#NotYourShield is an effort to allow individuals autonomy in their identity, rather than being grouped and their motives assumed.

#NotYourShield is a hashtag created to give women, men of color (I realized the other day that saying “women and people of color” compartmentalizes women of color and forces them pick a side, and that’s stupid), and LGBT individuals to voice their support for GamerGate and fight against an erasure of their identities occuring by labeling the whole of GamerGate as just a bunch of cis white men. A word on erasure: erasure is a form of invalidation is which a group or society attempts to eliminate the concerns and trials of a category of people by erasing that characteristic. In society, it usually is subtle, and consists of just ignoring a group. Here, it is explicit. Claiming #NotYourShield consists only of sockpuppets explicitly erases the identity of thousands. And yes, I mean THOUSANDS.

This posting is just one of many attempts to erase identities for the sake of an agenda. Right from the start it makes a dubious and unsupported connection between #EndFathersDay and #NotYourShield. It provides a link to this Buzzfeed article, in which #NotYourShield is never mentioned, claiming they uncovered 200 sockpuppet accounts (a number never stated or implied in the article). Not that such a thing would have any bearing on the blog itself, as again, it has nothing to do with #NotYourShield. Nevermind that Buzzfeed is hardly a reputable source by any means,

Next the blog offers a chatlog supposedly originating from /pol/ (no proof is offered to substantiate this) which the writer interprets as a way to “infiltrate, corode, and conquer”. If you actually READ the chatlog however, you find it seems to consist of two conversations: one regarding #NotYourShield, at the time a new hashtag, and even includes people stating that they can’t use the hashtag because they don’t fit under any category of it (in direct conflict with the writers argument that they’re creating sockpuppets), and another jokingly talking about how Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian have conflicting viewpoints that would clash in any reasonable setting.

The second image doesn’t talk about #NotYourShield at all, and it becomes evident the author was simply using Ctrl-F to find any possibly incriminating statements. In fact, it is explicitly refering to the use of feminists as a shield, an actual act of using minority groups as a crutch.

The third image the writer interprets as “proof” that #NotYourShield is a “culture jamming” device, but again, it contains evidence that directly contradicts their claim. 1) The use of instructions related to activism is not proof of anything other than a desire to organize and use those mechanisms effectively. 2) The instructions explicitly state “Your girlfriend doesn’t count. She must speak for herself”. This isn’t encouraging sockpuppets, and in fact, actively speaks against them by saying you CAN’T use the hashtag to speak on behalf of others. 3) I’m guessing the interpretation comes from the use of the word “jamming” in the opening statements, but it never refers to a “culture jamming” nor do any instructions elaborate on this, so it most likely refers to a jamming of arguments which erase these identities.

The person goes on to offer anecdotal claims with no evidence, and then goes back to talking about /pol/ and offering links to images which have nothing to do with GamerGate, and in fact, can’t even be traced back to /pol/ because of the strategic image cropping. The intention here is most likely character assassination, which may be relevant, if /pol/ were a place most GamerGaters actually visited. As it stands, it seems to host a minority of GamerGaters. Around this time was when 8chan was rising in popularity, and /gamergate/ emerged — if these conversations had occured there, they may hold more weight. As it is, criticizing /pol/ to criticize GamerGate is equivilant to criticizing TERFs to criticize women’s rights activists. A very small portion only tangentially related.

The ending argument is what brings this full circle — in which they violate their first argument (that #NotYourShield is just a shill used by sockpuppets) to make an argument that there ARE actual minority groups in #NotYourShield, but “They’re just reducing you to your characteristics!” No my friend, they’re not. Because #NotYourShield gives me the ability to speak for myself. Because no one is forcing me to use #NotYourShield. No one is speaking over me in #NotYourShield. And no one is using me as a shield without my permission. #NotYourShield is something used voluntarily, to combat erasure. From people like you, who can’t maintain a consistent argument, and jump from “You don’t exist” to “Okay you do exist, but THEY’RE USING YOU”. It indicates that the only one wanting to use me is you — else why would you so quickly change your tone the minute you find out you were wrong in erasing my identity to start? #NotYourShield wasn’t made to shield GamerGate to criticism, but to expose that criticism as a false argument and expose the implicit prejudice in the generalization that GamerGate doesn’t include minorities.

As for your last argument — it has nothing to do with #NotYourShield. /baphomet/ is not related to GamerGate except as an orchestrator of stirring the pot on both sides. RECANTED: I also find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you accuse @j_millerworks of self-doxxing with such ludicrous evidence, yet believe at first glance that the harassment recieved by those you support is real and valid (even though there is much more prudent evidence that, say, Brianna Wu, has promoted harassment of herself to forward her agenda).

It’s ludicrous because, even if you could actually prove that he had himself doxxed, you haven’t come anywhere close to proving it was in connection to #NotYourShield, and said yourself in your opening paragraphs that he was NOT the founder of #NotYourShield, and even go to great lengths to try to connect him to the creation anyway.

As it stands, #NotYourShield still exists because it’s existence is not dependent on this one individual or /pol/. As with most tags, it is not used as frequently, but people still remember.

Then of course, the gem of the bunch:

Exposing the fraudulent underpinnings of #notyourshield does not invalidate the supporters who with genuine intention just wanted a conversation not defined by identity politics. Nor can it invalidate it for those whom topics of identity and represenation are incredibly valid and important to. There’s room for all these conversations and more, and we should be having them.

Do not dare indicate you have any interest in a discussion here. It was made clear — you did not find evidence and then create a claim. You made a claim, then found evidence to back it up, no matter how spurious. And then you denied the autonomy of people in this tag by claiming “They’re using you” ignoring the fact that no one has forced any of us to use this tag. There is no gun to our heads. We used it on our own free will. To combat the rhetoric used by people like you.

If you have an interest in any discussion, you should start by asking why we feel the need to use the hashtag, instead of assuming our motives. The answer to that is simple: because we’re sick of being ignored unless our words fit your narrative, and we’re sick of being erased, to our faces, when we act outside of the stereotypes YOU have assigned. It isn’t to hide or defend anyone but ourselves, our identities as individuals.

Next time you express an interest in a conversation, start by not insulting our intelligence.

REVISION: I have been informed by a couple different sources that @j_millerworks did confess to having himself doxed on Twitter. In light of this, I recant that particular statement. I do however hold that the situation is not relevant to a discussion of #NotYourShield.