Tag: media

Bad news for Boston

Tom Brady is going to be suspended by the NFL and Bill Simmons is going to be fired by ESPN.

Tom Brady will be the highest-profile player ever suspended in the 96-year history of the NFL. Roger Goodell’s decision is expected to be announced next week, and it is no longer a matter of if the NFL commissioner will suspend Brady, but for how long he will suspend him. In conversations I’ve had with several key sources who always have a good sense of what goes on at 345 Park Ave., there is little doubt that Goodell considers Brady’s role in DeflateGate a serious violation.

The NFL is convinced, according to sources, that connecting all the
dots of the evidence supplied by Ted Wells leads to one conclusion: Brady cheated.

Peter King made a good point about the fact that most of the evidence of Brady’s guilt is circumstantial: ex-Patriot Aaron Hernandez was recently found guilty of murder and convicted to life in prison on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Speaking of Roger Goodell, one imagines that he might have had a little something to do with ESPN’s otherwise inexplicable decision to rid themselves of The Sports Guy:

When Bill Simmons learned on Friday morning that his nearly 15-year-old relationship with ESPN was over, he responded with something uncharacteristic: silence. He
said nothing to his 3.7 million followers on Twitter. He did not pick
up the phone or answer requests for comment. His agent and publicist
followed his sounds of silence.

Simmons’s
decision not to respond to the announcement by John Skipper, the
president of ESPN, that his contract was not being renewed was
surprising. He had built an empire on having his voice heard, often
quite loudly, in a variety of roles: columnist, podcaster, editor in
chief of the website Grantland, television analyst, and one of the
creators of the “30 for 30” documentary series.

Simmons
seemed to have been blindsided by the timing of ESPN’s decision, which
came more than four months before his contract is to expire, at the end
of September. An ESPN executive, who was not authorized to speak
publicly, said Skipper had told Simmons’s agent, James Dixon, that a
decision had been made to end the relationship and that an announcement
was coming. But Skipper did not call Simmons before going public, the
ESPN executive said.

In an interview Friday morning, Skipper said: “I’ve decided that I’m not
going to renew his contract. We’ve been talking to Bill, and it was
clear that we weren’t going to get to the terms, so we were better off
focusing on transition.”

 I’m actually glad to see Simmons leaving ESPN. He’ll not only do fine without them, I expect him to be more interesting again once he’s free of the corporate leash. Don’t fear freedom, Bill!

UPDATE: This is apparently the phrase that sealed Simmons’s fate.

 I think it’s pathetic. Roger Goodell has handled so many things so
poorly that it’s reached a point now where you have something like this,
where it’s taken four months to release the report, and he knew
everything that was in it. He knows the results before the report is
released to the public, and yet doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to
do anything about it until he gauges the public reaction.

I’m wondering if it was less the criticism of Goodell and more the reference to manhood being a positive thing that more offended the ESPN executives who cut him loose. One thing is clear. They did NOT like him: “Ding Dong the witch is dead.” (That’s how one ESPN staffer describes the vibe in Bristol.) And it is perfectly clear that while his politics lean left, he is no SJW.

We’re #98

The Right Wing News lists the top 100 conservative sites:

88) Daily Paul: 66,851
89) Bill O’Reilly: 67,480
90) GOP.com: 67,749
91) Canada Free Press: 68,023
92) Human Events Online: 68,967
93) Jewish World Review: 76,215
94) GOPUSA: 71,293
95) Ricochet: 71,358
96) Day by Day: 73,755
97) Numbers USA: 76,280
98) Vox Day: 76,816

The numbers are largely bogus of course, being based on Alexa rank. How do I know? Because last year, with 625,476 fewer monthly pageviews, VP was ranked at #52, just ahead of the Von Mises Institute.

But that 76,816 number reminds me of something. Oh, yes, I believe Johnny Con said something about his Alexa rank being higher than mine. Let’s see what they are today:

Vox Popoli
76,643 Global
15,411 USA

Whatever
80,320 Global
15,679 USA

Sound the horn! Br-br-br-BRAAAAP! First traffic, then Alexa rank… I wonder which comes next, “bestseller” lists or Twitter impressions?

Violence, women, and war

One Owlmirror attempts to claim it is reasonable to conclude that I approve of violence towards feminist women:

I have something of a rant simmering on how it’s still reasonable to conclude that Vox Day approves of violence towards women (or more specifically, feminist women), despite the point (which you emphasized) that that’s not exactly what he wrote, but it’s long and kinda off-topic.”

It is also false. I do not approve of initiating violence period. Not towards women, not towards feminist women, not towards anyone.

Is that insufficiently clear? Do I need to type more slowly for the message to sink in?

The idea that I approve of violence against women is entirely based on false accusations. Just to give one example, despite the fact that I have never addressed the shooting of Malala Yousafzai in any detail, much less supported it, a number of people have repeated the totally false claims by Popular Science and NPR that I am “on the record as supporting the Taliban’s attempt to assassinate Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousifazi”. In fact, there is not a single post about Miss Yousafzai on this blog and my only reference to her was in a passing reference on Alpha Game in a post dealing with the demographic implosion of Japan.

“In light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai,
the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the
Taliban’s attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and
scientifically justifiable.”

So, in the interest of setting the record straight, let’s go ahead and look at the Taliban’s attack on the young Pakistani woman to see whether the attack can reasonably be considered rational or not. (I will address the scientific element below.) And once you take the time to actually read about the historical context of the shooting, it rapidly becomes obvious that the decision of the Taliban to attack Malala Yousafzai was not a random act of irrational violence against women, but rather the rational and purposeful targeting of an individual they correctly considered to be a traitor in the employ of their enemies.

Most people are entirely unaware that Yousafzai was no mere “innocent
schoolgirl” who just happened to attend school, she was the daughter of a pro-Western activist, she had worked as a
paid propagandist for the BBC and other Western organizations for four
years, and she had even met with Richard Holbrooke before the “irrational”
Taliban finally decided to silence her. Given that her family “ran a chain of schools”, you could even make a reasonable case for her pro-education activism having been little more than a cynical marketing device on the part of her elders.

The Taliban has been fighting to defend their traditional way of life in their own tribal lands for 36 years. They have killed tens of thousands of people, from elite Spetsnaz soldiers to unarmed young women, in order to do so. It is quite clear that they will kill anyone who threatens that way of life, and considering how they have survived two invasions and occupations by two superpowers, their ruthlessness is not only rational, but understandable and even, from a strategic perspective, necessary and admirable. Less determined forces would have collapsed and surrendered years ago.

Does that mean I support the Taliban? Absolutely not. Does that mean I share their views? No. Does that mean I want to live the way they do? No.

But unlike PZ Myers and many people who apparently consider them nothing more than a momentarily useful rhetorical device, I take the Taliban seriously, for the obvious reason that anyone who can fight two numerically and technologically superior enemies to a standstill is obviously formidable and had damn well better be taken seriously. Fortunately, unlike ISIS, the Taliban appears to wish little more than to be left alone in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here is the question for the left-leaning seculars in our midst. Suppose a young girl in your country adopted a strongly anti-homosexual ideology, was employed by Iraqi and Syrian agencies, met in secret with a top Syrian official, and over the course of four years was successful in convincing tens of thousands of people in your country that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off rooftops. Suppose hundreds of homosexuals had already been killed in this way thanks to her public calls for such executions. Would you support her arrest and execution or would you oppose it?

Even if you would oppose it on moral or legal grounds, isn’t it easier to see the Taliban’s attack as being an entirely rational one when framed in that context? I see the shooting of Malala Yousafzai as being very little different than the English burning of Joan of Arc or the UK’s hanging of William Joyce. It was an act of war aimed at an enemy effective, not a random and irrational act of violence rooted in prejudice.

It is also worth noting that the Taliban have
left Yousafzai alone now that she’s no longer living in Pakistan. They don’t appear to care if she wants to take her message to foreign populations elsewhere, but they will not permit her to spread pro-Western propaganda among their own people.

Cantus asked me a few questions about this a few days ago that I did not see until now:

How do you justify the assertion that you’ve “never gone on the record
as supporting the Taliban’s attempt on her life”? Are you arguing that
an action being “scientifically justifiable” does not amount to
supporting it? 

Because I did not support the Taliban’s attempt on Miss Yousafzai’s life. I merely observed that the attempt was a rational act given their perspective, which I do not share. Yes, I unequivocally state that the fact that an action is justifiable from a scientific perspective neither makes it moral nor desirable. There are many things I consider to be scientifically justifiable that I nevertheless do not support because I do not believe science to be an appropriate or reliable guide to human behavior.

David Pakman: Interview shenanigans I

Last week, I was invited to be interviewed about GamerGate and game development by a YouTube show with which I was unfamiliar, the David Pakman Show. The invitation was as follows:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM
From: VD
Subject: show appearance

Message Body:
You tweeted at me and asked me if I would appear on the show. That’s fine, you can contact me via this email.

Regards,
Vox

Terrific, would love to set something up. We do our interviews via skype
video. If that works in principle it would be great to set something up
for sooner than later. Would you be available this Friday at 11am
eastern time? I’d love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more
broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the
gaming industry. It will be a casual discussion, likely 25 or so
minutes, just between you and I.


best,


David Pakman
Host / The David Pakman Show / www.davidpakman.com

David has been insisting that the subsequent interview, which lightly touched on GamerGate and barely addressed the game industry at all, much less 23 years of experience in it or my current game development work, was not an ambush, even though he spent about 40 of the 49 minutes (24 more than requested), asking me to justify past blog posts, past WND columns, and in one case, the headline that the editors wrote for the column.


When called on this by Mike Cernovich and others on Twitter today, David claimed that I eagerly encouraged asking about his “controversial” statements.

Mike Cernovich@PlayDangerously
So @dpakman claims my assertion is laughable…yet he keeps dodging this question: Why not ask Kluwe about underage girls and rape jokes?

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
Interview with Chris came up quickly to specifically discuss why he was angry with our show, that was focus. Who are you?

Mr. Bones ‏@wellplayd_ggate
“to specifically discuss” “that was focus” You couldn’t focus on #GamerGate with Vox for 5 minutes, despite title

Bill Wilson ‏@piefke4
not only “despite title” but also despite the email he has sent to vox.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
.@piefke4 @PlayDangerously thing is that before interview started @voxday eagerly encouraged asking about his “controversial” statements

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You asked me to talk about #GG and game dev. I’m lead on 6 games in development and you asked about ZERO!

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
right before we started you eagerly said you like focusing on the controversial stuff and to ask you q’s

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I will publish the transcript. The fact I don’t run from controversy doesn’t excuse gotcha journalism.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
no idea what you’re talking about. that conversation took place before interview. there’s no transcript.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
There most certainly is. Like I said, you’re an amateur, David. I’ll publish it later today.

K Gallagher ‏@miles670
Well holy shit, INTERESTING.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
How could there be transcript of something that happened before interview? Did @voxday secretly write it down by hand?

From the pre-interview transcript:

David Pakman: So what I’m thinking is that I’ve just been reading a ton of your stuff and doing research and all that. The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that’s kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you’ve done too.

Vox Day: That’s fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I’m not afraid to address it.

David Pakman: Okay, sounds good.

Now, not being afraid to address a controversial subject, such as the one that has been almost constantly in the news for the last month, and about which I was contacted by the Wall Street Journal, and which has been covered in a fair amount of detail (if not much accuracy) everywhere from the UK Guardian to the New Zealand Herald, is not reasonably described as being eager to discuss the headlines of old columns I didn’t write or a single blog post cherry-picked from the 15,080+ posts available here.

When he said he wanted to talk more generally about my work, since I provided him with a description that said I am Lead Designer of Alpenwolf and Lead Editor of Castalia House, I assumed it would be about either the games I am developing or the books I am publishing.

On 4/22/2015 11:03 PM, David Pakman wrote:

Perfect. What I need from you to lock this
in:



-a one line introduction for introducing you on the
show

One line intro: Vox Day is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, a
professional game designer who supports GamerGate, and a 2015 Hugo
Award finalist in the Best Editor category.

I certainly did not expect that “my work” encompassed a syndicated op/ed column that has been defunct for several years just as I didn’t expect to
be asked about my job shingling rooftops in an American Air
Force base in Japan either. It is deceitful, and demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity, for a would-be journalist to ambush his interview subjects this way. It’s not hard to see, from the sly way David expands the possible range of the interview in the pre-interview from what he wrote in the email, that the ambush was not only intended, but premeditated.

And David’s attempt to falsely characterize my “eagerness” to discuss controversial subjects in an ex post facto defense of his ambush underlines his fundamental unreliability and lack of integrity in this regard.

I wouldn’t have had any problem with David Pakman bringing up any of the controversial subjects that have repeatedly appeared in places like the Weekly Standard or Entertainment Weekly. They were at least tangentially relevant given the Hugo coverage. But to bring up non-controversies that literally no major media source anywhere has discussed anywhere in relation to me cannot possibly be justified. This was a shameless attempt to make a story, not discuss or analyze an existing one.

Moderates gonna moderate

You can always trust a right-wing moderate to shoot at a potential ally:

Starting three years ago, Larry Correia, successful science fiction
writer, decided to test his suspicion that the Hugo Awards of the World
Science Fiction Society were increasingly being awarded through the
action of a small group, and increasingly reflect the tastes of that
small group rather than a more general population of science fiction
readers.

There were many ideas what the reason could be: a desire by the
active voters to reward more “literary” work. An ideological bias toward
“liberal” writers and themes — which seemed to be more plausible after
attacks on more “conservative” writers like Correia, attacks on the
movie Ender’s Game because the author of the original novel,
Orson Scott Card, is opposed to same-sex marriage, and the expulsion of
Vox Day from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
arguably in violation of their own bylaws, for having offensive views on
race and sexual roles.

(Just for full disclosure: Scott Card has been a personal friend for
something like 30 years, and along with Ray Bradbury was the first to
suggest maybe I actually could do this writing thing. Sarah Hoyt, who is
also involved in Sad Puppies, is a close friend and as most PJ Media
readers know, my partner in the Book Plug Friday column. Larry Correia
is a Facebook friend who I’ve never met personally. And I think Vox Day
is an obnoxious and unlikeable dolt, as I’ve said in these pages in the past.)

Over the years, I’ve observed two things about people. First, people always
do what they find most rewarding; and second, every human institution
optimizes its behavior to maximize rewards — and while money isn’t
everything, when you’re looking for what’s rewarding it’s the way to
bet. Who stands to get a monetary benefit from the direction the Hugo awards have taken?

Now, at that point, we have to go back and reference something Vox
Day — who, let me remind you, I think is an obnoxious and unlikable dolt
— published.
If we look back at the last several years, there is a surprising
regularity to be seen: the same people are nominated over and over again
for several of the down-list awards, like Best Editor; those people are
all associated more or less closely with one publisher, Tor Books; and
much of the most vehement objection has been from authors and others
directly connected to Tor Books. The number of votes that decide the
election is very small — tens of votes.

Wait, Charlie, I’m not entirely sure on your position on Vox Day. Could you repeat it?

Translation: I DISAVOW VOX DAY, I DISAVOW AND DENOUNCE VOX DAY, I DISAVOWANDDENOUNCEANDDONOTLIKEVOXDAY! (please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don’t hit me!)

They do not like me, wet or dry
They do not like me, low or high
They do not like me, dry or wet
Because they are so moderate

They do not like me here or there
They do not like me anywhere
They do not like me on the Net
Because they are so moderate

If only I would be more nice
And pour out sugar in place of spice
Then it would all be duly meet
We’d march off to our brave defeat

They do not like me when we win
They do not like me for my sin
They do not like me as a threat
Because they are so moderate

Say this for Charlie, at least he’s not afraid to go show:

William Strunk, Jr. ‏@cdrusnret
you say you referred to @voxday as a dolt in the past, but your link doesn’t appear germane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
That’s just his way of putting up his hands and saying “please don’t hit me!”

Charlie Martin ‏@chasrmarti
Vox, let’s just cut to the chase. You wave your hands and scream, I say “fuck off”, we go on with our day.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Maybe if you just denounce me once more, the SJWs will finally love you for who you are, White Buddha.

Compare and contrast

The SJWs in science fiction believe that if they can control the narrative, if they can convince the media to tell the story their way, they are going to retain their control of the science fiction establishment. They are given every opportunity to spin the narrative and make their case; Brad, Larry, and I were contacted by a Wall Street Journal reporter yesterday, which was a welcome change from most of the coverage that we’ve been seeing of late, but so too were John Scalzi and George Martin.

It’s just like one sees on the cable news. If a talking head has on a liberal guest, the liberal appears alone to sell the narrative. If a talking head has on a conservative guest, a liberal guest usually appears to dispute the narrative. And although it is only a guess, I suspect that the way that the story is likely to go will be moderately anti-Puppy, in light of the reporter actually “playing devil’s advocate” in conversation with me.

When I pointed out how the Puppy case is bolstered by comparing the number of Hugo nominations belonging to those in the Making Light clique, (15 for Charles Stross, 15/14 for Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and 9 for John Scalzi compared to 12 for Isaac Asimov, 12 for Robert Heinlein, and 7 for Arthur C. Clarke), the reporter shot back, and I quote, “yeah, but they’re editors!”

Although I pointed out to him that a) Charles Stross and John Scalzi are not, in fact, editors, and b) Isaac Asimov was an editor as well as a writer, I got the feeling that he was not likely to quote me concerning those readily observable and very telling facts. We’ll see, perhaps I’m wrong.

But the anti-Puppy influence over the mainstream media is largely irrelevant. Because, when people look more closely at the situation, here is the sort of thing they are seeing the Anti-Puppies say:

Anna Feruglio Dal Dan: “It’s not the Hugo ballot – that is a problem, but I am solving it by gleefully voting No Award to lots of categories, and I think I will make a point not to read any of it just to annoy you – it’s the strutting and posturing and pronouncing of you guys that I find hilarious. OK, I tell a lie, some of you are just boring and lame, Kratman for example can’t even insult people creatively, but you have moments of pure comedy genius.”

Hampus Eckerman: “Honestly, when you are saying that there are no unwritten rules, the
only thing you’re really saying is that you haven’t got the social
competence to notice them. Even when people write them on your nose.

Mickey Finn: “I’ve been making my way through the short stories, novellas and
novelettes, and so far haven’t even encountered a competently polished
turd.

NelC: “I’m not absolutely convinced that you’re not the type of loony who
thinks he can gain advantage by pretending to be a (different kind of)
loony, but either way, you’re seriously fucked in the head.”

Alexvdl: “I think you have articulated better than anyone else why Beale’s (and
other puppies) reliance on rating systems shows how far outside fandom
they are.”

Whatever reader: “I had a great time voting “No Award” today… I’d rather give the award to a trash can than to the crap they spent years working on.”

By contrast, here is how the non-Puppies in the field see the situation.

Rick Moen: “I think it’s abundantly clear what about the Beale and Torgersen
campaigning and (apparent) acquisition of nomination votes has made
habitual Hugo voters and Worldcon co-goers very annoyed and (in my
estimation) in a mood to terminate what they see as behaviour hostile to
the Worldcon.”

Whereas here is how at least some of those outside science fiction are seeing it:

Greg Ellis: “When all of this blew up I was not even a non-attending supporting
member of WorldCon. I’ve known about the Hugos for years, but never knew
I had, as a fan, a chance to vote for nominees or on the final ballot.
That all changed this year. What also changed was that I came down on
the Sad Puppies side of the debate. For awhile I was trying to look at both sides and judge equitably. I
was trying to be fair and open-minded and non-biased. Then I asked the
wrong question of the wrong people at the wrong time. Even Brianna Wu
chimed in on that one. I was a “white supremacist” by mere association
with Brad Torgerson and Larry Correia because they knew Vox Day and I
was friends with Brad and Larry on FaceBook. Guilt-by-association. I do
not tolerate being accused of something that anyone who knows me
understands that I am not. You want to push me into somebody else’s
camp, make an accusation like that.”

RI: I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be
honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first
started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia,
and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am
rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books.

Bojoti, a Worldcon Supporting member appears to share similar sentiments:

I knew absolutely nothing about the Sad Puppies until this year. I knew of the Hugos but little about them, either. I’d followed George R.R. Martin’s Not a Blog for years, and I remember him encouraging people to vote because the Hugos were their award (except now, they aren’t). But, back then, I had a house full of kids which meant less time for reading and fewer dollars for sure! Now, the kids are gone, and I have more of both of the aforementioned. When I discovered that WorldCon would be held in the Midwest in 2016, I was excited and decided to get a supporting membership for this year and attend the next.

I didn’t realize all the turmoil about Sad Puppies until after the nominations were announced. I came to the situation too late to nominate and unaware that my membership would be an affront to the TrueFans. I just wanted to participate in and give back to a genre that has been integral to my life. Instead, I find that I’m not welcome at the cool kids’ table, which is ironically hilarious, because my science fiction ways were unpopular to the non-science fiction crowd of my youth.

As is my researching way, I took to the Internet to look at all sides. I went all the way back to the inception of Sad Puppies. I read “Making Light.” I Googled, read, and digested from a wide spectrum from news sources (most very biased and inaccurate), authors’ websites, Twitter, and Facebook.

I think what the TrueFans and Sad Puppies don’t realize is that they are being watched by the great unwashed masses, hoi polloi, the little people of science fiction. Some of the behavior and rhetoric is so hateful and venomous that I regret my membership. Authors were saying that the new members didn’t love science fiction; they were claiming that they didn’t even read! Some were even saying stupid things like the Koch brothers bought my membership. TrueFans were disgusted by the thought of new members. They like the WorldCon being small and are actively against new members.

I’m rethinking attending WorldCon 2016. I’ll wait to see what happens at Sasquan before I decide. If people are going to act crazy like a frenetic bag of cut snakes, I want no part of that fandom (or Fandom). I don’t need to spend money to be ostracized, belittled, and hated. I’m sure I can get that for free, elsewhere!

The TrueFans are pushing the new members right into the Sad Puppies’ doghouse. I wasn’t a Sad Puppy, but if the TrueFans don’t want me, they have proven the Sad Puppies’ charge of insular exclusivity. When the TrueFans band together and decide as a bloc NOT to read the works and agree to vote No Award to Sad Puppy nominations, they’ve lost any respect or sympathy I had for them. When people advocate putting the Puppies “down,” I’m horrified. When people write “basically if the “hero” isn’t white and male, the Puppies will get all Sad at you and threaten to rape you to death. Like the good, tolerant humans they are, natch,” I’m sickened. When an author opines the correct way to treat the Sad Puppies is “Well, we make fun of them. We refuse to play with them. We refuse to share our resources with them,” I flash back to the petty games of the middle school mean girls’ cliques.

Baen Books author John Ringo has an idea where things are headed and why:

The SJBs, CHORFs, what have you are facing an uphill climb. Their ‘award winning authors’ are hardly popular in the mainstream (also frequently boring as shit on a panel) and every convention which has tried to stay entirely ‘SJW’ has found it has little or no market.

The CHORFs accuse the SPs of ‘fighting to retain white-male privilege.’ The reality is that the CHORFs are desperate to retain any sort of relevance at all. ‘Their’ conventions are failing. ‘Their’ books don’t sell as well as ‘pulp crap’. ‘Their’ magazines are losing circulation and closing. Lose control of the Hugos and they become irrelevant. And desperate regimes get crazier and crazier the more desperate they become.

They are not completely irrelevant yet. But they will be. And they fear it. Their over-the-top reactions make that very clear indeed.

A misstep on the long march

David Futrelle’s jumping on my failure to properly articulate my statement on what I believe #GamerGate to be is a good example of why the written word is reliably more powerful in the medium- and long-term than the visual medium:

Yesterday, I wrote about Vox Day’s extravagantly evasive — yet highly revealing — interview with David Pakman. But the interview also featured a few striking moments of candor. One of these came when Day — a sometime gave developer as well as the biggest asshole in Sci Fi — offered his answer to the question: “What is Gamergate really about?”

Suggesting that the issue of “corruption in game journalism” was little more than “the spark that set the whole thing off,” Day declared that

    what Gamergate is fundamentally about is the right of people to design, develop and play games that they want to design, develop and play without being criticized for it.

Which is an. er, interesting perspective, as there is in fact no “right” to be immune from criticism.

If you write a book, if you make a movie, if you post a comment on the internet — you should be ready for it to be criticized. Because that’s how free speech works. That’s how art works. And that’s how ideas work.

It’s too bad David Pakman didn’t jump on that or I would have corrected myself. But Futrelle is absolutely right for once. I shouldn’t have phrased it that way. It was a mistake. What I should have said, and what I believe, was this:

What GamerGate is fundamentally about is the right of people to design,
develop and play games that they want to design, develop and play.

Period. Although I will add that it would certainly be nice if we could simply design, develop, and play games without being harassed in the process. Now, as is normal for the average SJW, Futrelle hasn’t really thought this through beyond the chance to momentarily try to portray me as being anti-free speech. (DISQUALIFY!) It’s not a cheap shot, given the quote I handed him, but it is a silly one, because I have twelve years of evidence demonstrating that I am fairly extreme on the pro-free speech side, whereas Futrelle is considerably less staunch in that regard.

Of course, they will keep saying “you said it” and “no takebacks”, or as PopeHat rather absurdly tried to insist, “you can retcon all you like”. But that would only convince people if I had no previous statements on free speech, not to mention one of the more lightest moderating policies of any popular blog.

And it’s very easy for us to turn this particular line of attack around on them. In response, I asked Futrelle the following question:

A question for you re your two articles. Do you support the right of gamers to tell women they should not develop games?


It should be interesting to see what his response is. And if he fails to respond, well, that will be even more telling. The important thing to keep in mind is that no one exchange is final. There will always be tactical mistakes, missteps, and dead ends. They will happen, so don’t try to hide them, just admit them, clarify, and move on.

At the root, of course, this is just more SJW word games. When game journalists attack gamers and game developers, they call it criticism. When #GamerGate responds in kind, they call it harassment.

UPDATE: Futrelle responds, knowing perfectly well how one could hammer him for the statement.

David Futrelle ‏@DavidFutrelle
@voxday They have the right to say it, though not to threaten or harass; others have the right to call them out for their misogyny.

Now, if I were an SJW, this would be my cue to point and shriek that “MISOGYNIST DAVID FUTRELLE SAYS WOMEN SHOULDN’T DEVELOP GAMES!” But I’m not and I won’t bother, because it doesn’t matter.

The virus spreads

Now #GamerGate is spreading into fitness and media. It’s a pity David Pakman didn’t stick to the topic at hand, as I made a prediction about #GamerGate that is already beginning to come true. The anti-SJW offensive is spreading out from games into books and other industries.

The SJWs took the cultural high ground. But due to their being centralized, they have a very limited ability to respond to the 4GW tactics being utilized by the various #XGates.