  If it’s something that I want or I like, I will buy it.  And the market will dictate what the market dictates, meaning the consumer will dictate what they like and don’t like.  So, with that being said, anything can be thrown into the market, anything at all, anything is subjective, in the market to be tested and people can like it or dislike it depending on if they want it or not.

GT: Yep

KOP:  So that’s what the free market system is.  A lot of people say this all the time, but if there’s so many problems with video games, and just as there’s so many problems with gamers, and you guys, as Leigh Alexander’s article said “gamers are dead, gamers are over”, and you want a different demographic, you want a broader demographic, right?  From what I’ve interviewed, another anti-gamergate person, he said video game players, or gamers plus was another one, why not make your guy’s own type of video games for that (unintelligible)?  No one’s stopping you.  Just use the money and do it.  Wouldn’t that suggest that?  Since it is a free market, you’re allowed to do that.  No one’s going to tell you not to do that.  Why not just make your own video games to adhere to what you believe in?

GT: I mean, there’s lots of reasons for that.  I mean, there are publishers, right, you’re going to… you’re going to get more backing, better staff, etc., better distribution if you’re able to be distributed by a major game company, and if you’re game, that is, you know, “yay”.

KOP: Well, it’s…

GT: Yay, it’s good for us, they might not like that subject matter.

KOP: Well, let’s use Anita Sarkeesian for example.  She’s gotten tours at EA, she’s gotten awards, as you will, and all this other stuff for being so great.  I mean, she literally is affecting Mirror’s Edge 2, let’s be honest.  She changed the controlling aspect of it; they had to stop what they were doing to change the controls for it because she didn’t like how the controls felt.  She also tested the, uh, I can’t remember the name of it.  Oculus Rift or whatever.  I mean, I think that if she wanted it, it could have happened.  So, like I said, who’s stopping them or the anti-gamergate side from making the games that they’re so angry about.  There’s no one stopping them, so why not make them?  If the…

GT: Oh, god, you said there’s no one stopping us.  Take a look at the fucking chat.

KOP: Chat isn’t stopping you from making a game.

GT: Yeah, they are.

KOP: How? They’re just talking.  They can’t stop you.  If you want to go make a game based on….

GT: Oh, oh, really? Okay, well, I guess there’s no reason for anyone to, uh, say anything, you know, like, when I posted those essays on my facebook, immediately they became under review for having nudity in them, which they didn’t have.  Because people were trying to get the essays taken down.  And that is the way that gamergate affects anything they don’t like.

KOP: But do you have solid evidence that gamergate did that?  Did somebody use the hashtag in a tweet and say “look what I did”?

GT: I mean, I’m sure that it was someone with a similar mindset to gamergate.

KOP: But it’s assumption, not solid evidence, correct?

GT: Oh, for Christ’s sake, I can look at anyone in gamergate and know that they’re a fucking asshole.

Socks: Look at me.

KOP: Hold on, socks.

Socks: No.

KOP: I think we’re going to bring in Sargon here in a minute.

Socks: No, no, I have to leave if you bring Sargon in, dude, I’m not going to 3-way tag-team this dude, so…

KOP: No problem, I’ll let you ask a few more questions, Socks. But let’s take a quick break, because I’ve got to step up real quick and do something.

Socks: Yeah, Just wanna…

KOP: And then we’ll go, so I’ll be back in like 2 minutes, and we’ll come right back here.  That sound good for everybody?

Socks: Okay.

GT: Yep

KOP: Okay, cool, cool, we’ll be right back, guys.

Transcript will continue after return from 2 minute break/music interlude.

Anita Sarkeesian & Crit Theory Insanity

I don’t know WHY I did it, but I actually found and read Anita Sarkeesian’s grad thesis. And wow. I used to just think that she was wrong about some stuff, a hypocrite on others, but she is either crazy-go-nuts for real and/or (as is implied in her acknowledgements) Jonathan McIntosh’s sock-puppet.

Before I found out more about who she was and what she did, I was initially interested in the Tropes vs. Women project, but I was also interested in hearing others’ opinions on it before I made my own. After watching all of her videos, listening to the opinions of others and doing some of my own research, I cannot possibly be convinced that she actually wants to “fix” anything or make anything better; she only wants to profit and raise her own profile on the back of pointless deconstructionist semantics.

Because ‘positive’ traits are labelled as being ‘masculine’ rather than simply being considered (gender neutral) positive traits, no women possessing these positive traits can, in fact, be positive representations of women because they are embodying masculine ideals.

Women in positions of leadership are simply emulating men.
Women with physical prowess are simply emulating men.
Women who are cool-headed are emulating men.
Women who are courageous are emulating men.
Women who are rational are simply emulating men.

If you choose to label all ‘positive’ character traits as ‘masculine’ OF COURSE you’re going to see women characters as replicating traditional male hero archetypes.

While I’m of the “More awesome women characters in video games, please!” opinion, the stances that Anita takes and ideas she puts forward prevents ANY sort of successful or pleasing (under her criteria) portrayal of women in video games or any media. Feminine characteristics are negative because oppressive male patriarchy has reduced women to those (motherhood, nurturing, blah blah blah), but masculine characteristics are negative because they are masculine.

table of traits

(Sarkeesian, p46)

table of traits 2

(Sarkeesian, p47)

Now, you’ll note that many of those traits listed as “masculine” ARE portrayed in media as either positive OR negative given the context of the situation.  Even with how traits are rearranged in the second table, you still have the issue of most of the positive traits people look for in characters being considered “masculine” and therefore failing to address her initial qualms with masculine women protagonists. 

Interestingly, her own video game proposal does not meet her own criteria and its protagonist falls into the trap of being an example of “many masculine identified traits” (using violence to accomplish her goals, for one). Long Live the Queen is probably more feminist than the game she proposes.

So if it’s bad for a character to possess masculine traits and it’s bad for a character to possess feminine traits and bad for a character to possess a combination of these traits, what the hell could she possible want? It’s not a problem to me for someone to say “I want less of this” or “I want more of that”, but when what you’re saying is “I want none of anything!” you’re not actually asking for anything at all other than to be pointed to and laughed at.

Go ahead. Destroy the patriarchy by bitching about how female characters who have their shit together are embodying masculine traits. I’ll be waiting.

In regards to gaze theory, like most critical theory things, is more fun to play around with and see how far down the rabbit hole you can actually go rather than take it seriously. Oh, crap, people are looking at people in a visual medium! Gasp! You can’t have a woman on a screen and men in the audience without those men looking at her. But the same goes for men on the screen with women. One of the reasons why I liked Pacific Rim so much was that in it Del Toro played with the idea of using female gaze; the male character existed as a thing for the female lead to oggle, and invited the audience to oggle with her. But the only way to eliminate male gaze would be to banish men from the audience or banish women (especially attractive ones) from the screen.

In regards to the academy awards and the stories and people they choose to honor, it’s been known for ages that the academy is decades behind public, who have been making women and minorities wealthy stars by going to see their movies, in terms of race and gender.

In the end, I think that what would actually make some sort of positive change would be to de-gender both postive “masculine” traits and negative “feminine” traits and allow them to just be considered traits. But that’s not what academic critical theory is for. Critical theory is jumping through enough hoops of obsequiousness that you can ultimately reach any point or any conclusion you want given any bit of media. And doing that is fun, it really is! But it’s not a useful tool for constructive change and a horrible way to come round to a rigid ideology, especially since theory exists to destroy rigidity and meaning.

Show me a successful woman, and I can use theory to destroy her validity as a female character. She’ll either be too masculine or too sexual. When people say “feminists will never be happy”, they are in part correct, because theory exists to nitpick things to the point of exasperation, not to actually create anything positive.

Final thoughts:
The real answer to the question “Why was Sarah Connor Chronicles cancelled?” was that the second season had lousy pacing, not because it had too many good female characters.

Addendum: I like how in her appendix, she considers the asexual blue plant lady and the bisexual blue-grey lady from Farscape as white heterosexual characters.  While she states in her conclusion that she wants to see ” people of colour… (not) killed off more often then their white counter parts”, her own numbers show that % wise they are statistically identical within her sampling.

Addendum II: If you’re too lazy to actually read her thesis, Thunderf00t gives a few highlights here along with his normal snarkiness interspersed with clips of shrill ideologues:  

But I still recommend you reading it for yourself and drawing your own conclusion, as he doesn’t really dig all that deep into it.

After some time to think about things… (some swearing)

So, like the one thing that no one is talking about with the Zoe Quinn thing is what this says to female game developers about how to get noticed.

There are a lot of shitty people involved in this whole thing, and just because some of those shitty people are gross sexists doesn’t make Zoe Quinn not a shitty person. Just because her ex-boyfriend (also shitty) is the sort of psycho who’d publicly air all of the dirty laundry about his failed relationship doesn’t make Zoe Quinn or the industry people she was sleeping with not shitty people.  Even KNOWING about it makes me feel like a shitty person.  The people hailing Zoe as some martyred saint are less shitty than the people sending threats, but they’re still shitty if they don’t point out what a terrible thing for women in gaming that has been uncovered by the whole disgusting thing.

Sexual quid pro quo in any industry is NOT A GOOD THING. The fact is, male gaming journalists may have given preferential treatment and coverage to a female developer because of sexual relationships with her or the prospect of sexual relationships with her. What does that say to female indie developers who are trying to make a name for themselves in a highly competitive industry that is, as we’re so often reminded, male dominated and male targeted? If you have sex with men they will like you and say nice things about you and your game.

Zoe Quinn is NOT the only woman in gaming, but if you’ve read any articles about her, you’d think that she was the most important woman in gaming until she was destroyed by a roving army of misogynists. Frankly, I had never heard of her until after dozens of blogs and gaming news sites had rushed to her defense (and their own, by proxy). I keep seeing all of these comparisons between Zoe & Anita Sarkeesian. The difference in my mind is that Anita Sarkeesian is only guilty of putting out a lazy product with work she took from other people while being hella slow to release content that her investors paid for ages ago (though in fairness, no one ever to my knowledge threatened to rape James Maliziziziziwhatever when Dwimmermount tanked).  To my knowledge, she’s not been actively involved in dangerous or corrupt behavior to the detriment of other women in the industry.  What disturbs me most about Zoe’s alleged actions is the game jam that she was raising funds for, along with the help of several sites and individuals she had relationships with, professional or otherwise, directing traffic that way, that looks as though was never going to happen in the first place.

I’d say that my hope is that someday gaming journalism will not be so corrupt that reviews and content plugs are based on who is sleeping with who, but I know that will never happen. Especially considering the number of non-gaming journalists who are LITERALLY in bed with staffers, bureaucrats, chairs, politicians, etc. and the revolving door for politicos who land cushy jobs as correspondents at news networks and vice-versa.

Lastly, I’d like to throw in this comment from cephalopodlovesong out there, because it’s so spot on

one of the huge problems this “culture” has is taking the experiences of one person and expanding them to the entire gender.

“Zoe Quinn cheated on her boyfriend, but claims she’s a feminist/sjw. ALL WOMEN WHO IDENTIFY AS FEMINISTS/SJWS ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE. OMG LOOK AT THIS.”

“Anita Sarkeesian is not as well educated on games as she could be and makes some sweeping generalizations under the guise of ‘research’. ALL WOMEN ARE DUMB CUNTS WHO WANT TO RUIN OUR GAMES.”

if people were able to say “wow, this is a sort of shitty thing that this one person did. I’m personally not going to support that person anymore, but realize that one person’s behaviors are not the behaviors of an entire group of people.” I feel like this wouldn’t be as bad. however, all the fucking doxxing to get people’s information is RIDICULOUS.

Counterpoints to Tropes vs Women

While I’ve been enjoying watching Anita Sarkeesian’s new video series ( largely from the perspective of a former crit theory student), I think that there are a lot of  interesting and very good rebuttals out there.  No, not the people who are all “Anita’s a stupid (insert various insults against women here)”, but there are a lot of really well thought out arguments against her position and her methods (some of the best of which I’ve tried to aggregate here).    And considering her topic out of the gate, I hope that the irony is not lost on her that she made a ton of kickstarter money off people who were White Knighting for her.

This is a pretty good rebuttal:

As is this lady’s:

 (she’s posted counterpoints to all three videos, you can find them easily enough yourself.)

Also, let’s not forget that intellectual feminism is largely based on linguistic acrobatics (thank god at least English doesn’t have masculine & feminine endings), as this points out.  It’s slightly harsher than the previous, but points out, more or less, that rhetoric can be used to argue any point in any direction (but those with the power to oppress cannot be oppressed, hurr hurr).

Here is Anita’s example of a “good” game with a female protagonist as she’s proposed:

Yet if such a game existed, one could complain that the princess character is:
-Simply a gender swap of a male protagonist
-An individual who came from privilege, not oppression, and therefore cannot be a symbol of release from oppression.
-The sexualized product of  male fantasies about subdual and subjugation by a strong woman (a Japanese feminist manga critic professor doctor lady once told me that there were no strong feminist heroes in manga, all strong female characters are simply male fantasy objects in a culture where most women are incredibly demure and men have a desire to be smacked around by dominating tough girls.)

And if Anita Sarkeesian had not been the one to propose such a game, how much do you want to bet she’d be the one to attack it?

(plus, isn’t a royal returning from exile and overthrowing a council the opposite of what usually happens when people are trying to abolish the monarchy forever?)

Lastly, Mario a retelling of St. George & the Dragon?  It’s so obvious that anyone could overlook it.

Ultimately, there ARE a lot of really gross things in video games, and a lot of female characters in video games ARE oversexualized and essentially made objects of the gaze, but Anita’s approach means finding the sexist bogeyman behind every corner and under ever rock.