While so far GamerGate hasn’t achieved any dramatic victories, it certainly did manage to thoroughly dismantle the mainstream narrative and perception of gamers as “misogynist, neckbeard basement dwellers.” This happened through a series of small battles, fought via Twitter and other social networks on a daily basis. Every time there was an attack on GamerGate, either with feeble hashtags or pathetic parodies, GamerGate supporters responded promptly and curbstomped the SJWs.
“Don’t sealion me, bro”
There have been numerous attempts to label GamerGate supporters as online terrorists who harass and verbally abuse poor SJWs that dare to criticize their culture. The case is actually quite the opposite. GamerGaters have been nothing but patient, calm, and collected when dealing with such hysteric harpies as Leigh Alexander. Of course, these virtues are flaws in the eyes of SJWs, as you are about to see.
One example of a failed SJW reaction was when a certain David Malki drew a comic which brought us the wonderful term “sealioning.”
Note the text spoken by the sea lion. This is the type of behavior that SJWs see as an insult in itself. But what do sea lions have to do with GamerGate, SJWs, video games or anything at all? Why sea lions? Nobody knows and trying to delve into the mind of a SJW is a dangerous journey. Sealioning apparently means being immovably polite and respectful in dealing with SJWs to the point that they cannot muster the strength to play the victim card at all.
In any case, the retaliation to that comic by GamerGaters was swift and brutal. It consisted of funding an actual WWF sea lion (christened “Ethics”) and its habitat (christened “Games Journalism”) with $5,000. In the end, every GamerGater can claim it is about “ethics in games journalism.”
Stop weaponizing charity, GamerGate!
Combine “sealioning” with “dogpiling” and you can get potentially the most retarded sentences in the history of English language. For SJWs, however, those two words represent very real and frightening possibilities and they utter them with complete seriousness. When one of their ilk posts a hateful, slandering article on GamerGate, they risk being challenged, asked for sources or to clarify their position (sealioning) en masse (dogpiling). Because these challengers can be minorities, transsexual, gay or handicapped, SJWs can no longer resort to cries of “patriarchy!” to dismiss them summarily.
The above comic also shows succinctly how SJWs think and operate. SJWs will publicly criticize, demean, shame and blame anyone and anything but nobody can dare criticize them, no matter how politely. Responding in kind to SJWs’ hate speeches can and probably will end up with critic being the one called a harasser or a stalker. These labels would mean nothing if it weren’t for their massive network of allies on blogs and in mainstream press, ready to smear people’s names and ruin their careers. There is also the latest push to criminalize “hate speech” over the internet, coming from none other than the Supreme Court of the United States.
Skeletons in my newsfeed
In 2010, a certain Anthony Douglas Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in jail for making threats to his wife over Facebook. Of course, nobody considered that the cause of these threats might have something to do with her running away with their two children prior to that. And, as we all know, there is no reason to hit a woman. Anthony ended up serving three years for his Facebook posts, but the interesting part is that the Supreme Court ended up discussing when an online threat is credible.
In short, a credible threat involves “a reasonable person thinking that the threat is real.” But how do you apply this same standard to the Internet? Reasonable person? Thinking? Online? Also, while making threats in real life means risking a punch to the face, when online everyone gets the aptly named “digital courage.” Everyone is a keyboard Rambo and social networks are specifically designed to make creating and sharing content as easy as possible. It was also noted by the judges that the same “threat is real” standard that was applied in Anthony’s case could be applied to any of Eminem’s lyrics, meaning that any teenager quoting Eminem on Facebook could end up in trouble.
The problem is that nobody discussed the line after which online threats become criminal. Should there be such a line? Aren’t we supposed to be judged by our actions and not our words? Supreme Court judges are also hilariously out of touch with online culture of smack talking, which is especially vibrant in video games. Are they even capable of making such a ruling?
The US government is pushing for the standard for an online threat to be changed to “someone to be reasonably put into fear,” meaning that causing bad feelings and angst could actually become illegal. If that does become a federal law, trolls will have a field day and go an extra mile just to cause epic butthurt.
You can thank gamers
Finally, we come back to GamerGate. While there have been certain homebrew efforts to block GamerGate supporters, they all failed spectacularly. But what happens if causing fear online does become a criminal activity? What if Twitter or Facebook decide to help the government and preemptively ban “hateful speech,” including any mention of GamerGate? The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court makes a small concession to the SJWs and thus continues the slow decline of the freedom of speech in the US.
GamerGate has been called dead hundreds of times over the last three months, but it simply refuses to die. It’s as if GamerGate supporters are actual, passionate people who want higher standards in journalism. Over time, GamerGate supporters uncovered massive corruption in the gaming press, uprooting SJW tentacles buried deep in our society. More fun revelations are sure to come. Stay tuned.