Airport's Law of Internet White Knights.

What is Airport's Law? In my own experience, Airport's Law is an Internet adage similar to that of Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies or Poe's Law. Airport's Law in it's original form is as follows;

"Everyday another goony beard-man gets the impression that a rainbow haired she-twink might let him cum in her if he attacks #GamerGate"

At the time of writing, this one tweet by @CHOBITCOIN or "air port" has almost 2100 retweets and around 1850 favourites. But, let's take a deeper look at Airport's Law as an Internet adage as opposed to simply a tweet.

There are a few important components to Airport's Law. Firstly, the "goony beard-man" this is a fairly standard description for internet white knights. A typical beard for a "goony beard-man" would be the neckbeard although thicker, more facial-centric beards have been seen on the "goony beard-man". But, some "goony beard-men" do appear clean shaven as the "goony beard-man" is simply an analogy for white knights at large. So, we can assume that the "beard-man" part of this description is not as important as the "goony" part. It can almost definitely be said that white knights are for the most part "goony" in nature.

The second important component to Airport's Law is the "rainbow haired she-twink". This is a descriptor for your typical Internet damsel or the consummate professional victim. As is the case with the "goony beard-man" though, not all "rainbow haired she-twinks" conform to the "rainbow haired" or "she-twink" standard and can be seen with normal hair colours and can almost definitely be found out of the range of a typical "twink" body type.

Finally, you have the "Might let him cum in her if he attacks #GamerGate" part. This is the clincher. This is the reason that white knights or "goony beard-men" act the way that they do around damsels or "rainbow haired she-twinks" and their detractors, which, in this instance is #GamerGate. But, it can be applied to any person or movement that is disagreeing with a "rainbow haired she-twink".

So, in actuality we can safely replace "#GamerGate" with "X". If you do the same with the "goony beard-man" which becomes "Y" and the "rainbow haired she-twink" becomes "Z" you get something like;

 " Y believes that Z will have sex with him if he attacks or defends her against X"

In it's essence, Airport's Law is finally an explanation to the phenomena of "white knighting" on the Internet, and hopefully, it will finally put a stop to the ridiculous practice. I hope that one day I can see an exchange on the internet between two men, one of which would be defending the honour of woman he barely knows, and a third would interject with something like "Whoa, dude, you're going full Airport" to which the white knight will reply with something along the lines of "Oh, shit, sorry, my bad." (Note: I don't believe that will ever actually happen because we don't live in a perfect world where people realise that they're fallible.)

So, in closing, Airport's Law of Internet White Knights is an Internet adage which suggests that white knights will only defend or attack on behalf of a woman on the Internet in order to receive sexual favours from said woman. Regardless of any contributing factors in which it would not be possible to receive those favours, likely the belief that it could happen is so strong that it completely clouds the judgement of the white knight.

Feminist Frequency or Straight White Male Tweets: Re-branded.

I came across this image today while perusing Twitter and this is something that goes back to one of my earlier posts. But, this is an even more flagrant example of Jonathan McIntosh using the apparent twitter page of Anita Sarkeesian to push his own ideology. Now, I understand that people can share an ideology. But, these are almost verbatim. 

Not only are these tweets identical but the first example is even used in the very first tropes vs women in video games video. But, in this instance Anita is being extremely disingenuous by saying "I’ve heard it said that 'In the game of patriarchy women are not the opposing team, they are the ball.'.” Well, where exactly have you heard it said? The only instance I can find is a quote from a man around August of 2012. Furthermore, when searching for this quote it's actively being accredited to Sarkeesian and not McIntosh.

Now, for any normal man that would be truly painful to see your work accredited to someone else like that. It would take some kind of ideologically driven supercuck to let that slide. Because, in my honest opinion, I like getting the credit for the things that I do. And, you would think people of like mind that follow both McIntosh and the Feminist Frequency twitter accounts would be chomping at the bit to parrot his opinion as well as hers. Unfortunately it's hard to get an accurate read of how many followers the two accounts have in common. Some instances say it's not that many and others say that it's plenty so it's hard to say if McIntosh's ideas are simply ignored by those people because he's a straight white man but it certainly seems that his statements carry a lot more weight when there's a woman's face beside them.

In my opinion the single greatest thing that can come from comparing these two sets of identical tweets is entirely in the retweets and favourites. I am well aware that the Feminist Frequency account has a lot more followers than McIntosh's, but, the same tweet has 140 times the retweets and 304 times the favourites when posted next to a woman's face. This alone is proof enough for me that male privilege in online spaces is a myth.

Another thing to note is the threats directed to the Feminist Frequency Twitter account, threats that were recently chronicled in a post on the Feminist Frequency Tumblr page. Obviously threats like some of the ones seen in that post are deplorable. (Although,  in the grand scheme of things not as great a number as first thought.) But, I can't help but feel that they're avoidable, after all, Feminist Frequency is a non-profit charity, not a person. It's very unusual for a charity or any business to run their business Twitter account with a picture of the CEO or owner. While there is no claim that all of the tweets on the page are written by Anita herself it would be safe to say that most people assume that it's her account due to the picture provided. In my opinion, changing it to a logo would not only be more honest, but, it could also cause the threats to dissipate.

Ian Miles Cheong or My Boy HuniePop

Well, honestly, it's been overdue hasn't it? And, I probably should have written this over a week ago when it was still relevant. But, you can hardly say it wasn't coming for the former Neo-Nazi and employer of ripened durians

But, there's nothing I like more than when someone like Ian Miles Cheong gets something oh so very wrong. So, when he posted this article on his website Gameranx, the backlash was simply glorious. My personal favourite quote from this article is; 

"I’ve not yet played HuniePop, but judging from the content of its trailer, the game’s writing verges on 2edgy4u territory"

So, from that, we can surmise that Ian can be found in his nearest Barnes & Noble dismissing any book that might have a hint of a semi naked female form on the front cover. We can also establish that his writing is poorly researched or maybe he's just a little bit scared of cartoon boobies. Lastly, we can assume that Ian has a penchant for chan culture and dank memes.

It turns out that by releasing the patch for nudity in the game that the developers for HuniePop were most definitely not breaching any of the Steam terms of service, there are plenty of games on Steam that include nudity, The Witcher series for example. But, the standard operating procedure of a social justice warrior is to interpret things in a way that seems appealing to them.

But, articles like this one, decrying a game for it's supposed adult content are a step backward for video games as a medium. I can't help but think that if video games were an older form of media then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As it stands the social justice warriors, alarmists and their ilk are not allowing video games to develop naturally. Let the "bad" things happen and we'll all be better off from having learned from the experience. How are games supposed to mature naturally if they aren't allowed to have tits and ass or dick and fart jokes?

But the single greatest thing to come from this terrible article is the fact that it did the exact opposite of the desired effect. Within hours of this article going up on Gameranx, HuniePop had broken into the top ten best selling games on Steam and would go on to have better sales in a day than the social justice indie darling Gone Home has had in a single day in two years of being available on Steam. If developers and publishers ever needed proof that they don't need the gaming press to approve of them in order to sell their product it's right here. We are #GamerGate, we are the consumer and we are all very much alive.

Rather Die Standing or Je Suis Charlie

Yesterday (January 7th 2015), I was shocked to hear of a deadly shooting at the offices of Charlie Hedbo, a French satirical magazine based in Paris. The reason behind the shooting remains unclear as of right now. But, given the suspects backgrounds within radical Islam it can be safe to assume that these three men, that carried out the attack, took issue with the magazines stance on religion, specifically, the "religion of peace", Islam.

Charlie Hedbo was one of many outlets that has satirized the religion in the past along with others. I think that is most important to note, this is a magazine that isn't just out to get Islam, it is critical of all religions, from Islam to Orthodox Judaism  So, why did the supposed "Religion of Peace" allow for something like this to happen at a magazine that seems to be pretty much equal opportunity when it comes to making fun of religions?

For clarity's sake, I don't believe that all Muslims are represented by the attack on Charlie Hedbo, but, could it be, that we have discovered that the majority of the Muslim community can't take a joke at the expense of their religion or even don't believe in freedom of expression? Or is this a problem with all fundamentalists? Now granted religious fundamentalists have committed their fair share of atrocities since the mid 19th century under the guise of "God's work" but there are few examples of physical attacks on satirists or atheists from any religions other than Islam. And, most importantly, the bulk of these fundamentalists aren't against free speech in the way radical Islam fundamentalists are. The most important thing, going forward, is that we don't give up our freedom of speech because of the heinous acts of extremists.

I have just recently learnt that someone has thrown several training grenades at a mosque in Le Mans and I will echo the Amazing Atheist's sentiments on violent retaliation. It is the complete wrong way to retaliate to these atrocious acts. Everyone should retaliate by satirising Islam at any opportunity that they get. Like the Atheist says, "This is not draw Muhammed day, this is draw Muhammed every day"

I will leave you with a quote from one of the victims of the attack, Stéphane Charbonnier, "I am not afraid of reprisals, I have no children, no wife, no car, no debt. It might sound a bit pompous, but I'd prefer to die on my feet rather than living on my knees"

KingOfPol or Self-Regicide

Over the past few days #GamerGate has been embroiled in internal drama mostly orchestrated by KingOfPol over alleged screens of Nick Denton's personal Facebook page. On first glance it would be easy to assume that these screens are legitimate. But, one of the running themes for #GamerGate is "Trust but Verify" (A jab at "Listen and Believe").

Initially, I was suckered into this. But, it wasn't long before I became sceptical, and I wasn't the only one. I think at the time of this supposed leak everything was relatively quiet, we had just come off of Arthur Chu's Pakman interview and there wasn't much happening other than the usual rumblings of e-mails being sent to advertisers. In short, it had been a while since there had been any big happenings within the movement.

From that, I believe that some people may have taken it upon themselves to make something happen. Now, whether KingOfPol orchestrated the leaks himself or was merely duped into posting them, remains to be seen. But, if he was presented with them he failed the first rule of #GamerGate and leaks, "Trust but Verify" and if he orchestrated them himself he underestimated the movement's ability to look in and verify the "leaks". 

Initially, these leaks would be seen as a morale boost and that's understandable. But, ultimately it would arise to any dissenting voices within the ranks being accused of being a "paid shill". This is something that the movement as a whole should be against,one of the underlying messages of #GamerGate is that everyone's opinion is valid and that disagreement is healthy, this is contrary to the opposing side that commonly shouts down dissent.

I can't say I know KingOfPol's thoughts around these leaks, because I don't. But, I think that his intentions were good in that he was trying to refocus everyone on Gawker Media, something that RogueStar and others are now doing. But, he does need to own his mistakes instead of flying off the handle at other people, such as MundaneMatt and others. Ultimately, what I ask of any #GamerGate members buying into this drama is that you don't ostracize KingOfPol. Yes, trust has been broken, but, every voice is important and every voice is welcome.

The True Face of the Patriarchy or #FreeAnita

I regularly make jokes at the expense of the "patriarchy" myth that is regularly spouted by radical feminists (See tumblristas). So, when I saw this tweet from @TheRalphRetort, I thought to myself, actually, this is pretty accurate as far as a real patriarchy is concerned. The stance of a male radical feminist is something that I find incredibly hypocritical. There is a common practice in radical feminism that is accusing non-feminist or anti-feminist women of being gender traitors. Now, I would denounce that term if it didn't fit these radical feminist male allies so well. To be clear, I'm not saying anyone can't be a feminist, I am all for equality  and allowing people to do as they please, I just think radical feminism is not constructive in any way.

Just the other day one of these male feminists, one Ian Miles Cheong, told Angela Night, of Thoughts of a Feminist Gamer, to "go away" just for pointing out their hypocrisy. Do these people not read what they write before they press the "tweet" button? Surely any reasonable person would see this and think exactly what Angela did. The fact that this escalated after Cheong's tweets and he was actively engaging in the harassment of a feminist is tremendously hypocritical. A lot of these male feminists are not even holding themselves up to their own beliefs. And if they're not holding themselves up the least we can do as non-feminists or otherwise is hold them to their own beliefs.

The biggest issue that I take here is that one Jonathan Mcintosh seems to think he's some kind of authority on who can or cannot be a feminist. His comments on Christina Hoff Sommers are absolutely despicable, this is a woman that has been a feminist since before he was even in diapers. Is Jonathan Mcintosh really the kind of person that feminism needs? Watching Emma Watson's UN speech from a little while back, I would say no. The kind of self-loathing radical feminist rhetoric this man spews is not constructive to any real discussions about equality between men and women.

There is a huge issue here regarding Jonathan Mcintosh and Anita Sarkeesian, there is a growing consensus that Anita is very little more than a mouthpiece for the rhetoric of a self-styled propagandist. In my opinion this viewpoint is something that could harm and devalue Anita Sarkeesian as a woman and a feminist. If Anita really wants to make a difference as far as feminism goes then she should distance herself from Mcintosh, the rhetoric we see from this man is actively causing harm to a woman. The "threats" and "harassment" that Anita receives are unacceptable, that much I will say. But, what's worse is that she is speaking for a man and it is causing her to receive this abuse, do feminists see this as acceptable? Because I don't think it's acceptable at all.

What can we do? Well, not much, other than voice this concern and discuss these issues with other feminists. Ultimately it will take Anita seeing that this man is detrimental to her cause for anything beneficial to happen.

GamerGate or Only When it Suits us.

It's been over two weeks since thezoepost and the ensuing shitstorm and it seems that the rabbit hole runs deeper than we ever thought with the IGF awards being indicted in the latest batch of revelations. It would seem that Eron who has come under fire for thezoepost and the Five Guys references was actually not willing to completely divulge that it was in fact four guys and a girl.

But, that's not what I'm here to talk about. Over the past week or so, gamers from all walks of life, all creeds and all colours have been speaking out to defend their hobby after the self proclaimed "death of the gamer" by most of the so called "Games Journalism" websites. In a matter of 48 hours there were more than ten of these kinds of articles in a ridiculous show of solidarity from the sites that were called out for their shady business practices. The whole thing just smacked of an industry desperately trying to cover it's ass and cloud the issue. The gamers, however, would not be told that this was the end, that their identity was dead. No, instead, it brought them closer together. Whether that be through online petitions, YouTube videos or Twitter hashtags.

But apparently this show of solidarity by gamers isn't enough for their detractors, who are still intent on clouding the issue and trying to make it about something that it is not, and that is misogyny. The word misogynist means literally to hate women, I can assure you that there are very few people that actually hate women when it comes to gamers. Men are 3 times more likely to gender swap in video games, and why is that? Because, men like to look at women, they love women and they want to spend a long period of time looking at a female avatar. How do I know? Because I'm one of those guys.

The main thing that the social justice movement in the gamergate story seem to think. is that any woman, person of colour, transgender etc. is just a "sock puppet", what a normal person might refer to as a "catfish" or someone that is posing as someone else through social media. But, if there has been one thing I've noticed throughout the whole drama is that there are an awful lot of women, people of colour, transgender etc. on the side that are against the social justice indie dev cliques, all the while, the predominantly white, middle classed social justice indie dev clique continue to say they're speaking for women , people of colour, transgender etc. In my honest opinion this is the most obscene type of backhanded bigotry.

Telling people that you speak for them, because they harbour some kind of internalised misogyny, when it is themselves who are the most obviously self-loathing people is completely despicable. I do not speak for all gamers, but, the disregarding of anyone who is not a straight white male in the arguments of the social justice warriors needs to stop. Every gamer, regardless of their gender, race or sexual preference needs to be heard. You cannot silence them forever and that's the most beautiful thing about being a gamer. It doesn't matter what you identify as or the colour of your skin or any of that superficial stuff, at the end of the day, it's a love of the games that brings us together, oh sure, you might hurl abuse at someone in the heat of the moment in the middle of a round because they're handing your ass to you, but in the next moment they might be on your team. That's all we really want, everyone on the same team.

 

Disclaimer: I do not enjoy using the term "People of Colour" I think it's a despicably backhanded term that only the most racist person would use. Unfortunately I have used it here as a catch all term to save you the reader from having to read each individual case. However, I do believe that instances of race should be handled on an individual basis. Grouping people together in this way is most certainly a racist act.

QuinnGate or When Is An Allegation Not An Allegation?

If you've stepped away from the "real" video games media for a moment recently then you will have surely seen the furore surrounding Zoe Quinn and the alleged "harassment" she is now on the receiving end of. Anyone with a discerning eye that doesn't think the people that are allegedly "harassing" Zoe are "shitlords" would realise that the attention she's garnered is just.

The main concern that I have with this whole story is that the people defending Zoe's actions are doing the exact things she claims not to advocate. Not only that but they are denying that the things in this blog even happened. How are they doing it you ask? By using one word, that word is "Allegedly".

So, let me quote the title of this article, "When is an allegation not an allegation?" The answer to that would be when it's proven to be true. Dictionary.com's definition of the word "allegation" is as follows;

noun
1.
the act of alleging; affirmation.
2.
an assertion made with little or no proof.
3.
an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
4.
a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.

Now, take a look at number two there (Trust me I feel like I've been looking at number two since this story broke) "An assertion made with little or no proof" Now surely that means that the whole story from Eron Gjoni's wordpress blog is not an allegation since it has sources that are cited and proven to be un-doctored. All of the so called "allegations" are proven straight from the horses mouth. In fact, she hasn't even come out to deny that these things are true. But I digress, we all know that this isn't the point of these articles.

So once we get that part out of the way and the person you're talking to decides they don't believe that's what an allegation is, we get on to the "Her personal life is not news" argument. And I agree, for the most part. Typically I will be at the forefront of any article I see in mainstream media about some celebrity or sports star being at a club or seen with this person and claiming "This isn't news" Because it isn't, it just isn't. It's not important. However, if anything comes out to say that one of these celebrities or sports stars is in bed with the media, you're goddamn right I'm gonna call them out on this and make sure it's addressed. So therein lies the flaw with the "Personal life =/= News" argument, her personal life would remain not news if it hadn't turned out she was fucking her boss, a Kotaku/Rock Paper Shotgun writer that had promoted her and the night games chair of Indiecade by whom she was awarded for her "game". So, to deny this as being not news worthy is misguided at best.

The biggest issue here is Nathan Grayson, obviously. If you want anyone to take you as you are as a journalist then you should recuse yourself from reporting on someone that you are involved with in any way other than professionally. I'm not telling you not to network with people, that is just part of being a journalist, a content provider or an entertainer, you need to network to get exposure, that is the world we live in. When it goes beyond a professional level you need to take a step back and you especially need to not lie about the situation to your boss to keep your job

Now onto some allegations. First and foremost, a brief review of "Depression Quest". Yes, I took an hour out of my day and played Zoe's "game". As someone that plays a lot of video games I can see why this was not initially greenlit by Steam's community. "Depression Quest" is a multiple choice text adventure that, were it not for the subject matter, would most definitely not be being talked about, why? Because it's not even really a game, I've played games like this before, when I used to read CYOA books as a child. So, to say it's not a game is warranted by the Steam Community who want to play games and not read books. Maybe she could have added a random encounter mechanic where you fight with your inner demons in a turn based combat kind of deal, maybe people would have accepted it as a game. The glaringly obvious thing in this game is that the writer has never really experienced true depression, how can I say this? Because, I have experienced some of the situations depicted within this game and I do not consider myself to be depressed and I never have done.

Now onto some allegations regarding the greenlighting of "Depression Quest". First, let's look at a fact, "Depression Quest" was denied by the Steam Community on it's first entry into Steam Greenlight, and rightly so, the community has a right to it's opinion and if their opinion is that your game isn't very good and doesn't belong here then that's not because of who you are, it's because your game isn't very good and doesn't belong on Steam. Following this, Zoe was "harassed" by WizardChan and rode this controversy to a greenlight from the "Steam Community" Now, I'm sure you're wondering the kind of people that post on WizardChan, well, it's an image board for male virgins. Granted, these are the kind of people that are probably not the biggest fans of women and that's understandable, they're typically shunned by women. But, let's take a closer look at the kind of people that are actually posting on these boards. Well, they have social anxiety, they're introverts, they're athiest and most of all, they're depressed. Now, that last one is key to the whole argument about her "allegedly" being "harassed" by the people of Wizardchan. Why would someone that is trying to publish a game through Steam Greenlight, about depression, claim to be "harassed" by a group of people that, if you dig past the surface of the two posts that were derogatory towards Zoe, are typically depressed? It's morally reprehensible to claim a group of depressed introverts would harass you just as you are putting your game back on Steam Greenlight. I'm sure the same people that denied her game before continued to deny her game but the sudden interest from the multitude of articles denouncing her attackers and the social justice crowd saw the game get a boost not only in the media but on Steam's Greenlight.

There is still an awful lot of information emerging in this whole situation and it's so difficult to comment on every little thing as and when it appears. The most important thing is that this is bigger than just Zoe Quinn as shown by MundaneMatt and Internet Aristocrat. If the video games media is in bed with one another then we all lose.

Ebola Or The Gift That Keeps on Giving.

Rick Wiles is a Christian broadcaster with the Trunews online radio network. He's also a huge scumbag that likes to scaremonger and contribute the culture of fear in religion. He was recently recorded saying, and I quote: "Ebola could solve America’s problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion." He went on to say: "If Ebola becomes a global plague, you better make sure the blood of Jesus is upon you, you better make sure you have been marked by the angels so that you are protected by God. If not, you may be a candidate to meet the Grim Reaper.". Essentially with those two quotes he is saying Ebola is part of God's divine judgement and that an infectious disease is a gift from God to smite the sinners so that the meek will inherit the Earth. 

I was first turned on to this story and this glorious scumbag in a Huffington Post article and then was inspired to put Rick Wiles into The Scum Bag by this Amazing Atheist video where he makes several excellent points. The key one being that infectious diseases are not discriminatory, which was proven in an unbelievable instance of Murphy's Law, when a Spanish missionary priest who became infected with Ebola while on a mission to Africa unfortunately passed away from the disease.

There are several other flaws in Wiles' "logic" as well, first and foremost, why would a disease that is typically found in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute anything to judgement of sinners? Your standard Ebola sufferer is the average African that has already had the fear of God put into him by missionaries for the past hundred years or so, one of the hardest hit places in Western Africa was Liberia, a country that, according to Wikipedia, is more than 85% Christian. So, if Ebola was indeed a gift from God, why would he put ground zero in a heavily Christian area? Is it a test sample before he throws some Ebola at less Christian countries? Because that seems awfully scientific for a celestial being.

The second thing to consider in the Ebola story is that two patients suffering from the disease were brought to the United States from Africa, which no doubt triggered Wiles' comments, but they were brought to the US because the CDC supposedly have a cure for the disease, not so that Ebola could spread through the sinners, picking them off one by one. Wiles' is very exploitative of the whole Ebola situation and seems the type to have lauded HIV in the 80's and 90's and for that reason he belongs in The Scum Bag.