Gamergate Isn't Meaningless

I suppose that if Gamergate is going to drag out this long, I might as well explain my perspective.

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ gets it wrong:

Gamers (that is, the people who actually play the games) are grieved because game critics (that is, people who write about games for a living) and some online game discussion community administrators, do not like the same games that they do. These game writers and administrators think (or are accused of thinking, anyway) that mainstream games and gamers suffer from misogyny or racism or one of the many other -isms that dominate our modern grievance culture. There are also allegations of nepotism or corruption and generally a lot of bad behavior all around. 

The bottom line is this, however: gamers think that these game critics and community administrators are bad people who are trying to stop them from having fun. And these game critics think gamers are bad people who support misogyny or racism or whatever.

He goes on to make a point about the irrelevance of critics, a point which is irrelevant itself.

What's interesting and perhaps significant about Gamergate is that it isn't reducible to a principle or two. Zoe Quinn's sexual relationships with gaming journalists weren't matters of quid pro quo--orgasms in exchange for good reviews. Her liaison with her married boss wasn't protested in defense of traditional marriage. Her storied rendezvous with "five guys" isn't denounced because of adherence to monogamy.

The uproar is about the situation. Quinn is a type. She is a social justice warrior who has achieved her position--such as it is--because of her vocal opposition to her own industry. Rather than being an influential or prolific producer within that industry, she is an agitator, aggrandizing herself as a moral watchdog. Her status outweighs her contribution.

Video games have been a part of American life for over thirty years but the idea of a gaming community is still relatively new. The introduction of the first Playstation was the real beginning of consumers playing games as their primary form of entertainment. The concept of a game player being a "gamer" is even newer; most people that purchase video games probably don't label themselves as gamers.

What we're seeing in Gamergate is the Long March Through Institutions making a misstep. Gaming is not an institution yet. A major entertainment industry, yes, but not an institution. The community that identifies with it is still small enough to be sensitive to outsiders.

They are all the more sensitive because gaming's appeal has very little to do with meaning. It's only the lack of physical exertion that keeps gaming from being classified a sport. To most video game enthusiasts, the presence of a Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian criticizing and making demands based on the entertainment's messages are tangential. More than that, they are unwelcome.

And at the same time, Quinn also fits right into the red pill awakening. A not-especially-attractive woman, she cheated on her boyfriend with multiple men, only expressed regret once she was caught and has deflected responsibility.

Video gaming is also an immersive and time-intensive pursuit--just the entertainment for the not-very-social. The not-very-social are also those for whom the red pill is prescribed; it's them that are most susceptible to feminine manipulation.

It's not hard to imagine that a large percentage of male gamers have a Zoe Quinn in their pasts. Read Reddit's Red Pill forum or the comments on any similar website; most die-hard converts came from relationships of just the kind that Quinn's boyfriend described. His descriptions of tickle-truths and lack of accountability probably rang true to many.

The outrage of Gamergate is seeing a script play out in real time. A woman known more for attacking the industry than contributing to it is discovered to have engaged in personal and professional misconduct. She defends herself in just the way the red pill describes. The powers that be, out of cowardice or ideology, circle the wagons to protect her, just as the anti-SJW reaction describes.

But because the world of gaming is still so small, a large portion of gamers can cry out "Not in my backyard!" They've been inoculated, whether by the non-mainstream media, the red pill or just their own eyes, and can see that it is a script.

Zoe Quinn, in her actions and her position, doesn't represent an injury to the world of gaming, localized and isolatable. She represents an infection. It's the same infection that's spread all throughout Western civilization, a lack of personal accountability and an adherence to ideology over reality. Your average gamer, like the rest of us, can't change the world, but he can fight for his little corner of it.