What do video games and climate models share in common?

Climategate, for those unfamiliar with a term, was a scandal conceived in 2009 following a series of leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails were released on websites and blogs skeptical of anthropogenic climate change on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Conference. While most of the emails contained technical jargon, a few were reported to expose deliberate data-tampering on the part of scientists on the university to support the theory of climate change and to cover-up contradictory evidence. Others demonstrated what some believed was unprofessional behavior on the part of climate scientists. The merits of these accusations were overblown but, by the time the investigations were complete the media had moved on, and Climategate dealt lasting damage to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Gamergate was born under similar circumstances. It began with the accusation that an indie game developer slept with a game reviewer and quickly snowballed into a debate spanning the role of feminism in video games, the ethics of video game journalism, the differing practices of journalists and bloggers, and the influence of progressivism on the social sphere. I argue that Climategate and Gamergate are commensurable theories, and that this relationship is indicative of a dangerous trend.

The fact that Gamergate endures despite the fact that it is predicated on charges of corruption that are demonstrably false attests to its strong essence of denialism. Climategate suffered a similar impediment, yet the media reporting and the repeated narrative doled-out by the skeptic community preserved the belief that CRU scientists confessed to manipulating climate science, despite the fact that any honest investigation into Climategate revealed that the supposed admissions were standard, peer-reviewed practices reframed as malfeasance. Climategate festered into accusations against the field of climate science as a whole, pundits and politicians accusing the consensus of climate scientists confirming climate change of having political motivations. Brett Jacob Bricker published an article titled “Climategate: A case study in the intersection of facility and conspiracy theory” in the journal Communication Studies in 2013. In it Brecker breaks down the conspiratorial nature of Climategate, asserting that it meets the criteria of a viable conspiracy theory because it meets the following requirements as described in earlier work by the late Professor of American History at Columbia University Richard Hofstadter:

There are elite, conspiratorial agents. It contains a plausible, compelling narrative. The narrative supports pre-existing beliefs. The supposed conspiratorial agent responds weakly to the charges. (For Gamergate, in this case there is no possible alternative because there is no cohesive entity to respond).

This was written about Climategate but the conditions are present in Gamergate as well. The notion that Gamergate is purely a protest of poor journalistic practices in the video game industry may ring true for some but, even in its most generous interpretation, it is disingenuous. Gamergate’s origin shapes its development. For every protestor concerned about journalism ethics there are more concerned about a broader social issue. The creators of Vivian James, one product of the Gamergate protest, developed her persona for the sake of striking back at what they saw as the degenerate cancer of progressivism. Gamergate is about more than journalism ethics. Were that the true motivating factor behind the protest, then why did it take the vitriolic manifesto of a disillusioned ex-boyfriend to spark it? After all, the idea that gaming journalism is corrupt is nothing new. Has anybody ever trusted Imagine Games Network (you can’t spell ignorance without IGN) reviews? Who takes GameSpot reviews seriously? Did a single person ever unironically like Kotaku? The only bodies that seem to be resistant to the charges of conspiracy are individual game reviewers with the slightest air of integrity. Furthermore, the charges that can be made against the gaming journalism industry - even though it only contains traits common of media dependent on industry - can be made for media as a whole with the narrow scope of video games removed. Furthermore, Anita Sarkesian – the merits or weaknesses of her thesis aside – and many other vocal critics of video games have been the frequent subjects of doxing and death threats. Skeptics claim that such heinous actions are instead the actions of feminists and “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs for short) who are reportedly so interested in victimhood that they plant such death threats and doxes to justify their views and to make their opponents look bad.

Maybe this view is too cynical. Perhaps Zoe Quinn was just a catalyst for this broader discussion that has been brewing for years. At this point you are probably still skeptical about this comparison. Sure, both Climategate and Gamergate are conspiracy theories with the suffix “gate” attached to the end of them, but does that and a few casual comparisons between the two make the comparison any different from a Texas Sharpshooter? The answer is yes, there is more to it than that. Gamergate is still, at the very least, partially about ethics in video game journalism. It does, unfortunately, have a much more insidious tone: that of anti-feminist and anti-progressivism backlash. Many would call this charge unwarranted. It is absolutely evident that many protesters are not anti-feminist. That is what makes Gamergate so powerful, that it can be many things to different individuals. Some have noticed this strength, and are beginning to exploit it. Columnist James Delingpole has spoken out about Gamergate, labeling it the result of “militant feminism”. He claims that the video game journalism industry is an “achingly right-on cabal of writers, editors and bloggers who collude, via secret mailing list, on how to shape the news agenda for their political purposes”. This view fits many of Bricker’s listed criteria of a conspiracy theory and it strongly resembles his description of the Climategate conspiracy. This is no coincidence. It was James Delingpole who coined the term “Climategate” when the CRU emails leaked in 2009. Delingpole is not a mere Gamergate protestor. He is an influential voice in the climate change skepticism community.

Delingpole is also not alone in his effort to capitalize on Gamergate; The American Enterprise Institute, a historically powerful force in shaping the American conservative agenda, supports Christina Hoff Sommers and her Youtube series titled “The Factual Feminist”. For those unfamiliar with the series, The Factual Feminist is a series of videos hosted on the AEI’s channel that claims to discredit third-wave feminism with cold, hard statistics and facts. Her critics accuse her of misrepresenting feminist arguments and discarding them with a snarky attitude and without actual refutation. These videos are commonly cited in online debates about feminism, and have swaying power because they are presented with a sense of scientific authenticity The American Enterprise Institute, despite its economically-oriented name, supports a social order in-line with social conservatism. It was the AEI writer James Pethokoukis who recently wrote the viral article conflating the rise in cosplay with the staggering American economy which – of course – he attributed to government interference in the economy. The AEI is also a frequent source of climate change-denying literature, and has had its say in the Climategate scandal. Sommers has come out in support of Gamergate, publishing the video “What critics of GamerGate get wrong”. It was only a day before this post was written that Sommers defended Gamergate on MSNBC, writing off the study discrediting her claims with nothing more than an accusation of bias.

These conspiracy theories proliferate because they contain a kernel of truth. There is a small minority of scientists that contest the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The peer-review process that Climategate is reported to have undermined is indeed a collaborative effort. Video games are changing as they become more socially conscious and as they become commercialized. Perhaps it is backlash to what is perceived as efforts to feminize video games or to make them politically correct. Certainly, this is the philosophy behind the controversial development of Hatred. It is these fragments of truths that make individuals susceptible to predation from anti-progressive movements that they might not otherwise have sympathy for. Anti-progressive movements are as guilty as what they accuse their ideological opponents of: using video games, climate science, and a slew of other topics to support their viewpoints.

Supporting Gamergate does not mean supporting Climategate. The two are different theories, and there’s nothing inconsistent about accepting one and rejecting the other. Many Gamergate supporters likely have no opinion on the climate change debate or accept that anthropogenic climate change exists the same way that many with opinions on climate change do not play video games. Additionally, the comparison of the two does not imply that they are equally important. Climate change, in the 21st century, has far more serious implications than anything related to video games could ever dream of. I don’t think that this difference means that they cannot be compared. The purpose of this post is to raise awareness about the similarities in circumstances under which these two movements began and in the logical leaps that they share. There is more that could be said about Gamergate, and Climategate and climate change are hideously complicated issues for which I will cease discussion of for brevity’s sake The evidence here, in my view, supports my claim that Climategate and Gamergate are commensurable movements. I probably missed many potential points of comparison. Surely there are counter-arguments as well, and perhaps evidence that suggests that this comparison is incomplete or could be improved. With the rise in misogyny on the internet, the increasing sympathy for conservative social values and nationalism, and the attempts of anti-progressive movements to exploit Gamergate, however, I fear the writing is on the wall.

Note: There is something to be said about the presence of misandry int the Gamergate discussion, as well as on the internet as a whole. As prolific as it is and the fact that it is a strange characteristic of a vocal portion of the anti-Gamergate crowd, and in some cases it is hypocritical because it is contrary to humanism (although I don’t suspect that this is the intention so much as it is a way to denigrate Gamergate. However, it does not explain the motivations behind entities exploiting Gamergate to build support for anti-feminist movements in the same way that climate skeptics frequently undermine public trust in science for the sake of avoiding what they see as undesirable policy solutions.