As many of you are all too aware, a bizarre type of lynch mob has coalesced out of the depths of the internet in recent months. The cause of this parade of fail is as a result of Anita Sarkeesian’s YouTube series on “Trope vs. Women in Gaming”. One of the reasons it’s such a curious phenomenon stems from the fact that the anger that this mob purports to embody is that of the average everyday gaming male who is resentful at the notion that some of the games that are manufactured are at times……more than a little sexist. Now sexism in media is nothing new; be it in print or online, and has long been a bone of contention for both feminists and more moderately minded thinkers alike. Many battles have been waged in the name of changing people’s perception with varying results that seemed futile in many eyes.

However, slowly but surely, various voices have begun to chip away at some of the more arcane notions involving women in the media by raising awareness, attempting dialogue, and producing content ranging from pamphlets to a full blown video series as in the case of Sarkeesian. So what makes this effort different from the efforts of the past? The answer is nothing. It’s the reaction of the group in most need of hearing some of these things that has become the major focus of this series. In many ways it has been more fascinating than the videos themselves.

But in recent weeks the controversy had started to calm down. Or at least that’s what it appeared. Now none other than Thunderfoot himself has decided to weigh in on the controversy and like those who came before him, he has made some of the same mistakes that YouTube users such as JordanOwen42, MundaneMatt, and Badcop69 have made already.

The general thrust of their argument is as follows. Anita Sarkeesian; a dangerous fifth column operative of the evil feminists conspiracy, endeavored to create a video series that was conceived under false pretenses for the purpose of undermining the freedom of the known universe and all the houses of the landsraad. To do this she went on to the website Kickstarter and asked for around $6000 to produce her videos. But in her deviousness, Sarkeesian then baited the denizens of the website known as 4Chan into attacking her so that she could raise more funds than she had originally asked for. The reaction that she received as a result of this subterfuge enabled her to raise vastly more money than she had needed as she was after all an evil genius.

Upon securing the funds she then deviously postponed her videos to a later date so that they could be expanded and edited in such a way as to increase the quality. But this was merely another ruse so that she could escape to a non-extradition country (admittedly I am exaggerating here but this story is so ridiculous it deserves a little bit of embellishment) where with the ill-gotten funds she could buy Prada shoes and sip margaritas until the end of time.

It is a cute story and was one that was repeated by Thunderfoot in his video. The only problem being that the story is utterly false and not supported by any of the evidence that has been found so far.

From this moment on, ladies and gentlemen, I would advise people who do not wish to go down this rabbit hole, stop reading now. For those of you who were duly warned and are still with me some of this information won’t be new. However, having time to reflect on some of the things that have happened since, I intend to add some new information to what we already know.

You see all this started as a result of an anonymous source on the Internet that; once utilized and believed, became the progenitor of this entire mess. Because the source of this information derives from the same wellspring and has been disseminated unquestioningly and uncaringly; by YouTube users and bloggers who should know better,it has become a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster.

The story has been consumed by a mass of followers all too willing to believe anything that their perceived authorities say and if not for the utter ignorance this otherwise completely fallacious argument would have died a quite death. Instead it has transformed into an Internet version of telephone. The story that people are hearing is not the story that the information is actually telling us.

That information when looked at objectively and in context is vastly different than the information that has been provided to the various groups of miscreants and sycophants who follow many of these you tubers and bloggers. It speaks to a greater problem in our society in general which we can expose in microcosm for analysis and criticism in this particular instance. This is all the more fascinating because many of these YouTubers and bloggers consider themselves to be the pinnacle of logic, reason and objective thinking. The truth, however, is that they are no more enlightened than the creationists and pseudo scientists they claim to oppose. In fact in many ways one can consider them much worse because they have the folly of certainty, and the joyous inability to self reflect.

In reality many people have turned themselves over to another form of blind fanaticism in which criticism of perceived leaders and careful examination of evidence is disregarded in favor of a political and ideological narrative, the facts be damned. So this will be an attempt to examine how the catastrophe of the situation has evolved over time. In addition, it will serve as a warning to those of us who are attempting to create a society and/or a situation by which logic, reason and rational discourse are allowed to have a greater say in the discussion than before.

However, I will not pretend to be an impartial observer in this situation. I cannot deny that over the last several months, a growing tide of consternation frustration and at times downright anger has motivated me to do a lot of the work I’m doing now. But the one thing that has been lacking in any criticism of what I have done so far is legitimate evidence to the contrary of what I have put forward. The common tactic at this point is to simply straw man or accuse me of performing the same fallacies that so many of these other individuals are guilty of. But that does not amount to evidence.

So this essay will be in attempt to lay out; inasmuch logical detail as possible, the argument against this idea. While it stems from the actions of Thunderfoot it will encompass much more than what was included in his video. I will also remind the reader that at all times it should never be forgotten that behind this entire manufactured rage machine is the hand of the MRA.

It is extremely doubtful that any of this would even be an issue without their involvement in the situation. They have been making certain that an all too willing mob directs its anger at exactly the wrong target and this is the common tactic of a hate group. As I have mentioned before. So long as the hate group is able to focus its rage outside of itself there can be no self reflection. Without self reflection there can be no resolution of the conflict contained therein, nor can there be a legitimate questioning of the authority within the group. It is a far simpler thing to rouse a mob online; or in reality, then it is to calm it especially when that mob is forced to confront its own evil visage.

This is why the MRA continually pump up their followers with fear. For if self reflection takes place the movement will fall apart. They will no longer have the impetus of anger driving them forward and ultimately you would deprive those who have made a living off their fellow rage pixies, of an easy source of income and a ready provider of the validation that feeds their narcissistic rage.

So let us examined this prelude to a tragedy or farce or both.

Part one: The Absence of Evidence Is Evidence If I Say It Is.

When I first began to examine these accusations. I remember thinking to myself that if I found any legitimate evidence of what they were accusing Anita Sarkeesian of, I would have no choice but to share that information and make my critique based on those facts. As at the time I had a fair amount of respect for Jordan Owen I felt for certain that there had to be some validity to the accusations. After all I had not really known Jordan Owen to make mistakes such as this nor to uncritically accept information that he wasn’t sure about. I had been quite impressed by his analysis of Gail Dines and of the exposure of Shelley Lubin for the charlatan that she was. So I had no reason to suspect that something was amiss.

Be that as it may, I have always attempted in my dealings with any subject matter to seek out the information for myself and to examine it carefully. I learned long ago; many times to my own detriment, that one cannot take anything at face value. I am well aware that I am just as liable to the same errors and thought mistakes in logic that any other human being is capable of. But bearing this in mind it has allowed me to prevent myself from making many mistakes that I would otherwise fall into.

After all rational thinking is not something that we humans are born to. Like any other skill it must be practiced, tested, and honed in order for it to work properly. So starting my investigation I pretended to know nothing. I wanted as much as possible for the facts to speak for themselves. After all, that is exactly what I thought everyone else was doing. It was only fair that I do the same.

But after conducting the Internet search and over the course of several hours. I had found precious little in the way of actual evidence. Many of the accusations themselves seemed linked to particular blogs. These blogs almost inevitably, were linked to some sort of MRA site. But it was from one of these individual blogs that I discovered the link that would reveal what I needed to know. It is a rather strange irony that without the continued persistent attempts by various MRA sites and groups to expose Anita Sarkeesian as some sort of fraud I would’ve never come across the fountainhead of this information.

The page itself was rather anonymous in nature. It mostly contained various information about Sarkeesian’s past work history including her time working for Bart Baggett one of the most respected forensic handwriting examiners in the world (I will not even address the accusations of fraud because it doesn’t even come close to meeting the legal definition therefore, it is discarded). But the claim made by the owner of the site was that her work with Baggett suggested that she was part of a pyramid scheme. This stemmed from the fact that Baggett ran a separate entity from the school of forensic handwriting analysis dealing with a pseudoscientific idea called graphology.

Graphology involves the study of handwriting to try and reveal personality traits about the writer. Scientifically speaking, it is unproven. In other words, there is no agreed-upon scientific body of evidence to suggest the graphology has any validity whatsoever. Regardless Bart Baggett offered a course on how to learn graphology and what it can tell you about people around you. While the claims of graphology are dubious there was nothing in the information that revealed that Anita Sarkeesian was a part of a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is based on the idea of enrolling other people to sell something. Not on providing people with a product; in this case a course to actually learn graphology for a one-time fee. Most pyramid schemes also promise to help the intended mark to earn a great deal of money for themselves based on a system taught to them by the pyramid scheme owner. No such claims were actually put forward in Baggett’s seminar or in the teaching materials contained within it.

So the accusation that this had been a part of the pyramid scheme was fallacious in nature and actually had nothing to do with Sarkeesian’s time with Baggett or the work she did when she was with him. Other links that were provided by the site led to various former accounts that Sarkeesian used to seek employment, in particular as a PR representative. Link after link led to similar kinds of information none of which pointed to any malfeasance on her part. After several hours of running around in circles, I was forced to come to the conclusion that the evidence that was contained on this page amounted to nothing more than a work history and wishful thinking on the part of someone who clearly didn’t like Anita Sarkeesian. Suddenly the “case” against Anita Sarkeesian was not looking so solid after all.

At that point I began to wonder, if this was all the information that they had how was it that these accusations were meant to hold up? More troubling was the question on who had provided the information and for what purpose. I couldn’t help but remember the fact that Anita Sarkeesian was targeted by a great many MRA’ s when she announced her video series. I also couldn’t shake the fact that in my dealings with the MRA’s I’d found them less than truthful at the best of times. Also troubling was the fact that I had recognized in Jordan Owens recent videos a great deal of MRA rhetoric was beginning to be used. At first I paid it no heed as MRA rhetoric and the rhetoric of the Libertarium Vulgatum often overlap with one another as many MRA’s claim to be libertarians. But this was no normal mistake. This was a major oversight. The links and evidence provided actually told us very, very little. So how on Earth had they reached these conclusions?

Regardless of this, I continued to search out new information in the hope that I’d simply overlooked something or that I had been mistaken in trusting the site that I discovered. After all, the information was anonymous and could simply be some idiots idea of a joke. I also remember thinking to myself that if this is the site that Jordan Owen and others had been turned onto their mistake could be understandable. If not a little foolish. But no matter how long I looked none of the information could be verified.

I learned years ago from Bob Woodward that when you’re pursuing a story in a journalistic manner; which I at this point did not consider myself to be doing, one should always try to verify a story with the at least three sources. The idea was that if three sources could confirm any one fact the likelihood of that fact being incorrect was reduced substantially. But I couldn’t even find a single source to confirm anything that was said on the other website. All that seemed to be available were various MRA sites, some gamer sites, and various types of blogs. Now as Sam Waterston’s character in the newsroom observed most blogs are simply graffiti with punctuation (yes, ladies and gentlemen I do realize the irony that I’m telling you this on a blog right now but you’ll have to figure that shit out for yourself) I could hardly consider these to be sources. So instead of finding a wealth of that evidence. I had discovered that there was very little evidence to support the conclusions that had been reached. But this hadn’t stopped her so-called critics from using it anyway. And I would soon discover why.

Lines of evidence are fact chains of reasoning. If any part of the chain isn’t well put together the entire chain can break. What seemed to occur was a misunderstanding of the nature of Bart Baggett’s business and of Anita’s involvement in it. But that still didn’t seem to answer the question of how things had gone so wrong. And that’s when I got the reply from Badcop69. Or rather I should say I was told about the reply. He never informed me of his reply to myself, nor did he appear to have any concern for me knowing about the reply. Upon watching I came to understand why. It was also when I came to realize that’s there was something askew with this entire pursuit. The video went on for some 28 minutes, and in the entire diatribe not a single cogent point was raised concerning my videos. It was more of a whining contest between himself and his subscribers lamenting that facts were not being allowed into the conversation. On that regard, BadCop69 was right. Facts weren’t actually being allowed in the conversation. But not by myself, but by he and his acolytes. It didn’t seem to bother he, nor any of his subscribers that their information amounted to nothing more than innuendo. But he was convinced that he was putting forward factual information. What I was left with were merely the assertion that he and others like him had found the smoking gun that proved Anita Sarkeesian was a fraud despite the fact that there was no evidence to suggest this. So the absence of evidence for her detractors was in fact evidence. Evidence of what I don’t know.

Part two: I’m Not Wrong It’s Deferred Correctness.

As the initial search drew to a close and the incredible lack of evidence came into sharp focus. I decided to go in search of legitimate news outlets that had been following, or covering the story in some fashion. Fortunately, that search turned out to be a much easier one than the search for the evidence condemning Sarkeesian. However, the story that those outlets told was a very different story than the one that was being elaborated on by the various critics of Anita Sarkeesian.

As with the investigation that I conducted various news organizations such as MSNBC Forbes magazine etc. had also investigated the allegations and come to the same conclusion. None of them were able to substantiate any of the claims made by Sarkeesian’s detractors, nor did they find any evidence of a supposed fraud that had been perpetrated.

However, they did elaborate on the substantial amount of harassment and threats made against Sarkeesian for announcing that she was going to do the video series. I must admit that at the time I hadn’t really followed what had transpired very carefully. I hadn’t really seen the amount of abuse that had been hurled at her over the months after she declared her intention to move forward with the project. When I did see this evidence, I was quite shocked. One reason was that it seemed so out of proportion to what she had proposed to do. If you had had nothing to go on but the comments made you would be left with the impression that she had decided to destroy the videogame industry simply because she didn’t like some aspects of it.

Another reason it was so shocking was that it seemed so relentless in its pursuit of silencing Sarkeesian. Her e-mail, had been hacked, her twitter feed had attempted to be hacked, a false account had been created pretending to be her and then proceeded to leave messages that were later attributed to her. Her channel was flagged down falsely, there were attempts to find and publish her personal information, and a video game in which you could beat her to a bloody pulp was created for the peace loving members of the gaming community and MRA to enjoy (please bear in mind that it is a regular feature of such MRA sites to quote figures such as Gandhi in an attempt to legitimize their own position. Because we all know that Mahatma Gandhi would’ve been in favor of beating a woman to a bloody pulp in order that he could play his video games) in addition to her Wikipedia page being repeatedly ” vandalized” by individuals who claim to stand for liberty and free speech.

As the level of the abuse came into sharp relief. I couldn’t help but think that this was taking on the character of the lynch mob. Having grown up in the 80s and witnessing the many witch hunts involving alleged child abuse this entire situation began to have a familiar ring to it. Then, as is now, a suitable excuse was brought to bear to attack a person or group of people. Once the accusations were made, growing social pressure created a type of positive feedback loop that fed on itself. Soon the massive public opinion had most convinced of the guilt of the individuals in those particular instances before any real evidence could be brought to bear to prove guilt or innocence.

The McMartin trial, Fells acres, Wenatchee, and the Satanic scares, all ended up being completely baseless accusations made against innocent people. But in all of these cases it wasn’t until the evidence was truly examined and calmer heads allowed to prevail that the feedback loop is broken and the injustice that had been perpetrated could finally be remedied.

I foolishly thought that these lessons had been learned well by our society. But this entire incident has proven me incorrect. Not only have we learned nothing, we continue to make the same mistakes that have been made before. The situation with Anita Sarkeesian is no different.

But rather than admit that they have made a mistake. Many YouTubers have actually doubled down. They continue to make these baseless accusations against Sarkeesian, despite the fact that all the evidence is to the contrary. If this is the case then this is not about reason, logic or rationality. This has become about ideology. The tricky thing about ideology is that it often isn’t based on any kind of rational thought. It is much more in line with fanatical religious belief.

Fundamentalist religious individuals are not concerned with facts. What they are concerned with is creating a world that fits with their narrow worldview. Because not everyone or everything can conform to this world view, the nonconforming elements must either be pushed to the side or destroyed outright. For the extremists of the MRA. This means the destruction of feminism.

Now the opposition to feminism is nothing new. There has been a steady tide growing against it since the Reagan revolution spurred on by many of the religious right. Curiously enough; or perhaps not so curious when we consider the political landscape of this country, the ideology that we call “libertarianism” has been appropriated by right-wing elements, and social and religious conservatives (for another description of this, please see TheTruePooka’s blog). This is of course the source of the Libertarium Vulgatum, or vulgar libertarians who’ve arrived at their ideology, not through careful thought, but from popular anger and desire to right certain wrongs they perceive against their own group. This group should not be confused with actual libertarians who have read the literature and come to their conclusions based on the application of those principles with consistency and vigor. This group has been steadily on the rise in the libertarian movement much to the chagrin of other libertarians. It has had some disastrous results.

This vulgar libertarianism has cultivated a sense of hyper individuality among its followers and confuses the rule of law with aspects of the rule of law, such as property rights (I will explain this in further detail in my treatise on libertarianism and property rights which will be posted after this entry) and as a result perceive any form of social cohesion or social movement other than their own as an attack on personal liberty. Using this particular “wedge issue” has allowed the vulgar libertarians to justify an attack on any form of civil rights which doesn’t favor them be it The Civil Rights Acts, The Violence against Women Act, or even taxation. With this pervasive beautiful lie the vulgar libertarian has laid the groundwork for the erosion of the civil rights of minority groups. For the MRA. This means the destruction of feminism.

This is of course not for the purpose of bringing parity of rights between male and female but rather to restore an inequity of rights in favor of male in comparison to female. The clever aspect of this is that they clothe this blatant undermining of the Constitution as a rights movement. The whole time doing everything they can to undermine the rights of their fellow citizens.

Convinced of the superiority; both morally and legally, of their position the vulgar libertarian in the MRA must now seek to conform their worldview with the actual world. When a feminist like Anita Sarkeesian comes into play the worldview that they’ve convinced themselves and others of is suddenly questioned, even if that questioning is nowhere near the level of what it could be. The result is the out of proportion backlash that was witnessed with Anita Sarkeesian. For the Libertarium Vulgatum, and the MRA, this was a five alarm fire on freedom.

Convinced by their own rhetoric; and their own foolishness, the vulgar libertarians and the MRA did the only thing they know how to do, react violently to anything that doesn’t conform. Once the attacks had began; and blood was in the water, the pack instinct kicked in. From this moment on the criticisms that came forward had a life of their own.

Evidence, reason, logic, rationality, and most certainly civility, were literally beaten right out of the conversation. This had a chilling effect of sorts, for there were people who made reasoned critiques of Anita Sarkeesian’s work although they were few and far between. But because those individuals had taken a measured approach to the entire problem; and often dealt with the subject matter in a way that had nothing to do with what the Libertarium Volgatum considered to be important, their voices were almost totally drowned out. The second aspect of the chilling effect was that anyone who stepped forward to point out this mob mentality were themselves attacked, including defenders of Anita Sarkeesian, mostly female, often feminists, and always identified as the enemy by the other side.

In the end it wasn’t just Anita Sarkeesian that ended up being harassed. Numerous other individuals ended up in the crosshairs of the Libertarium Vulgatum and the MRA. The same tactics that were used against Sarkeesian, were now brought to bear on anyone who defended her including mining of personal information shutting down websites and hacking of personal space.

Not surprisingly after all this not a single MRA or vulgar libertarian has come forward to say that they have made a mistake. Nor have they acknowledged the culpability of their fellow followers in the degeneration of the discussion into nothing more than a mudslinging contest in which facts were never brought into play.

In fact, when many pointed to the hands of the MRA and the vulgar libertarians in this particular incident, it was maintained by many of their most prominent figures that no “proof” could actually be produced to show that they had anything to do with what happened. Because none of the individual accounts could be tied to MRA’s (let’s ignore for a moment that there have been over 70 posts about Anita Sarkeesian on various sites such as spearhead and a voice for men) that the MRA and vulgar libertarians of the Internet were blameless in the entire incident.

For those of you playing the home game. I would like to point to the fact that none of the evidence that was offered up by those accusing Sarkeesian of fraud; or being involved in a pyramid scheme, seem to be bothered by this when they were making their accusations against her. In fact suddenly the burden of proof changed from “because I found it on the Internet” to “you need to have physical proof that we did this.” In other words when their morality fails, they simply move the goalposts. So we’re left with an interesting paradox. When it comes to an ideological enemy the MRA are all too willing to believe evidence which does not meet their own standard of evidence when they are the accused. But when forced to defend their actions a different standard is applied. This is often framed in such a way as to be claimed that they are fighting for the rights of men and boys when in fact they are doing no such thing.

Despite the obvious hypocrisy, the inconsistency of the evidence, the abhorrent actions of their followers, and the baseless nature of their accusations the MRA maintain that Anita Sarkeesian has committed a crime if not in the legal sense then in the spirit of free inquiry and honest production of videos. Never mind they are completely incorrect about all of this. This leaves us with the question that it this was actually about a an honest critique why can’t someone admit when they have been incorrect about their information? It is a question that I believe needs answering. But I do not believe that answer will be forthcoming any time soon.

Part three: It’s Freedom, Baby, Yeah! Except In Your Case. You’re a Woman.

I believe it was Samuel Johnson who once said that patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel. Which would explain why there are so many scoundrels masquerading as patriots in modern movements. This leads us to one of the most inexplicable criticisms of Anita Sarkissian that she did not allow comments on her videos and that somehow the moderation of her comments section in this way was stamping out free speech.

Firstly, when we are speaking about free speech were talking about the constitutional freedom of speech which is as follows, and I quote.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” end quote.

Notice how it says that Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech. The United States Constitution says nothing of private individuals deciding what they can and cannot have in their own personal spaces.

It seems lost on many of the Libertarium Volgatum that something like the YouTube page is actually the private property of Google. However, they allow the average person to; provided that they follow the terms of service, exercise their own type of speech on a very particular space on the Internet. The individual is then responsible for what they do or do not allow as content on their page.

Since ostensibly everyone on YouTube has their own personal space by which they can exercise their own free speech, it is nearly impossible for any one person operating within the normal parameters of YouTube to stymie anyone’s else’s free speech. The fact that Anita Sarkeesian did not allow comments on any of her videos did nothing to stop anyone from talking about and/or discussing said videos. As a matter of fact her videos had exactly the kind of effect she’d hoped for in regards to fostering discussion. At no time was anyone’s free speech actually prohibited when it came to her and her videos. But as elaborated in this essay there were considerable efforts taken to try and silence her free speech, including the flagging down of her channel.

What is actually being talked about here is not the free speech to speak on her videos; which is not a prerequisite for free speech, but rather the inability of those who had disagreements with her to voice that rage on her videos simply for the purposes of their own misguided stupidity. It is a sort of petulant narcissism that we encounter in this instance. Her critics; often nameless, faceless trolls on the Internet, are demanding that she grant them a special privilege to speak on her own channel for the purposes of her humiliation. Much of the content that would be on display, however, would probably fall into the same kind of fair that was seen when she was harassed on Kickstarter.

Reasoned critique would of course come in the form of video responses, but this would force the trolls who thrived on their own anonymity in the comment sections of videos to finally expose themselves. Therefore holding themselves accountable in the eyes of the rest of the community who often have to deal with their verbose word vomit the same way that Anita was forced to.

So the accusation that she was stymieing free-speech is nothing more than a red herring. A talking point developed by those whose free speech is dependent on the ability to shame the rest of the public into allowing them to speak when in reality they have not earned that right. Much of what they offer has no more value in the discussion than glass of water to a drowning man. Anita Sarkissian had every bit of a right to moderate her comments section as any of the rest of us do. One cannot claim to be a libertarian or have libertarian leanings and then attempt to coerce through threat of violence or otherwise a private citizen to place their comments on their channel against their will. This is nothing more than special pleading by a group of miscreants who feel entitled to their opinion. While they are entitled to their opinion they are not entitled to force us to listen to it. Because contrary to what they think we have First Amendment rights too. This entire accusation really is the most infuriating and the most childish of all the accusations made against her. Made all the more amusing because the people making the accusation claim to stand for freedom and protection of the Constitution.

But they’re really only Americans in favor of free speech when the mood suits them. When some other citizen exercises the right in a circumstance that they don’t agree with they take on the persona of whining children stamping their feet over the fact that no one is paying attention to what they say. Because naturally what they have to say is always more enlightened more important and more worthy than what any of us have to say. After all, they’re the Scion’s of good, the ones who are the sole flame of freedom in a wilderness of oppression.

Strangely enough it’s this kind of attitude that many feminists referred to as privilege the idea that people believe that they are specially entitled to certain rights that they deny other people. We certainly are growing a strange crop of libertarians in this country. Especially in regards to the freedoms of their fellow citizens.

Part Four: but She Isn’t a Real Gamer Because I Said so

This particular aspect of the discussion is one that’s open to the most interpretation. I had originally intended to skip over this but after a recent video by the YouTube user Tooltime9901 . I felt compelled to address it.

Strangely enough myself and Tooltime find ourselves in a similar position. We don’t totally disagree with Anita’s position. However, we also find much to disagree with her. As I said in a previous video if it were myself one-on-one with Anita, the discussion would be of a very different nature. One I would hope would foster an honest discussion about what she was talking about. Much of the information that I provided in this essay and my videos is not actually a defense of Anita’s videos but rather, the acknowledgment that the criticism; or at least the vast majority of the criticism, has not passed muster when it comes to reasoned discussion.

There is plenty to be criticized in her videos and there have been those who have attempted to do so. But our criticism comes in the form of interpretation and opinion of our own views. Meaning that like her opinion its validity is going to depend on the observer and not in any true objective, factual information. That’s one of the inherent problems in judging art and indeed in judging people’s criticism of some art forms.

While I have no problem acknowledging that my opinion is just as valid as hers, others seem to be fixated on that their opinion as if it has some sort of special power. And therefore should be regarded more highly than any other opinion. But this wishful thinking has more to do with the ego than it does with any kind of evidence offered. When an ego is bruised; as a result of people not accepting what they say at face value, they lash out. For those of you who think this sounds like the actions of small children you would be correct. The petulance of some of the people involved in this discussion is indeed childish. That is perhaps why the discussion has not been able to advance forward in any meaningful way.

Nevertheless, we are faced with an interesting dilemma when it comes to Anita Sarkeesian’s credentials as a gamer. The acknowledgment, or lack thereof, of any one person as a gamer seems as subjective a matter as the critique of art itself. I do not consider myself to be a gamer. Yet I do play video games casually. I have done so for a great part of my life. But by that definition I am not a gamer in some circles.

This actually doesn’t bother me in the least as it is not something that is a part of my identity nor is it central to it. But to some it is a central part of identity and their reaction to her videos is more the reaction of an individual whose ego has been literally attacked. They take it personally and that is the reason that they go after her in the way that they do.

But in reality the judgment of her being a gamer or no, is merely a matter of perception. There is no decoder ring, there is no secret handshake, there is no card, and there certainly isn’t an organization. There is no videogame union nor a videogame lobby lobbying Congress. So who really gives a damn about who is or is not a gamer.

We are ultimately talking about a completely subjective loosely based group of individuals, each with their own definition of who is a real gamer. Which in the reality of the critique means nothing. The focus should of been on what Anita actually said, not on her perceived alien character to the gaming community. The focus on her lack of credentials as a was nothing more than an attempt at an ad hominem attack meant to discredit without actually addressing her arguments.

It wasn’t as if there was no material to criticize. What she put forward had plenty of potential holes in it but no one was truly interested in that as it was not something that wouldn’t have helped them in their political machinations be they libertarian or MRA.

From the very beginning, there was no desire to engage in a reasoned critique of the information she provided. It was knee-jerk reactionary visceral response. It’s exactly the kind of response that keeps the worst kinds of political elements in business in this country. And it’s going to continue to do so, so long as people forget the difference between a reasoned critique and just plain old fashion mudslinging.

If people are going to criticize, criticize the facts that she put forward and stop pretending as though her credentials as a gamer has anything to do with the actual discussion. I can’t help but comment that this is exactly the kind of attitude you get when movements hold up people like I Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard as the pinnacle of intellectual integrity. Selfishness; contrary to what these two fake intellectuals believes, is not a virtue. Neither is lack of honesty in any discussion. In the end it’s simply platitude to try and justify unacceptable behavior.

Part Five: We Stand Astride History and Say ” Stupid Bitch Make Me A Sandwich! And I Can Say That Because I’m a “Humanist”

Of all the ridiculous things that transpired in this episode none was more amusing to me than Thunderfoot’s assertion that he is a humanist , implying the idea that somehow, someway, using that moniker actually means something when you don’t follow its tenants. This seems to be a new tactic of those attempting to criticize feminism when they lack an argument with any real teeth.

The implication of this statement is that somehow feminism is not concerned with humanism or that the two are mutually exclusive. For myself. I’ve always considered things like feminism; and indeed other various social movements, to merely be a part of humanism. The broad rubric of humanism has many subdivisions within it of which feminism is one. The concept that somehow feminism, works against human dignity is ridiculous. Strangely enough, it is lost on those who make this claim that their own actions do not denote a person who is concerned with human dignity but rather with their own petty political infighting.

If Thunderfoot and others had such concern for the rights and dignity of others, then why did they not protest the 642 bills introduced in 2013 alone regulating the reproductive ability of women? In contrast, there are exactly 0 bills regulating the reproductive ability of men. Why are they not; unlike Ashley Paramour; who identifies herself as a feminist, protesting more stringently against the pernicious nature of climate change and its effects, especially on the developing world? Why are they not outraged at the murders of nearly 10,000,000 people in the Congo since the Civil War in the 90s between the Hutus and the Watusi? Why are they not boycotting electronics that use near slave labor in China, Taiwan and Indonesia? Why do they criticize Islam for their treatment of women, and then prescribe very similar treatment for women in our society? Why are they content for women and minorities to be treated as second and sometimes third class citizens, and then attack someone who criticizes that inequity? What kind of curious crop of humanists have we grown in the fields of the interweb?

I would ask that those who attempt to hide behind the label of humanist please remove your head from your rectum and attempt in some manner to engage with reality like the rest of us. The fact is that most people are not really concerned with the freedom of others merely their own freedom.

This is why they allow horrible hiring practices when it comes to convicted felons, or maintain the fiction that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, or that an entire segment of people; such as people of faith, suffer from mental illness and need to be stamped out like a virus if not they themselves than their beliefs. There is no humanism to be had here, merely the mental masturbation of intellectual midgets attempting to justify their own abhorrent belief structure.

As I have said before if this is atheism than I’m ashamed to call myself one. If this is humanism than I want no part of it. If this is what is perceived as a just and rational society, then let it burn to the ground for there is no place for me here. If this is what’s considered enlightenment than I will simply dwell in darkness. There is no light here only the shadows that Plato described as most people’s perception of the world.

It is very clear to me now that we have not come very far in our intellectual development as a species. This whole incident is evidence of that. To follow a path dedicated to humanism is to have concern for all human beings. It is a difficult path, one fraught with peril. It demands the equitable treatment of all. Even those you don’t necessarily agree with. Certainly one cannot hope to have any kind of meaningful discourse when the discourse is based not on truth or facts or evidence but on the malicious conviction that your enemy must be destroyed.

And what happens to truth in this type of humanism as difficult as it is to grasp as a concept? Does it even matter to those who have already made up their minds? If this is about truth than why so much deception? Because they’re so fond of quoting him, Mahatma Gandhi once said “truth never damages a cause that is just” so why then is this entire discussion mired in deception? For too long political reprobates and ideological sham masters have been hijacking the discourse. This is how a group of professed humanists can dedicate themselves to removing the humanity of anyone that they dislike.

More concerning is the utter silence of those who should speak up. For all the bravado and self righteous declarations of the humanist community for others to speak up against the extremists in their midst they don’t seem to be too concerned with the extremists that populate their ranks. Yet they expect people whose life may end up in dire jeopardy because of such an action to gladly take such a step even if it means imprisonment or death.

Why should a moderate Muslim living in a country where the consequences may be severe speak out against the more radical elements of their religious belief? Especially when those who demand such an action as the price of their acceptance will step on their necks in return. Why should people in the LGBTQ community trust these humanists with the fate of their rights when it is clear that most of them cannot or will not understand their circumstances? Why should a feminist consider herself a humanist when the humanist denies her very humanity? Why should anyone who faces prejudice join the ranks of humanism when they’re nothing more than the useful props of imbeciles and fools like Thunderfoot?

The answer is that they shouldn’t. If this is all humanism has to offer them, or any of the rest of us then perhaps it’s time we found a new paradigm. Because one thing has become abundantly clear at this point. There is no more humanism on display here in dealing with Anita Sarkissian and feminism, then there is humanism in the actions taken by the likes of China, Russia and North Korea when it comes to the persecution of those who disagree with people in power. The one good thing is that we have a federal government to keep in check the most extreme elements of our society. This; and the belief in the rule of law, keeps those who would take these actions from carrying them out in a civilized society. Yet most vulgar libertarians would like to do away with it completely and place it on a paying basis. Then again perhaps that’s the entire point. The real reason that they want no government to interfere with their actions maybe so they can interfere with the rest of us without consequence. How quickly would the little aspiring Nero’s and Caligula’s begin their petty tantrums with body counts if not for the rule of law to keep them in check? It’s on the foundation of the rule of law and human rights that we are suppose to base our government and lives. When that is cast aside we are left with individual tyrants whose ideas of liberty, freedom and democracy extend only so far as they can use them to control others.

The reality is that we can no longer tolerate this kind of corrosive attitude to be the basis of our moral stance and still call ourselves humanists. The center of humanism is the human, not the ideology. The center of ideology is fundamentalism. The fundamentalist can only accept the reductionist worldview that they’ve created. They cannot and will not tolerate any other point of view. Since this viewpoint is incompatible with humanism no person claiming to be humanist can maintain a fundamentalist mindset. If anything can be declared to be the fundamental antithesis of humanism it is fundamentalism. So in conclusion, we must ask ourselves just what kind of humanism we hope to create. Is the humanism centered on the human? Or the is the humanism center around a vile ideology?

I am incapable of predicting the future, so only time will tell what kind of humanism truly takes root. But given the nature of the debate going on and of the miscreants who have populated atheism, not to mention my own knowledge of classical history, I am far from optimistic. We may simply be seeing at this moment the end of the movement and the beginning of belief.