This is going to be a long one, just a heads up.

I’ve written this post three times now over the past couple days. The first version was scrubbed, the second lost to a technical error, whatever this is in the end will hopefully be a good thing. But I wanted to respond directly, and in length, regarding certain perspectives and ideals being spoken today that conflict with what I know to be true in my experience, not just for me but for others, and I feel it upsetting that this has been a sort of one sided discussion as of late.

To talk about me, and this blog, and it’s purpose - I’ve tried to be as transparent about this as possible without reaching for a gold star or a pat on the head, but I feel the need to lay it out here - I have a career outside of games I’m pretty safe in. It allows me the luxury to be this mean, to bear these teeth, to be at times a cathartic outlet for those who need it, to prop up voices and perspectives that would otherwise be overshadowed, to try and support others to the best of my ability. I know I lack the perspective to write the “best” critiques nor do I try to.

So I don’t seek a career in games criticism, I don’t collect any dollar (outside of about $50 for a piece on adblock I left a Paypal donate link in,) I wouldn’t say I personally benefit writing what I do. I do it because it’s right, and not to go “woe is me,” but I do spend a lot of time studying reactions, seeking out critique, and actively trying to do better and improve one’s own perspective. I don’t expect someone to trust me, but when I am accused of trying to “build a platform of authority and power around themselves” and my work is regarded as simply “terrible,” I worry. I don’t get a nickel for every reblog or retweet. I actually get nothing, and I worry if that’s the aura given, that I’m building some sort of media empire or what have you.

“A more peaceful 2014” by Zoye Street is, frankly, unsettling, and I would argue in some parts misinformed. Looking back on 2013 I don’t believe “peaceful” is a fair goal going into this year. I don’t believe that a calendar change grants a “fresh start” or a “clean slate” or whatever else have you. Time moves on, nothing changes.

“Good work is being held back by our own peers. Silencing happens horizontally as well as vertically. At the end of 2012 we were celebrating the great work that had been done advancing the conversation about games. Now here we are a year later, and people are describing anxiety, exhaustion and a sense of frustration. I want to draw attention to some of the patterns that I can see being highlighted in these posts, so that we can make a more concerted effort to push back against peer bullying.”

2013 was a nightmare for games criticism, whether it was one of it’s most prominent members running a smear campaign against a lesser known journalist to the true colors of whiteness making themselves known in mainline games criticism through their reception of Bioshock: Infinite to the endless abuse people like Anita Sarkeesian had to put up with. I remember my first post on Infinite I had to remove a source because they were too afraid of receiving even more death and rape threats from hive minds like Reddit. It hasn’t gotten much better, considering 2014 has already started off with sexism and victim blaming from one of the more prominent criticism sites around.

In my time running Design Is Law I’ve seen an endless number of voices be forgotten, overshadowed, harassed, and generally shut out of a larger conversation that needed their voice and perspective. I’m lucky enough to have made myself invulnerable to it as best I could, as well as the luxury of being a straight white dude in this society. I try take that power and try to direct it to propping up voices and perspectives otherwise left out as best as I can - hence the endless quoting and linking of people that were not straight white dudes in nearly everything I wrote. My perspectives are not filled in by a desire to “win” some sort of Social Justice World Heavy Championship Title but to understand and learn the true realities of the world we live in, and I hope to support and embolden the voices that need to be heard most.

I’ve seen personal arguments between individuals escalate in this way many times this year. Someone is called out for a misjudgment or a bad habit, and their privilege is brought to bear as an assumed cause of the problem. This then scales the issue up, from a personal disagreement to a battleground in the fight against patriarchy and capitalism. Once the common enemy of systemic oppression is invoked, it feels natural to gang up to fight against it. This can result in individuals being targeted at a scale that is out of proportion to their own capacity to harm others or protect themselves. -Zoye Street

As they say, the personal is the political - and an individual’s (or collective group’s, like Polygon’s) actions can contribute to a larger whole. Societal privilege does play a large part into one’s decision making process and their understanding of certain concepts like “harassment” - this Kuchera incident was a strong lesson in the sheer distance of how out of touch those who hold the power in games journalism are. It’s hard to have discourse when one side has such a nonsensical view of it, and understanding how the mindset behind these decisions like giving Kuchera a platform ties into larger oppressions is crucial to moving forward. There are larger benefits to calling out awfulness than catharsis.

I wish we could talk about clean fights. We should certainly hold each other accountable for our actions. We can’t examine internalised oppressive ideas without criticism. Problems happen when we make public fights that could have been handled in private, and when we bring to the fight issues that the subject has no personal control over. Criticise that person’s flaws by all means, but when we try to hold ordinary individuals accountable for historical, systemic injustices, the fight very often becomes unmanageable.

If 2013’s rise of public callouts was a lesson in anything, it’s that private channels have failed to properly settle the majority of these disputes, time and time again. The civility is used to belittle and passive aggressively dismiss those who would speak up. The heavy misuse of the term “debate” shows the problem with the current state of discourse. The problem with trying to dismiss “issues that the subject has no personal control over” is that these larger issues are compromised of many seemingly small actions that these individuals have control over, and largely contribute to.

There is a broad cultural tendency to view things in a polarised manner. We have a long history of seeing politics as a question of left to right, liberal to conservative, radical to assimilationist. One person is more or less strident than the other, who by comparison appears compromising. Behind this oversimplification, the reality is multidimensional, with different ideals and needs being considered by each person all at the same time.

This line of reasoning has been used time and time again to defend those that would hurt. It’s been used to delegitimize hurt, and those speaking up. Nobody is saying that those being called out are less than human - but typically their actions are infringing upon the humanity of others. To demand this be met with an inauthentic civility for the space of “a more peaceful 2014” reads as harmful. Especially when only one side of the table would respect this. This space has been made hostile by those who would send death and rape threats, by those who would knowingly employ outspoken bigots, by those who would refuse to even accept the possibility of discourse - not by those who would dare to speak up in opposition, even angrily.

I would also like to note the third person Zoye is quoting in their article has a bit of a reputation for tone policing, even going so far back as to complain to PoC about their tone voicing their frustrations with the failings of white allies. They also, rightly so, made a critique of my piece - Polygon employs six female writers, yes. Yet none of them are editors - that team consists of all males, mostly white. So using that critique, which I would have happily made revisions with, as an excuse to dismiss the point entirely whilst chumming it up with that same editorial team who is, irregardless, still guilty of the charges at hand, in the twitter thread kinda disqualifies them as having a legitimate platform to try and set the tone of discourse.

On top of this, that same editorial team chose to employ someone who has openly posted sexist (PS4 controllers are boobs, apparently) and rather racist content (“bigot shaming,” really?) in recent months on the now-dead Penny Arcade Report (who sought to revolutionize games journalism the same as Polygon) over them as Editor of Opinions. The fact that Polygon chose to employ them as a superior to these six female writers is a bold, hostile statement about where their priorities lie, intentional or not, and that while they may at times talk the talk, to truly walk the walk is a whole other commitment entirely they won’t take seriously.

This is something that does need to be called out, and met with open hostility, especially in a space which is so hostile and volatile against those who would speak up, often makes space or gives priority to the security of those most hateful. Kuchera’s endless string of employment being a prime example, while other, more qualified and less bigoted writers and editors struggle to get by and are constantly passed over.

We need to welcome a diversity of tactics. Different people will approach the same goals in different ways. That’s a good thing, and necessary if we are all going to be capable of finding ways to survive. Public shaming is holding back important work that is already under-appreciated and poorly-supported. We can help each other to move forward, or we can tear each other down until everybody is exhausted.

The problem with stating we need a diversity of tactics and then attempting to shut down one specific tactic in particular is that the claims that public shaming is holding back important work is unfounded. Two of the people Zoye quotes with having fear of speaking up have continually expressed bigoted views in the past - and instead of learning from the critiques or quietly reflecting they cast themselves in a victim’s light. We are learning to be more methodical, more self-critical of what we put out there - in a contrast to so much carefree, casual bigotry that continues on unchallenged. To some people, this is scary - seeing that there are consequences to what we say and what we output into this sphere.

For too long we have had those who were hurt be too afraid to speak up. This continues on today. For my body of work, 2013 was a year where I was periodically given thanks, privately and publicly, for my aggressive, mean tone. For uncompromising vigor.

What some would refer to as “toxic” has given strength to others to speak up, has given solace to those who also feel sick at Kuchera’s continued employment whilst putting out bigoted, actually toxic words out into his sphere of influence. Another good example?

The Kickstarter debacle in the middle of the year - where a man forwarded his career by getting women to sign an online petition and using that to drop a thinkpiece in Glamour, humanizing and painting a kind light on a “pick-up artist guru” who profited from telling men to “Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.” That same man, even after shutting women out of this conversation entirely, is still sitting comfortably with employment, same as Kuchera. I pulled out the knives, and told whoever read my piece to flood their channels of communication, providing direct links to social media and their contact form. Kickstarter spent a great deal of time trying to delete a flood of angry Facebook posts whilst in the middle of a media black out. That was met with thank yous, and in some cases inspiring others to speak up in their own lives. Kickstarter eventually donated $25k to RAINN, as well as fully admitting they were in the wrong. Sadly, rape culture still has a safe place on Kickstarter.

As much as we may not like to admit it, my hostility has provided strength and benefit to others, and has empowered many to speak up. That is my motivation for continuing to write what I write and do what I do. It may not fit with a typical narrative of what makes up “good” activists, but again - I am not here for money, fame, or anything but helping out those who need it. I’m in no place to provide the “best” critiques, nor would I try to act as some sort of leader.

So yes, public shaming has it’s place going into 2014. It is “okay.” Cultivating hostility to bigotry, blatant or not, and getting people to stop, and think before they speak and act is a positive, in the long run. It has it’s place, alongside every other tactic in the book. 2014 will not be “peaceful” as long as actions like Polygon’s hiring of Kuchera and The Escapist running sexist, victim blaming content continue to make this space we all inhabit hostile. Putting the blame on those making callouts for cultivating hostility and causing harm is fallacious, and misguided.

What I wrote does not change the fact that Polygon’s hiring was wrong, and will continue to be so, nor will it somehow make Kuchera somehow worse - and if he did, the blame would be his alone in that matter for making that choice. Perhaps Kuchera and his new friends at Polygon will feel uncomfortable - this is not a bad thing. Not when so many on the other side of this fence are bombarded with actual harassment, violent threats, and have to try and exist in a space they are constantly uncomfortable in. Perhaps this newfound discomfort will make them reconsider their views, or at least reconsider their definition of terms as basic as “harassment.”

When Justin McElroy, another editor at Polygon, tweets to those who want to be writers to simply “please write” and that there’s “literally no barrier to you writing,” it shows his sheer ineptitude and misunderstanding of the situation and what’s at stake for those with the least. The problem with discourse is that people are coming into this sphere with violently different understandings of what is going on - one is informed by pain - a very real pain, and the other is informed by relative comfort and societal privilege, as we’ve seen by Polygon’s response to being called out. This is important, and valuable if, whatever this movement is, is to move forward into 2014.

I am not saying these things without an understanding that said anger cannot be critiqued or that the person behind it is above criticism - I understand when someone publicly states that they do not “trust” me - and I am not upset at this. Many a straight white dude have gone into activism seeking power and money whilst spreading abuse - and have succeeded, from Hugo Schwyzer to Ben Kassoy. I have tried to be as open as possible to said critiques, and have tried to be as accessible and transparent as possible in this regard.

Yet I do not look back on the good I’ve done and the thank yous I’ve received and the friends I’ve made writing what I’ve written and think them invalid because it was somehow nothing more than “2013 social justice activism.” Which brings me to the next post I’d like to directly respond to - while it has a lot of truth I also feel it in some places misinformed and in some aspects outright condescending. Not to say I disagree with it entirely - again, it has a great deal of truth behind it.

But from my experience, Mattie’s post “On Anger” here creates a timeline that is, to some extent, untrue.

2012: Off of the work of many obscured social justice activists (mostly centered around The Border House), games media hit critical mass with enough education and protesting of marginalization that many incidents were highlighted and discussed. More public figures felt comfortable talking about discrimination, more people started to speak up on social media, more PR and games were called out. It was the year of it becoming irrefutable that there is a problem, and it needs to be solved, documented ultimately by#1ReasonWhy and #1ReasonToBe.

This work was great, and infinitely valuable.

2013: Everyone is trying out their social justice hat. Some are inexperienced, others more so. It is expected, on some level, that you are savvy with feminism. More and more people are joining the conversation, and with intersectionality, more critiques are added in. It was the reaction year, on a ground level and industry one. GDC had the premier of their advocacy track of talks, and there were at least 4 games specific conferences with strict anti-harassment and diversity/inclusion policies.

I’m afraid I would go so far as to state that this is to some extent, untrue, considering my knowledge of what I’ve read and what I’ve written. Personally, my style of writing began some time before 2013, and was illustrated by a number of posts before 2013. A 2011 review of the rather racist Call of Juarez: The Cartel for starters.

Going back to 2010, Tumblr was growing momentum as a platform to express anger, and volatile statements - which a number of people read and listened and learned from. Yes, maybe “otherkin” and “transethnic” crap emerged out of this, but for the most part it had become easier than ever to read and learn about social justice concepts - and it was hard to stay away from. Dickwolves was a massive moment of illustrating the consequences for voicing dissent and bringing activists together through Twitter and Tumblr. Solidarity was building and callouts were becoming easier to make knowing one another was readily available. Shared anger was becoming realized as necessary, and to some extent a good thing.

Regarding 2013 specifically - a lot more happened than what Mattie is listing. Tropes vs. Women was monumental, and any timeline about social justice in games has to include the endless hate and abuse Anita Sarkeesian’s had to put up with for simply making her voice heard. Like I said before - it was a nightmare year for games criticism, especially for those without a strong support network. Again, I was having to remove sources as they feared for even more violent threats from toxic hiveminds like Reddit. This has not changed in 2014, and I doubt it will be any more “peaceful” than 2013.

2014: Seems to be the acknowledgement that there isn’t a code of conduct for social justice on social media, and there is a strong need to cut down on toxic meanness and peer abuse. It’s finding the answer of how discuss and educate that progresses our field while respecting the suffering of those waiting for the privileged to learn. More on this soon.

To start, I hate talking in such vague terms. It leaves so much open to interpretation that our own beliefs and views are shadowing the definitions more than the words themselves, and I would rather build arguments based on specifics. It’s easier to write vaguely and leave everyone walking away happy than to get in the nitty gritty specifics.

I would argue there is a code - albeit unwritten. Maybe I’m alone in this, but it centers around helping those worse off. Some of us in this community, whatever it might be, are losing hope, or feel alone, or feel powerless. That we all have a responsibility to read and learn and be more considerate and thoughtful about what we’re doing before we act or speak. That meanness has it’s place, and what some may label “toxic” has brought good to those most hurt. Helped those that would otherwise not speak up.

The problem is that unlike a convention, this community is too large and diverse to have some sort of written code of conduct we’re all going to abide by. Our struggles too diverse, our individual needs too many to satisfy all. Mistakes will be made, certainly. I am guilty of them, as is everyone. Yet I disagree with Mattie’s approach to devaluing the strength that I know this “toxic” meanness has given others. It’s not pretty and it doesn’t line up with a clean narrative of “good” activism, but this is matters of survival to a great deal of people.

This new year, I made a resolution to be critical without the negativity. I brought a lot of my negative feelings to social media, completely valid negative feelings, that set a tone for people to interact with me. It was conflicting with my goals as an activist; I want people to feel comfortable coming to me and speaking about issues, but I obviously was always stressed, down, bitter. Who wants to open up and expose themselves to a person like that? To a person who looks like they don’t need another burden on their shoulders? I am making an active effort to privately journal my negative feelings and find out different self-healing tactics that involves getting away from Twitter. I want to be more approachable, I want people to feel encouraged around me. I want to be a safe space, if you will, and have the ability to make where I am a place of respectul, earnest discussion.

This is all great and I would never dare to tell another person how to approach their activism. Yet this approach simply does not work for everyone, if the experiences this larger community as a whole have anything to say in the matter. My meanness, as toxic as it maybe labelled, has helped bring $25k to RAINN, has helped people see the error in their beliefs, some even apologizing and thanking me for not cutting slack, has empowered others to speak up - these are undeniable realities that have helped shape, in some small part, the larger discourse.

These discussions at large are happening in no small part due to activists who are loud, who are disruptive, stomping their feet and making those in power uncomfortable. Maybe they’re mean and maybe they’re not always respectful. But politeness and trying to handle issues privately and “elevating the discourse” has been used as a weapon to dismiss, disregard, and silence those who would speak up, by those who consider this something as irrelevant as a “debate.”

To quote Kim Delicious, who wrote a fantastic post you should read in it’s entirety - as I am admittedly picking and choosing to forward my point here:

“So, the general point of this is that even in a hypothetical scenario where SJ communities never resort to the sort of anger being talked about, people in positions of privilege will still treat being called out as tho it is that sort of anger. People outside what’s going on will still use that sort of behavior to feed conflict while they jerk off. … Calling Coochera a shithead feels good. Tell him to fuck off into space also feels good. However, even if it feels good, it doesn’t really accomplish anything other than letting me pat myself on the back and go, “I sure showed him.” In my opinion, it doesn’t really do much harm on its own. He’s shown he’s not going to listen regardless. I’ve tried both avenues of discussion with him, the angry lashing out a couple years ago. The patient, polite one more recently. Neither worked. … So, why not call him a shithead and be done with it? Because it scares people. Because it distracts. When one or two people are calling someone who won’t listen a fucker, it doesn’t really matter. When a bunch of people get angry, becoming a swarm of stinging bees, lashing out, that’s scary. It doesn’t scare me, but it does scare good people. “What if that anger turns to me?” The easy response is, “Just don’t do that stuff.” I’ve given that response. However, it’s reductive. As we participate in SJ communities and our understanding of intersectionality grows, it can bring new things to light. Failings we might not have understood before. It is possible for a good person to fuck up because their interactions with social justice communities just hasn’t made them aware of that particular issue. The other, more serious problem is that, “Just don’t fuck up,” assumes an infallibility of the swarm. A faith in its absolute justice. The swarm doesn’t always agree with itself, tho. It’s not a hive mind. Even if it were, that doesn’t make it perfect. We need to fix the issues of acting as part of a violent swarm not for the times that the swarm is right, but for the times when it isn’t. It also distracts. If we’re all too busy calling Total Biscotti a shithead to notice people like Aevee talking about why what he did was shitty, for the benefit of people who aren’t Total Biscotti, then we’re actually letting our lashing out impede doing something meaningful with that anger. We’re preventing more useful discussions in the name of our own catharsis. In short: Anger is good. Abuse is bad. Violence is necessary sometimes, but not always appropriate. Lashing out feels good but can distract from useful conversation.”

I believe people like Mattie and Zoye are right to worry, and question. Yes, in a sphere this large and vast, it is impossible to be perfect as there are too many actors at play here. However this isn’t a good case to advocate abandoning tactics that have empowered others that would have otherwise kept quiet, among other gains. Yes, some people have become more cautious. There’s a lot of uncharted territory yet to be fully understood. It’s frustrating and stressful, certainly.

But, on day 2, I might have already messed up. Before I jump into my rambling trying to figure this out, I want to own up to where I feel like I’ve failed. I’m concluding that I don’t think personal attacks are useful when critiquing someone. By that point, it’s mean, and doesn’t help. It is the misuse of anger, which passionately communicates to people deep truths you feel. Insults are meant to hurt, to inflict pain. I believe expressing anger is vital to discourse, but I don’t condone insulting other people to be mean.

As unclean as this might sound - I disagree. It makes people uncomfortable, it’s effective in communicating a number of things left otherwise unstated. One side gets to send violent threats and the other isn’t allowed to be mean, apparently. To say, “fuck you, you bigoted creepass” is a number of things - cathartic and honest, for starters. When one side has already made the conversation hostile through oppressive actions, that conversation is only happening because activists have become so loud and vitriolic that they’re impossible to ignore.

We’ve all heard “tl;dr” enough times to know even the best longform thinkpiece critique is not half as effective as a loud, collective voice that takes many forms. Kickstarter last year was a strong example of this. Ani DiFranco also recently put out an actual apology for her fuckups with trying to have a feminist songwriting retreat at a former plantation, and was met with an endless amount of anger, that continued even after her initial non-apology. This is the reality of the situation - that volatility and hostility has it’s place and benefits.

To quote Nicole Leffel, a game designer in NYC - emphasis and paragraph breaks my own:

Volatility has lost me respect (if only temporarily). It has also objectively made community spaces better in my life, and not just for me. Hostility will very often get people to listen to you and take you seriously who wouldn’t otherwise (despite what they say to the contrary). The trick is realizing when people are listening to you already. Being hostile to folks who agree with you makes everyone feel like crap. From personal experience: it’s so much easier to channel your anger when you feel like people will listen to your words without it. Telling people not to be hostile is a really mixed bag. Not because hostility doesn’t work, but because it often does. People who are regularly heard, who have big voices, have little place telling anyone to “be nicer” to an industry that repeatedly offends. If you want to position yourself as the the “sensible, non-angry one,” go for it. You’ll get a LOT of pats on the back. You may do good! Just don’t be surprised if folks further down the food chain say you’re selling them out for the comfort of people who won’t listen anyway. Being the “nice” one ONLY works when there are “hostile” ones to position against. No one would listen to you otherwise. The world is FULL of people who are “nice” to the folks in power. There is no shortage of these people. Social justice activism needs a varied ecosystem of tones in order to be effective. Different approaches work for different people. If you’re in a position of relative power, carefully consider your motives before telling people with less power to tone down their anger.”

Again, this is not to snipe at Mattie or shut her down in any way - I respect her approach and I do believe there is some truth to her words with regards to toxicity, but I feel those worries, while valuable and should be considered, lack a consideration for a number of those also overshadowed by the larger beast hovering over this community and all those inside it.

It all started with Ben Kuchera becoming the editor of the opinions section of Polygon. I can best describe why this matters through literally what I saw on Twitter. In my set up, I have two timelines that concern video games. One is my personal following list of people I somewhat regularly talk to in games, and the other is of people I don’t really talk with or follow closely, but are important enough names in the industry to look at. This industry list has a lot of similar people with similar enough ideas about games. Mostly white men (among other similarities) who make a living wage off of games and most people involved with games would know who they are. When Ben got this new job, this side of Twitter was congratulatory for the most part, not really thinking much of it. The other side of Twitter, filled with personal friends, social justice activists, radical designers, critics of diverse backgrounds, was outraged. To this side of games, Ben is a person who consistently antagonized social justice activism, spouted problematic ideas in the name of games journalism, and defended his bosses, Penny Arcade, when they, or I should say Mike in particular, contributed many a faux pas. Since Penny Arcade Report is down, I can’t link to any of the stuff he’s written, but trivializing rape culture, diminishing women journalists when speaking of sexism in the industry, and downplaying transphobia while defending the problematic aspects of brony culture are among the things he’s known to do.

I would argue that this started long before the Penny Arcade Report, and is part of a larger issue with oppressive voices having the safety of continued senior employment in an industry that claims to be open to all voices yet certainly prioritizes those of straight white men above all. This is also rampant in tech, and well, everything else. Kuchera started 2013 trying to cost an up and coming journalist his job for a rather innocent mistake, and believing there should be consequences to wrongdoing.

It would not be unfair to apply his same standards to his own work.

Why does this matter? Polygon is on record saying they are striving for a diverse staff and to have diverse perspectives with their content. As of this writing, there is mostly white men as editors, no women, and I’m sure there’s other homogeneity there. Polygon isn’t short on talented talented minority writers, Tracey Lien and Danielle Riendeau in particular have done absolutely essential work in games journalism and I enjoy them dearly as peers and friends. So it can’t be helped to say why, why another from the old guard to be an editor when you are committed to diversity? Why a person who has a bad track record with diversity in the section of your site that has the best chance of talking about diversity? We don’t have all the information of what went into this decision, but these are valid questions when a hire goes against what you claim to be. Is there literally no one else, within or outside, that can fill that role and challenge the status quo at the same time? Asking these questions is legit, and I don’t think Polygon is going to ever really comment on it. But things like these serve as a litmus test, to see what people are feeling about certain community happenings. Two years ago, when Polygon formed, they got critiqued for starting their publications with only men. There was back and forth and debate, and it showed everyone that we need a diverse set of writers at a publication to get diverse content. Also, with the rise of social justice, minority writers are not only more likely to bring up the topic of discrimination, but are also more likely to get it right since it’s their lived experience. Continuing to only hire people similar to the usual games journalist, usual game developer, usual gamer doesn’t contribute enough of a divergent viewpoint to unpack all the problems that come with marginalization in our community.

Polygon’s not going to comment on it.

Not to toot my own horn, but it’s safe to say that for a little over ten years now, I have been arguing on the Internet about The Issues in one form or another. I’ve seen every approach, I’ve read every argument, I’m a goddamn walking encyclopedia of online discourse. With niceness comes giving an air of legitimacy to their mindsets - and this has been used so many times to shut down discussions or set the terms or generally disregard those who would speak up and ask questions. With anger, with hostility, with, hell, even personal attacks - people start becoming uncomfortable, unsettled. With enough voices yelling and stomping and raising hell, it becomes impossible to ignore.

To once again bring up the Kickstarter debacle from last year, I’d like to propose a theory. One that admittedly, again, toots my own horn and possibly gives me undue credit, but - that online petition alone could have been ever so easily ignored by Kickstarter. I know Kickstarter read what I wrote - they stalked my LinkedIn, for my starters. I know what I said and provided links for - to flood their social media and contact forms brought about a lot. I know Kickstarter tried to delete their Facebook posts and went on a social media blackout, including employee Twitter accounts. My theory is that perhaps that anger and those personal attacks did more to put the problem in scope than dropping off an online petition did. Because when you hear so many individual voices in an onslaught, personal attacks and all, it’s impossible to ignore or write off.

Again, I could be totally wrong in this! However, I strongly believe what’s more important than anything is empowering as many voices as possible to make themselves heard, in that they cannot be ignored or shut down through harassment or polite dismissal. My work in 2013, as much as we may not like to admit, has helped empower and embolden voices and perspectives that otherwise would not have been heard.

While I feel in general the critique was valid and tame, the tone quickly shifted when this blog by Jeff Kunzler was posted and shared widely. It took me a long time in reflection to realize I really don’t like what this was doing. It has anger coming from the right place, but it isn’t directed in a critical manner. It is mostly mean and disparaging. It generalizes and glides over the nuance is does bring up to return to the insulting. I silently approved of this and shared it.

This tone I write with wasn’t too far off from what I was hearing in my own circles, and I wanted to collect and communicate it. Again, I know I am not in a place to provide the “best” critiques - that is left to people like Mattie Brice, Soha El-Sawaabi, and many others of a diverse makeup. But I know how to be loud, and help others be heard. One would be right to disparage Polygon for what they did - they contributed greatly to a massive problem in games criticism we don’t like to talk about directly. They made clear their claims of changing games journalism were false, and that giving a platform to someone so hateful and destructive, especially over six talented female writers is inexcusable.

This is what I would call 2013 social justice activism. In the end, Polygon is definitely up for critique when observing this event through the lens of social justice. They deserve to be held accountable and answer for their actions, and be criticized if they don’t. However, if we look back up to that tweet, this post made the conversation hostile. The moment people feel unsafe to speak, we lose authenticity. We lose the honesty of anger. This isn’t to say I think the line was crossed when the first person from the industry side of Twitter said they couldn’t handle the negativity. There will be people who invalidate anything that’s isn’t served with a spoonful of sugar, and that’s a usual step in the phase of getting over privilege and complacency. I also want to point out that, on its own, that post isn’t harassment or abuse, though I was told there was harassment on Twitter as a result. It was straight up mean, and I gave it a nod and passed it on. Righteous anger humbles people, moves them, and unites people for a change. Meanness is toxic, it makes everyone uncomfortable and afraid to speak up, even if they are your allies and agree with you. In the end, critique is a call for change, and all that was there was meanness. I really hope Jeff follows up with a better critique, unapologetic in their intent but sorry for its demeaning nature. It is, like they say, so 2013. In 2014, we want to find more critical, constructive ways of activism.

I would strongly disagree with this claim of “2013 social justice activism.” It’s condescending, and frankly untrue, especially from what I know and have witnessed in my experiences of dealing with these issues.

Frankly, my post did not make this conversation hostile - Polygon did when they chose to make a hateful, abusive bigot their Editor of Opinions. To claim I made this situation worse is rather untrue. To learn what the Editor in Chief of Polygon considers “harassment” is important, and valuable to understand the definitions they and others like him are working with in this larger discourse - as there frankly isn’t a discussion to be had if one side considers being confronted with negativity harassment and the other faces an onslaught of violent threats on a daily basis.

People have felt unsafe to speak for a number of reasons - I see it constantly. Primarily because those who have spoken up have to deal with said onslaught. Being able to authentically express one’s anger, and sometimes even hatred, with the solidarity and support of others, can be empowering. Valid. Cathartic. A number of benefits. These attacks get personal at times because the personal is on the line here for a lot of people. They are also a lot more effective than a long form, well thought out think piece that politely ties a nice bow on things - given that there’s enough of them working together.

Critique is a call for change that so many have hung up on with ease. Putting things in polite, nice terms gives the other side the aura of legitimacy, believing this is a “debate,” a mental exercise of rhetoric. Meanness gets in people’s faces and makes them uncomfortable and maybe even reflect on how they’ve found themselves in this mess.

I really hope Jeff follows up with a better critique, unapologetic in their intent but sorry for its demeaning nature.

I’ve done this before with the Infinite debacle, certainly. My first piece was shoddily written, and my second much better received. And I suppose you got what you wanted with this piece - but I am not sorry.

Kuchera is a bigoted, hurtful dirtbag whose continued employment as a critic is a blight on the games journalism community. For Polygon to give him a senior role as Editor of Opinions is an insult to everything they claim to work towards. For Polygon’s Editor in Chief to believe in such a nonsensical definition of terms like “harassment” while I have friends being faced with, again, an onslaught of violent threats and so on. They should be uncomfortable and yes, even regretful for this decision. It plays into a larger, oppressive narrative of who holds the power in this industry that they are guilty of. This hiring decision was actively hostile, not the callouts following it. These discussions that are happening now are because of those who have gotten loud, stomped their feet, and refused to go away, so to write anger and meanness off as “so 2013” is frankly, insulting and disparaging.

In 2014, we want to find more critical, constructive ways of activism.

However, I am not disparaging this cause. It is a worthy one, that I am happy to support. We need all voices talking, speaking on all cylinders, empowering everyone who has been hurt to make their voices heard and stand tall, unfazed. It’s a complicated issue, I am not denying this. In 2013 we learned the value of hostility and collective anger directed at those with power.

Yes, I too have felt the stress of being afraid to speak or being afraid of being of called out. It’s a discussion worth having, but to write off the gains of activism in the past year as “so 2013” is frankly wrong, and pointless. To fight for “a more peaceful 2014” when the larger horde of violent racists, sexists, and transphobes as well as those less obvious about their oppressive actions in power reign over these discussions is, honestly, unfair. A number of voices were empowered and gained momentum. There are certainly people who are uncomfortable because of this, and you know what?

Some of them should be. Some of them should be shutting up and working on better rounding out their own perspectives and beliefs before opening their mouths and hurting other.

However, that being said, I have heard a number of people who should be speaking up feeling discomfort. This is a growing problem, certainly, one I don’t have an easy answer for and one we should work on, presently and in the future. I don’t want anyone hurting to not be talking.

Yet we also need to keep momentum, and improve what we know to be effective and bring about good. What I do isn’t pretty, but it has value that I have seen and know, as much as one might try to write it off as toxic.

To quote Courtney Stanton, who wrote a few important tweets on the matter:

“…life is made hostile by people w power perpetuating oppression. The conversation *exists at all* bc of activism. The conversation is inherently hostile. It cannot be otherwise. Men cannot “feel good” when seeing their sexism. Etc etc etc.”

What is crucial, and what is important in these discussions, is to, if I may paraphrase the words of the ever wise @aliendovecote, center it around helping and reclaiming victims. What some may write off as “so 2013” helped those people, if the thank yous in my inboxes have any validity to them. This sphere of activism has become so large and strong that it’s undeniable abuses here and there have happened - and we need to make amends and work towards not repeating these mistakes. I made one when I failed to properly structure the place of women at Polygon - and people used that to outright dismiss me, one even publicly accused me of building a platform of power through Social Justice. It’s a tricky tightrope to walk, and I truly do regret that mistake and swear to not make it again in 2014.

I guess my final thought is the same one I have every morning when I wake up. It’s centered around a classic scene from Star Trek: The Next Generation, as Picard lectures a young Wil Wheaton.

“The first duty of every Starfleet Officer is to the truth. Whether it’s scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principal of which Starfleet is based. If you can’t find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, then you don’t deserve to wear that uniform.”

While I may not be a Starfleet Officer, as much as one may dream, I believe what we must do, above all else, is speak truth. That truth can be angry, it can even be mean - but it must be heard. Even if it’s not well structured or even constructive. We all, as activists, have to be guided by a duty to the truth above all else.

Last year I saw many truths that were not heard, for one reason or another - and I tried to stand up and make them heard, willingly or not. I believe that to some small extent, I succeeded, and will continue to do what I do and try and improve upon my methodologies going into 2014.

That is not to say that you should copy my methods or to disparage Mattie’s words on the matter - they are to a great deal right. I do not believe she is being any less committed to the truth for speaking up, and I command a great deal of respect for her and what she is saying.

Our commitment to seeking out and upholding the truths of our society and how it hurts so many is what is most important above all, and I hope that is the largest takeaway going into this year.

For those that have encouraged me, and supported me, I thank you. For those that have critiqued me, I thank you from the bottom of my heart, as mean and as savage as it might be at times.

May great change come through this year’s labors.