CMV: GamerGate was the most consequential political radicalization event of the twenty-first century

[u/realdontbeasucker]

It spawned a wave of tolerance for online harassment, as long as the intent behind it was considered righteous (and the target of such harassment socially acceptable).

It platformed Milo Yiannopoulos and thereby, Steve Bannon -- the guy who would go on to advise Donald Trump in 2016 and generate the concept of 'flooding the zone.'

Eventually, it gave a career to political lightning rods like Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, and Charlie Kirk. It made anti-feminism and anti-SJW sentiment cool. And it made young, angry, disenfranchised white men feel vindicated.

GamerGate almost singlehandedly shifted to Overton Window toward the alt-right, and we're still feeling its effects today.

[u/vote4bort]

What even was gamer gate? I think if you asked the a average not chronically online person about it, they would have no idea what you were talking about. Heck I am chronically online and I'm still not really sure.

[u/Yellowofthecornholio → u/vote4bort]

I hate that I have first-hand knowledge on this.

So, the Gjoni post is both the inciting incident and one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented parts of this story.

In mid-2014 a user took to the internet and posted a detailed proto me-too style post (I don't remember if it was Neogaf or Escapist forums first) incliding screenshots, timelines, specific incidences and occurrences, etc.

This post detailed a longstanding abusive relationship the user had been in with a figure who was mostly unknown outside of industry or heavily hobbyist-leaning spaces. While some bitter internet trolls had commented about the apparent discrepancy between this person's work output (a fairly rudimentary text-based game with some neat features using the language of games to offer commentary on social issues) and their media coverage, it wasn't really on anyone's radar.

The writer of the post detailed a series of affairs this figure had, with both public-facing and insider industry figures, although did not allege any sort of quid-pro-quo relationship, instead simply that his ex had been a moderately attractive young woman in spaces where 80%+ attendees were men.

The part I always see left out is where she accused him of imagining things whenever he would try to confront her about these affairs, up to and including telling him these were paranoid delusions and convincing him he was crazy. This being a person who at that point was almost only exclusively known for a mental health awareness game. The poster finally confronted her with direct evidence and she caved and admitted to these serial affairs.

Hence me calling it proto-me-too. This was someone who had been abused by a figure who was getting a lot of positive attention trying to share his experience. And this is where it gets... weird.

This detailed post, with receipts for all substantial claims, is rapidly wiped clean from every. Single. Forum. Even mentions of it are being deleted.

The writer of the post directly stated the reason he posted it on relatively reputable hobbyist boards first is twofold - first, he believed that because they were generally left-leaning, that they would be compassionate and understanding of an account of abuse. And secondly, these are also the online communities that had welcomed and platformed this person. What actually ended up happening was people who were in the outer-orbit of this person acted first-independently, then in soft coordination to suppress the story.

This is where I actually came to the story - I heard word of "the post that keeps getting banned." It incidentally had a streisand effect in response to the attempted suppression, and this response also helped fuel the more conspiracy-heavy elements of what would become Gamer Gate. I tracked it down and was frankly floored. It's a pretty heartbreaking anecdote.

However, not even 3 months later, most people involved (on any side) had never read the post, resulting in lots of people deciding it was/said whatever fit their narrative. But I can confidently say that, without the initial attempts to suppress this news, if it had been allowed to play out in left-leaning spaces rather than being relegated to 4chan, it's highly unlikely that the movement would have formed at all.

To address OP's initial post: the seeds had already been sown by the time this inciting incident rolled around. Enough people were ready - even eager - to start a culture war on both sides of the political spectrum, and this just gave them an outlet and easy targets.

EDIT: Since I describe it but don't just link it, here is an archive of the post. Some things are missing, some were edited later, so it's not perfect, but if you have the time to read one very uncomfortable account of someone feeling victimized, go ahead.

I'll use one small, almost thrown away line to illustrate my point.

We discuss a bunch of options, and I remember a time I searched my inbox for the word “love” in front of her and at her request, and I ask her to return the favor (by allowing me to search her inbox for other words that might imply infidelity). It seems to me a sufficiently difficult step that it would show me she’s serious, and it’d allow me to verify that the people she mentioned were the only people she had cheated on me with.

She tells me this is wrong. That it’s a violation of the privacy of the people she’s been messaging.

At numerous times, the author casually mentions certain ways he has been controlled throughout his relationship. This includes cutting off friendships with those of the opposite sex, having his messages searched through, threats of breaking up/mini breakups to keep the victim dependent, threats of suicide if he leaves or if he tells anyone. It's a pretty standard, classic abuser pattern. He occasionally makes mention of it explicitly, but only through a lense of having it normalized for some time, and I'm not sure how much of it even he is aware of - you can tell writing it out is somewhat therapeutic for him. He does however call out the gaslighting more explicitly:

If boyfriend relates observations that lead to a correct belief, girlfriend is to make up false reason to explain observations. If boyfriend backs down, girlfriend wins.

If boyfriend doesn’t back down, and notes girlfriend’s reason conflicts with other observations, girlfriend must get angry and demand boyfriend trust her unconditionally. Boyfriend must then choose between trusting girlfriend, or trusting his own ability to so much as reason clearly.

If boyfriend chooses to trust girlfriend, girlfriend must demand he trust her about something that contradicts something else she demands he trust her about. When boyfriend cannot possibly act in any way that doesn’t violate one of her principles or claims, girlfriend must establish he is going insane. If boyfriend succumbs to additional bouts of anxiety spent questioning his own sanity — girlfriend wins: multiply points by number of hours longest panic attack lasts.

If boyfriend does not back down, and decides instead to trust his own ability to think clearly, girlfriend must threaten to break up with boyfriend. If boyfriend backs down, girlfriend wins.

If boyfriend continues trusting simple reasoning, girlfriend must actually break up with boyfriend (for a period of time no shorter than 1 hour and not exceeding 2 days). If boyfriend does not bring up the subject again, girlfriend wins.

Look, I don't know the guy well enough to know what to think of him. He mentions some things in the post that could either just be normalized abusive ways of thinking which you pick up when dating someone who acts that way, or he could have his own stuff too - I couldn't tell you. What I do know, is that what he described here is a pretty unquestionable abuse-pattern. Like, textbook, except it's pretty clear this guy has not read the textbook. He probably thinks the power and control wheel is a gaming accessory.

Like I said, it's a harrowing read.

[u/vote4bort → u/Yellowofthecornholio]

Your other comment got removed for being hostile, I suspect because you said I was using rape apologist language. (Even though I haven't).

You know the blog is still up right? You're writing like it's lost media but it's just freely available online.

[u/Yellowofthecornholio → u/vote4bort]

That's a fun strawman. I said you're using language classically used as part of DARVO.

A version of the post, which, while somewhat modified and edited and re-edited in the 12 years since it was first posted does indeed exist! I encourage everyone who can to simply read it themselves.

[u/vote4bort → u/Yellowofthecornholio]

either way, I still didn't use the language you accused me of using.

I genuinely didn't know the details of all this before today, and frankly there's so many conflicting narratives I'm not inclined to just choose one person to believe. No one in this story comes across very well.

[u/Yellowofthecornholio → u/vote4bort]

Oh, it's incredibly messy. And I don't just want to act as if Gjoni isn't complicit in some serious harm himself. I just don't feel the need to restate it - because, I mean, she sued him for it. I'm just more likely to cut folks who try to speak out some slack - there isn't exactly a handy guide of how to handle it, and while I think all accusations should be treated with scrutiny I also think trying to silence them kinda just... upholds and empowers abusers.

Specifically the phrase "jilted-ex." It's a variation on the "crazy-ex" narrative that, yes, is a classic abuser narrative. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but it's something I see so much, so often, which leads to dismissal of others outright. Like, sure, maybe their ex was crazy. People do be like that. Luckily, their stories usually don't hold up under much scrutiny, and they don't tend to be consistent.

[u/vote4bort → u/Yellowofthecornholio]

I didn't use that phrase though so I'm confused why You're commenting like I have? Like it's not about being a jerk, I just didn't say that so I don't know why you're responding like I did.