Supanova Will Proceed With Adam Baldwin’s Attendance ‘As Planned’

Supanova Will Proceed With Adam Baldwin’s Attendance ‘As Planned’

As the originator of the ‘Gamergate’ hashtag on Twitter, many were upset that Adam Baldwin was invited to attend the Sydney and Perth Supanova shows this year. This resulted in a sizeable amount of online protest and a petition to revoke that invitation. This morning Supanova responded to that petition. According to Daniel Zachariou, Supanova Event Director, the team will be “proceeding with Adam’s attendance as planned”.

In a sizeable statement on the Supanova Facebook page, Zachariou explained the decision.

To exclude someone from Supanova for their views, even if we don’t share them, goes completely against the spirit of the expo that we’ve presented all these years as all our stars appear to discuss their work in pop culture, not their personal political or ideological viewpoints. We similarly embrace all our fans, whatever their various pop culture passions may be, and that inclusiveness is at our very heart.
Further, the concerns are far-reaching and complex, and contain an immense amount of discord. We feel, as Supanova, that we’re not positioned to adjudicate either way.

The statement also included a response from Baldwin himself.

The harassment and threats being made on both sides of the ‪#‎GamerGate‬ debate shame the games industry and make it extremely difficult for casual observers to see the merits of arguments about corruption, ethics or journalism.
Threats of violence and/or “doxxing” should be reported to law enforcement and handled at their discretion. Such threats are reprehensible and have no place in any debate. Obviously, I condemn harassment. The YouTube videos linked on Twitter at the outset last September contained no personal information of any individual. I had zero knowledge of what might be in their comments sections. No one can honestly be expected to check vast comment threads below articles or videos before linking to them.
Lastly, I believe that pop culture conventions are inappropriate venues for controversial topics, so I will respectfully not be discussing them at Supanova, or its related events.

Zachariou closed with the following:

Given that we have Adam’s statement above verifying he will not discuss #GamerGate while stating categorically that he does not condone harassment, bullying or doxxing under any circumstances; given we as Supanova will not allow questions regarding the subject from the floor; given we as Supanova as a professional organisation must fulfil our contractual obligations; given Supanova will be providing the highest level of enforcement of our Code of Conduct (a condition of entry to the event) to ensure our strong anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies are maintained; and given that so many fans continue to support Adam’s appearance as part of our ‘Serenity’ 10th Anniversary celebration, we will be proceeding with Adam’s attendance as planned.
As we’ve already mentioned, Supanova Expo has an incredibly inclusive array of fans who kindly share the space with each other, based on their mutual passions for imaginary worlds. Our programming crosses all demographics, celebrating diversity and a wide variety of genres. Supanova does not condone or allow bullying or harassment in any way, shape or form at our events which ensures a friendly, safe and welcoming environment. Both the Code of Conduct and the spirit of Supanova are agreements to treat with honour and respect every single fan and friend at the expo. You’ve always made us so very proud with the positive atmosphere you have created at every event.

Albert Santos, the creator of the petition, was disappointed with the decision.

Baldwin has a history of calling for aggressive action, including doxxings, on others. He has called people “dipshits” and “morons”, has aggrivated key GamerGate tagret Zoe Quinn directly, has threatened former Supanova guest Wil Wheaton, has called Thanksgiving “Victory over the Savages Day” and has suggested that antivaccination campaigners all be “doxxed and tortured”. These are all things that he has said and done, primarily through his twitter handle, which he regularly wipes clean. These go directly against the code of conduct of Supanova, which they kindly in the statement supporting him.
Throughout all of this, the most concerning thing is how little consumer input Supanova have seeked. Not once was anyone formally asked about means to alleviate the matter. Instead, they actively seeked out prominent feminist figures, including Brianna Wu and Kirsty Mac, in informal and dubious settings to ask for ways to “better” the situation. In addition, not once did they seek to clarify if the counter-petition (which, for the record, was started by a teenager in Washington and filled with fake signatures from 8chan) was legitimate or created in good faith. They instead went with responses to their original post…

What Supanova seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel threatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They feel unsafe. The statement focuses on Adam’s views and makes the fair case that an attendee’s views shouldn’t be reason for exclusion, but the fact is his attendance will make many feel excluded themselves, particularly since Baldwin has made light of harrassment on multiple occasions on his Twitter. Promising not to talk about Gamergate is meaningless in this context: women will still feel afraid, women will still feel excluded and threatened.

The reaction on Supanova’s Facebook page, where the statement first appeared, has been mixed as you might expect. Some are condemning the decision, many think it was the right call. Albert Santos, the creator of the petition intends to keep fighting the petition in any way possible.

As a former Supanova attendee, cosplayer, volunteer, stall-holder and friend, I and many others, are disappointed beyond belief. However, now that we know where Supanova stand, will we regroup, and we will continue to put the pressure in any and every way we can. This does not end today. It never ends.


  • and has suggested that antivaccination campaigners all be “doxxed and tortured”.

    Now that’s something I could get behind.

    • Yes. Let’s stoop to the level of those who are irrational towards anyone who doesn’t treat them as the special little snowflake they think they are. That’ll show them how mature we are i’m sure!

      • While we’re at it, let us also judge and condemn people for finding humour in places that we don’t.

          • Big difference between a joke and actually doing so.

            That’s your own issue if you cannot or choose not to differentiate the two.

          • Oh I can.. I just don’t see why it should be “funny” to joke about ruining someone’s life just because they’re an ignorant moron. I mean actions like that are only telling those who actually pull those stunts on people that it’s acceptable to do no matter who is the target 🙂

          • See, and that’s the difference. I can find humour in a lot of things. Doesn’t mean I’d actually do anything harmful or such to anyone.

            But the older I get the more I appreciate the fact that I can find humour in places others wouldn’t dare consider. It helps me hate the world less, specifically a lot of the people in it.

          • the older i get the more i appreciate the potential consequences of my actions, unintended or otherwise,

            hypothetical: a person sees two other people laughing at a bad taste joke, for example’s sake lets say it was racist. one finds the joke funny because they can find humour in many things, the other finds it funny because they’re actually racist. without talking to both, it’s fairly unlikely that the 3rd party will be able to tell the difference. they both just look racist.

            a 4th party, also racist, sees two people laughing at a racist joke and thinks, ‘gee there’s more racists here than i thought there were, my bigotry must be more generally acceptable than i previously thought’, and proceeds to be more overtly racist in their day to day life.

            i guess what i’m saying is, laughing at others’ distress is doable, but can indicate an absence of empathy. learning to laugh at others’ misfortune because you hate the world seems vaguely sociopathic

          • Be an ignorant moron if you wish. But if your ignorance gets my child fatally infected with measles, no one will be laughing. So lets shame the morons into giving up their ignorance. To save the children they will inevitably kill.

  • Now, I was under the impression that the reason people didn’t want him there was due to some homophobic and/or racist comments. Is that true too? Apart from the Thanksgiving Day comment.

    • It’s not any ‘one’ thing. I’ve been following this guy on Twitter for a while and it’s bananas. I liked him in Firefly but he’s a racist, homophobic, right wing nutjob who moonlights as a conspiracy theorist (he may have been the one who coined the ‘Obola’ thing too, i.e. Obama deliberately introduced Ebola to the US). The Gamergate stuff is just the cherry on a massive turd.

      As for Supanova… I don’t like giving Adam Baldwin a soapbox, or paying him a cent, but if he sits on a stage, keeps his mouth shut, and signs some autographs, I guess that’s fine? But I read that petition and it’s completely ridiculous.

      • He won’t even be here for me to see at GC or Brisbane, so it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. But it’s always a little disappointing to see a character you genuinely love is represented by a shitty dude.

      • “he’s a racist, homophobic, right wing nutjob who moonlights as a conspiracy theorist”

        Citations to evidence needed, please.

  • Yes, YES! Thank god they didn’t buckle under the pressure and remove the guy’s right to attend a convention just because some people disagree with him. That petition takes itself way too seriously (I read the whole thing). As if the creator has the final say in the matter.
    And I find it strange that’s he’s mentioned all these alleged tweets that are “regularly wiped clean”, yet can’t back them up.

    Seriously. If you hate the guy, then don’t speak with him. Simple.

    • It’s not “just because some people disagree with him”.

      What Supanova seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel threatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They feel unsafe.

      • I don’t understand this. ‘Unsafe’? It’s not like the guy is going to punch anyone or even hurl abuse at them. He explicitly stated that he won’t bring the topic up “pop culture conventions are inappropriate venues for controversial topics, so I will respectfully not be discussing them at Supanova”.

        I haven’t been following the whole GamerGate thing, so maybe I’m way off, but it’s like they’re portraying this guy as being Hitler or something.

        • What Supanova seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel threatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They feel unsafe.

          There, I bolded it for you.

          • You bolded the word ‘potentially’ and I think that’s important. Are you seriously advocating punishing someone for a future event they have no control over that may not actually happen?

          • I just commented with the relevant part of the article related to the comments about safetly. I’m not sure why I am getting this flat out downvotey “punishing” etc response for those comments when it was just quoting what was in the actual article, to be honest. :/

          • I haven’t downvoted you, I rarely do that on matters of opinion. I think downvoting without posting to explain why is petty. But below you said this:

            It’s about the crowd his attendance will attract. Why is everyone ignoring that part??

            It seems to me that people aren’t ignoring it, they’re disregarding it because it’s faulty reasoning. You appear to agree with the statement, but maybe I’ve read your responses incorrectly. Do you agree with the notion that someone should be barred from attendance on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future that they have no control over?

          • Personally I think he holds some really appalling opinions and people who are racist, homophobic, etc shouldn’t be rewarded just because if they played a great character in a tv show. So yes, I believe he should be barred from attendance because I believe that Supanova shouldn’t be condoning people like that.

          • @renne So you believe that holding views you disagree with nullifies all of the good a person has done and revokes their ability to be recognised and rewarded for that good? That kind of ‘tainted well’ mentality strikes me as remarkably coarse-grained.

            If you examine historical figures that are today respected for their work, almost all of them have dark aspects or unpopular views. Roald Dahl thought the Jews deserved what happened in World War 2, does that mean he shouldn’t be rewarded for his excellent writing? Ghandi too disliked Jews, saying they would be better off killing themselves, and failing that should allow themselves to be killed; does that mean he doesn’t deserve recognition for bringing freedom and independence to India and his eternal legacy of non-violent resistance? Nelson Mandela led a terrorist group called Spear of the Nation that was responsible for the deaths of innocents, does that mean he shouldn’t be recognised for breaking apartheid and advancing peace and equality?

            The fact is, everyone has done things you will agree with and disagree with. There is no black and white in the world, only shades between. If you condemn the entirety of a person on the basis of one of their actions, you condemn everyone. If instead you apply that logic unevenly, then you’re a hypocrite.

            It’s just my opinion, but I think you should condemn and praise actions individually, not the person as a whole.

          • @zombiejesus I do condemn and praise actions individually, but when they make up who the person is as a whole it’s hard to continually brush off their actions without sounding like a massive apologist. Because there’s a point where you have to draw a line. If Adam Baldwin actually ever indicated that he was sorry for the things he says and genuinely tried to change as a person then sure that would change my opinion of him, with sufficient goodwill. But he hasn’t, so it won’t. That’s just how I feel about it and I’m not going to apologise for it. Everyone has their own moral code to live up to and at the end of the day, opinions are like arseholes, etc.

          • @renne To be clear, I respect that we have differing views here and I don’t condemn you for yours. I just think the application of your views in this instance is unnecessarily punitive. We’ve both made our cases politely, and I respect that too.

        • I haven’t followed either but wouldn’t it be as simple as not lining up to see him speak? Or avoiding he’s signing desk or something?

          It’s not like he is going to appear in your face when you step into Supernova, spitting abuse at you. I do agree that the con is a pretty inclusive place. Quite the alternative attendance and everyone seems welcome when I’ve been.

          • That is madness good sir!

            Gone are the simple days of just avoiding someone you don’t like or agree with… No, now we start fucking petitions to get them exiled for our own highly questionable claims of comfort!

        • I think the fear is that him being there will draw out all the GamerGate supporters, who will then harrass all the women at the event.

        • As a very anti-gamergate person, I really don’t get that statement. I have a hard time believing a his presence will encourage a threatening rabble of people to be present that will be either be threatening to women or create a threatening atmosphere.

          Feels like a real stretch of the cause to use that as an excuse. I mean, if the guy’s a jerk, whatever, if he can attend and represent his art without using his platform to promote his beliefs, let him go.

      • He is speaking for all female attendees…ever?
        What makes him more likely to suddenly pounce on a random woman than any other attendee there? Just because he disagrees with the SJWs and supports the stance behind GamerGate? He never actually directly posted anyone’s addresses or the condoning of it. The petition is feeding people false information.

        If anyone was held accountable for every comment made on a YouTube video that they share, then the entire world would be in jail.

          • I’m not. I hate the idea that it will attract people like you who will guarantee that it turns hostile.

          • That same crowd would’ve been drawn just as readily by the likes of Quinn or Wu attending, and potentially for a far more sinister motive. But in that theoretical situation Supanova shouldn’t exclude either of them on those grounds, and nor should they exclude Baldwin.

          • ok Renne you keep saying that. Define exactly what the supposed crowd he will attract is? What do you expect them to do? Are we really thinking there will be women too afraid to go due to his attendance? So far I have only seen men speculating about how women will feel and trying to act on their behalf. No one has raised a specific concern, just nebulous talk about the possibility of undefined people coming. Where is any form of evidence?

            I admit I know almost nothing about gamergate, and confess to not being overly interested in the subject. But, banning someone from a convention for their views, or supposed views of theoretical followers is shameful.

          • My sister has gone the last 2 years (had a booth) but she isn’t going because of the potential GamerGate presence. I’m not saying I agree with it personally (I couldn’t really give a crap about him being there or not to be honest) but just saying, there are some.

            She said the main issue is that Supanova has essentially no harrasment policy, so if there are guys hanging around being offensive to women, Supanova won’t really care/do anything about it. I find that hard to believe but if it’s true than it’s obviously something they’d need to sort out.

          • Man, I must have missed all those years women went by completely free of harassment before GamerGate came along…

            Unless your sister planned to have a booth with a banner along the lines of “GamerGaters fucking suck!” on it, I’d be pretty confident in saying the subject wouldn’t even come up at the con itself.

          • “if there are guys hanging around being offensive to women, Supanova won’t really care/do anything about it”
            She really believes this? I find this exceedingly hard to believe, and if it is actually the case that Supernova would just turn a blind eye to packs of men harassing women at their conference, then surely the petition should be against them and not Adam. And I say again, where is the precedent for this concern?

            This whole attitude of banning people because you don’t like them is starting to get very tiresome. People need to learn to separate someone’s work from their views. Matt Bellamy used to be a 9/11 truther, which I find horribly offensive due to what it infers. Yet I can still rock out to black hole.

          • Seriously, I attended my first Supanova last year, and was just stunned at how inclusive, warm and friendly the entire event is. I can’t see bad people suddenly flocking to it because Baldwin is there, and I can’t see there being large numbers of Australians motivated to come to the place and it suddeny be unsafe.

          • Because judging an entire group of people before they’ve done anything wrong or because they made people feel unsafe is disgusting. Many people feel unsafe when they see Muslims or hooded teenagers and according to media reporting; they have every right to be. They shouldn’t though, should they? Because it’s disgusting to judge an entire group of people for their opinions when you don’t even know their opinions, only a media representation of them. Even the very basic idea of assuming you do (FOR AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY!!) is disgusting, highly prejudicial and regressive.

            People feel unsafe in bars but you don’t tell everyone else to get out nor do I think exiling people who have made tasteless comments is progressive. I think the word “unsafe” is loaded now and that it actually has a spectrum that people don’t use, can we close the gap between feeling unsafe and actually being unsafe? Y’know, the idea we try to idea we try to communicate to people so they don’t come off as massively racist? Are we to exile everyone who holds opinions we don’t like yet run to defend others’ whom we maybe like a little more but not, like, totally? How little are we actually going to use to judge the character of an entire person? Will we use someone else’s twitter handle next year and call them unsafe? How about Nathan Fillion because he used the word “bitch” once and made a sexist joke? (he does that a lot) Or is that not enough? How about since he offended someone with a sexist joke we label him a sex offender? Y’know, ensure that he and his legions of fans learn absolutely nothing but contempt because that’s all they were shown.

            I don’t agree with what Baldwin has said in the past but it is not the sole determinant of his character or anyone’s; male, female, transgender, bi, homosexual or cis and I will not submit to blind empathy in this case. Empathy requires thought and this has none. We have a group of women who feel unsafe; so our solution is to get rid of all the people they don’t like? Forgive me if I won’t pretend getting rid of and shaming everyone we don’t like has actually ever worked on a social or cultural issue. I would say Tony Abbot does more to make women feel unsafe than Adam Baldwin does since he actually puts things in action. All Adam Baldwin has done has displayed a pattern of ignorance and ignorance is not evil, it’s the lack of education and empathy. Forgive me if thinking the need to publicly crucify the ignorant instead of educating them particularly unhealthy, prejudicial and regressive. To me, this whole article was a lost opportunity for productive discussion but it fell into the endless pattern of only acknowledging the existence of one, narrow viewpoint and dismissed all other perspectives. I really did not think the issue would be simplified like this.

        • I personally downvoted it because you chose to use the most loaded part of the entire article to get your comment across.

          But if we’re talking about petty downvoting… I’m pretty confident that you’ve downvoted a couple of my comments purely because I downvoted you and simply made light of you ignoring part of what you yourself quoted.

          So hey, I guess we’re all equals here… And isn’t equality what it’s all about in the end?

          • Of course I did. I mean, I did almost completely disagree with your comments too so it’s not like I didn’t have reason, but there was definitely an element of pettiness to it and I am perfectly okay to own that.

        • It’s not. Constant dismissal, massive generalisation and ignorance is the reason.

          Don’t pretend your lack of empathy towards those who don’t have your perspective isn’t damaging to your representation and worthy of responsibility.

          • I know, right? I don’t know what I did right and/or wrong with this one.

            I mean, it got downvoted once, but that was by the guy who went through and literally downvoted every single comment I made, so that’s no real surprise.

      • And why do they feel “unsafe”?

        Why because he has political views that differ from theirs.
        Clearly anyone with political views they disagree with must be banned as they’ll feel “unsafe”.

        Once we have removed all thought with bad-thoughts, the thought police can let the double-plus-good event occur.

    • I was trying to formulate a response such as this, but wasn’t game. I don’t like Adam Baldwin. I don’t agree with most of his publicly expressed opinions or actions at all. But that doesn’t mean I can demand he not be allowed to attend a convention I might be attending. He’s entitled to his opinions, no matter what I think of them. Supanova can’t really start setting the precedent for deciding who is and isn’t allowed to have certain beliefs or opinions at their event.

      Trying to stop his attendance because you don’t like him or his opinions seems a little childish and entitled, tbh, no matter how much you disagree with him.

      • Yeeep. I genuinely hate the guy but fairly certain no one is forcing me to listen to him. He can sit at his desk and I can go and do something else. Like get a hot dog. That sounds pretty rad.

      • Enh. Shrug. Personally I don’t care if Baldwin goes or not, but I think anyone who feels ‘unsafe due to his presence’ needs a little help getting back in touch with reality. No-one can tell you what to feel, but they can objectively tell you how much grounding in reality those feelings actually have.

        But even if the petition-writer has a lousy grasp on the English language, I still don’t mind them setting up a petition.
        You got something you love (such as Supanova) and you see them cutting a cheque to someone you hate, you wanna express that. Petitions are as good a way as any of doing that, so I don’t begrudge ’em that.

        I think where things get ridiculous is the demanding nature, promise of further action, the unrealistic expectation that anything will change after money has changed hands and there is no good legal reason for that contract to be nullified. Especially when the ‘threat’ is tenuous at best, if not outright ludicrous. They should be arguing the politics, where their actual concerns lie, rather than reaching to the absurd because it seems like it would offer more legitimacy.
        Using your voice is great. Expecting your voice to be worth more than others? Not so great.

        Only tangentially-related:
        I signed a petition, once, y’know… I got emails later about the petitioning ‘community’, which, to me, seems like something you probably shouldn’t advertise.

        I mean, seriously: People speaking out about an issue they care about? Sure, that’s great. People as part of a community of whiners, bound by their love of complaining about things? That seems like the kind of thing a respondent would measure the size of, then utterly discount from any petition. Which would be why publishers don’t give a shit about gamers’ habitiual whining and love of complaining about things (myself included), until it affects the bottom line.
        “Yeah, but those people complain about everything, I just want to know how many care about this issue specifically.”

        • Well said. Standing up for what you believe in is fine. Demanding something be done because you disagree with someone is just prat-ish.

        • Ah, there you are. I was sitting here waiting to read your words of wisdom and as usual have not been disappointed. 😉

  • This is going to be an unpopular sentiment, but as I understand it the cause for attendees feeling threatened or unsafe with Baldwin around is based on a misrepresentation put forth by a detractor. Putting Baldwin’s views aside, shouldn’t that be taken into account?

    • Is it reasonable for them to feel unsafe? Maybe not, as there will be plenty of security at the event to evict troublemakers. It’s not like Bladwin and friends will have free licence to go running around with a baseball bat, even if they wanted to (which is doubtful).

  • Is Wikipedia the best overview regarding what this ‘Gamergate’ is all about? Never bothered with the topic..but I feel compelled to at least be across the issue/matter in some way.

    • If you enjoy scrolling to the bottom of news articles on controversial subjects and wading through the human filth that you find down in the comments, then go and do some research on #gamergate. Otherwise, go find something better to do with your time and retain some shred of your faith in humanity.

      • HAHAHAHA this is the best answer. I tried to sift through the teenage drama that was this whole issue and all I saw was idiots as far as the eye could see. Craziness.

    • Wikipedia taught me that a gamergate is a female worker ant that takes over the breeding duties should there not be a colony queen ant present.

    • Short version: Zoe Quinn, a game developer, slept with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for Kotaku US. This transpired sometime after Nathan mentioned a game Zoe developed in a favourable way, and people speculated that Zoe slept with Nathan (among others) as a means of subverting the traditional review process – i.e.: pussy for positive comments.
      This started a fairly intense discussion about whether this is ethical behaviour – one facet being that as fans of video games, should we let gaming news aand review sites skew our perception of products we will pay for based on shady dealings and interpersonal relationships. It’s a valid topic, but the people involved in Gamergate (in my opinion) take this far too seriously and see any kind of friendship, involvement, etc between journalists and evelopers/publishers as inherent corruption. For instance not only it is “corruption” when a game publisher sends a free copiy of a game to a reviewer (as the reviewer will then be inherently biased) but if the reviewer buys the game themself, they now have a financial stake in the success of the game and will be inherently biased – so it’s effectively impossible to not be corrupt by proposed “gamergate” standards.

      Then there’s the occurrences that may or may not be attributed to gamergaters, depending on whose opinion you consider correct, such as:

      – “doxxing”, harassment and threats levelled at numerous female journalists and game developers for reasons that are unclear (starting at Zoe Quinn and extending to Anita Sarkeesian who isn’t even a journalist or developer);
      – mass emailling of companies like intel that advertise on tech and gaming sites, often including misleading statements (lies), such as “Kotaku makes death threats against gamers” for an article that was actually about the death of “Gamer” as an identity, etc.

      Since the gamergate controversy started, many gaming sites have started openly disclosing any ties between themselves and game companies whose products they write about for the purpose of transparency. I generally consider this a positive development, but people mistake this as a “victory” for whatever nebolous principles gamergate claim ot (or variously deny) standing for, so it’s really just a messy mix of confusion.

      Where Adam Baldwin comes in is that (aside from coining the term “gamergate” to begin with) he tends to the more extreme end of the gamergate spectrum and while never formally condoning doxxing or harassment, seems to nonetheless serve as a source of encouragement for those who do. People at the core of the “Actually It’s About Ethics in Gaming Journalism” stalwarts claim that any person engaging in harassment etc. is No True Gamergater in an attempt to salvage the rather toxic reputation the negative side of gamergate has created, instead of distancing themselves from it, so it remains a rather messy mishmash and most of the arguing seems to have gotten away from the original central tenets.

      This is of course, just my editorialised version of events based on some fairly distant observations.

      • The game was not mentioned in a favourable way it wasn’t even a sentence. It was part of a sentence listing Indie games.

        The problem is Eron Gnoji’s slut-shaming, bullshit filled, restraining order-inducing screed was never critically examined before hundreds if not thousands of angry children descended onto Quinn.

      • I appreciate the time you took to better inform me (and others by the looks of it) bro. Thank you.

      • “Where Adam Baldwin comes in is that (aside from coining the term “gamergate” to begin with) he tends to the more extreme end of the gamergate spectrum and while never formally condoning doxxing or harassment, seems to nonetheless serve as a source of encouragement for those who do. ”

        So he never actually did anything wrong; but must be guilty by association with the worst the group has done?

        Understood, guilt by association is good, and we must judge all groups by their worst member.

        Thank you for clarifying this for me; it makes things much simpler in my life; I wasn’t doing this previous I’m embarrassed to admit; but I’ll start right now.

  • I know people are being critical of Adam Baldwin’s attendence at Supanova and Supanova’s response but I think that it was a diplomatic response as possible and, given Adam’s promise that he will not be a mouthpiece for the Gamergate issue during his visit, the right decision for Supanova to make in consideration of fans of Firefly etc. that want to see him there and aren’t involved in the debate.

    Gamergate might seem like a big deal to people like us but we shouldn’t mistake that for any kind of widespread consensus and refusing to permit him at a convention because he has views we don’t agree with is not the right way to approach the debate. What if Supanova started randomly kicking out congoers because of their religious or political views? Or given that it’s a Pop Culture Expo, what if Daniel Zachariou decided that as a lifelong Kirk fan, that anyone favouring Picard was not welcome at his event?

    If you’re unhappy with Baldwin’s presence at the con, don’t attend. If you do attend, don’t go to his panel(s?). If you attend his panels, don’t ruin everyone else’s good time by being a dick.

    • And that’s pretty much it right there… I’d wager if you asked everyone attending the con what GamerGate was the vast majority would respond with, “No idea.”

    • I’d put money on someone being a dick or asking a gamergate-related question (even if Baldwin doesn’t answer it).

      • PAX Australia managed to avoid problems of that nature, I’m fairly confident Supanova should be able to follow a similar course in much the same fashion.

    • TL:DR version of your comment (even though it’s worth reading in it’s entirety)

      Don’t be a dick. Just enjoy yourself and don’t be a dick.

      This philosophy should extend to every waking moment of people’s lives 😛

    • But I want to meet Nathan Fillion and by virtue of being a Firefly actor, they’ll be together…

      • I’m imagining you walking up to their autograph table and just blanking Baldwin until Fillion is available, exchanging a few polite words, and then departing. Baldwin begins to realise this has been happening all day. Not a huge amount, most people are just Firefly fans happy to meet a couple of their favourite actors/characters in the flesh. But there’s the occasional snub. Occasionally someone in a fedora enthusiastically approaches him about Gamergate and he is obliged by his own promises to respond only with “no comment”. Gradually the day winds down and he returns to his hotel room. He has a small amount of trouble sleeping that night.

        Make my dream a reality.

  • They feel unsafe around him? Really? Really??

    That’s some high level fear mongering ‘journalism’ right there. Fox news would be proud.

    I’ll no doubt catch shit for this post but I mean come the fuck on… Surely I cannot be the only one who sees how monumentally ridiculous this shit has gotten.

    This is the ONLY way it should have gone.

    When society gets to the point where people are exiled purely for an opinion (and we know damn well that’s all this was actually about), then something has gone SO fucking wrong that it should all be burned to the ground and restarted from scratch.

      • And at the very least he seems decent enough to be an equal opportunity murderer also.

        Male or female, pro or anti-gamergate, all would be welcomed by his deathly embrace.

  • this does not end today. It never ends.
    Way to take the high road. I feel sorry for attendees of Sydney and Perth now. It sounds like this guy is going to plan some sort of live protest at the events, someone that is going to make the community look worse at the end of things.

    As many people have suggested elsewhere, if you don’t like him and feel unsafe, then don’t go near him. It’s that simple. The man is going to be sitting at a table for 90% of the convention signing autographs, so he’s not going to be ‘harassing’ anyone.

    • The author of the petition is actually a guy, Albert Santos. And yes, he probably will do a live protest, cause a shit ton of trouble, make everyone look bad and add another blow to geek culture. The mass media will have a field day.

      • People like this simply have nothing better to do with their time… It’s rarely ever actually about some noble cause, or perceived injustice.

        Just bags and bags of crazy with lots of free time.

        • If the will to live is too strong, trawl through his blogs and twitter feed. It’s embarrassing. It’s like the guy has nothing better to do than make another person’s life hell while playing the white knight in shining armor.

      • Thank you for the clarification. I should have my glasses on when reading first thing in the morning. For some reason I saw Blanka as Briana on a tweet. My eyes are weird this morning

  • Leaving aside who he is, what he says and what this fiasco has wrought upon everybody, you should understand by now that conventions like this are designed to get attention. They don’t care if you dress up special, they just want your money.

    Don’t go. Or go. It doesn’t matter. I actually don’t conventions like this at all, to be honest.

    PAX Australia went from being classed as “Chernobyl” to “Land of Chocolate and Strawberries” almost overnight. I have disliked the PA brand since the NINETIES and still see few reasons to actually go to something like PAXAU.

    Yes they/the local mob have displayed business savvy in making it so popular and well-run but the fact remains – the best any of these events can or want to do is make everybody FEEL they are all equally safe and sound during their attendance.

    Has it made the local papers yet? There’s still time!

  • i don’t get what the issue is, he has an opinion which is completely ok
    Also people are dipshits and morons that’s not news, that’s common knowledge.

  • When it comes to the whole Gamergate fiasco, I would say that I typically lean more on the side of the feminist arguments.
    However, the douchey statements Baldwin has made don’t change the fact that he’s an important part of geek culture. He’s speaking at a convention for geek culture. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    Frank Miller is a bit of an ass too, but many people would still want to hear his thoughts on comics.

    • I will warn you, I saw him at Supanova a few years ago in Melbourne and he was totally boring, arrogant and generally unpleasant. He wasn’t at all humbled by all the Firefly fans happy to see him. It was really disappointing 🙁

      • Nathan, on the other hand… everything I’ve seen of him, including fan-photos/autographs, videos, and interviews… he’s so dreamy. There’s a reason he’s the Cap’n.

  • This entire petition is a complete and utter joke. It’s basically saying that because the “author” disagrees with Baldwin’s political stance, (for the record, the petition falsely asserts that Baldwin directed
    “doxxed” people, which isn’t true – he’s actively against just that),
    then the fun should be ruined for everyone and no one should meet him. Just because the guy has an opinion that’s not of the upmost political correctness. So he has his right to visit a convention denied because this one guy on his high horse says no.

    And it’s worth noting that I know Albert Santos in real life (we attend the same university classes) and honestly, this petition doesn’t surprise me.
    Always looking for someone to rile up, always looking for something edgy to say, trying to appear like the hero. Just look at the petition. It’s not about some sort of perceived injustice, it’s just an angry dude with too much free time sitting in a room, making it his goal to deny Baldwin his right to an opinion and for him to express it. I’ve actually swapped classes at one point, because I refuse to be in this guy’s company.

    If you don’t want to speak to the man, don’t. Simple. But don’t ruin it for everyone else. I’ve been a Firefly fanboy for years and as soon as I heard about the petition I was furious. The guy’s there to sign posters and speak with fans. He’s not there to discuss petty politics (by his own admission) or “harass” anyone. I mean come on, just look at that petition “will we regroup, and we will continue to put the pressure in any and every way we can. This does not end today. It never ends.”.

    Are we talking about Hitler or a hollywood actor?

    That’s not simply concern for other people – that’s going out of your comfort zone and doing everything you to screw this guy in every possible way. Most people don’t even care about GamerGate. This entire farce just shows how far geek culture has to go.

    Fox News would be proud.
    Me? I need to go and scrub out my brain

    • Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare him to Holocaust denier David Irving rather than Hitler? Next, they can try to prevent him from entering Australia…

      Personally, I just wish the gamergaters and the anti-gamergaters could mutually annihilate.

  • I didn’t even realise he was appearing at Supanova again seeing as I missed him last time around and I’m not following the Sydney Supanova. Now I’m keen as hell to go down and see him as he’s been one of my favourite actors since forever.

    Opinions are opinions, they should be left at that. If you open your mouth on the internet someone will be offended by what you say. I’m glad Supanova aren’t taking sides, although as this article shows, some people will think that they’re taking sides and now Supanova supports death threats…

    Edit: I guess I’ll be making women feel uncomfortable and threatened then…

    • It’s an unfortunate reality.

      You either take a side… Or someone just makes it look like you have by overreacting to the extreme, misinterpreting and taking everything you say out of context.

      There is no winning.

  • women will still feel afraid, women will still feel excluded and threatened.

    Then maybe it’s for the best that he goes. I’m not saying people are wrong to feel the way they do but I think that fear stems from a place that doesn’t quite exist. Perhaps confronting some part of Gamergate outside of Twitter will make people realise how much of it is bold headlines, hot air and lone whackos. With or without Adam Baldwin women are perfectly welcome at Supanova and this could be a perfect opportunity to remind people of that.
    I mean PAX Aus was meant to be this huge battleground according to all the Gamergate hype and then without anyone really trying to avoid it nothing happened. I feel like Supanova will go without a hitch and hopefully it’ll show some people who currently fear it that Gamergate is being run through an amplifier.

  • I would take gamersgaters seriously if they noticed there was corruption in other forms of press as well and tried to do something about it, rather than maintain their narrow myopic focus on one part of the media 99% of the world don’t care about.

    • I think a big part of the issue with that thinking is “Why should they?” though.

      Those other forms of press have their own user bases, etc, that could do just that…

      Everyone knows gaming journalism isn’t the only place it occurs, but you simply don’t go throwing your hat into the ring in an area where you have no experience or reason to be.

      Fight fire with fire, essentially.

  • I am tired of the false equivalency shit that people keep spouting about these Gamergate mouth-breathers. If a group on one side of an argument consistently uses threats of violence and rape against women, their argument does not need to be heard, or taken seriously. Adam Baldwin and everyone associated with Gamergate has had their stupid, hatefull opinions invalidated by their own actions and words.

    I also find it hysterical that commenters on Kotaku are more distressed by the idea of a female ghost busters cast, than by the idea of a group of hate mongers being allowed a national platform.

    • Sorry, but that’s just stupid. The way an argument is presented doesn’t invalidate the logic of the argument. A gunman sniping at people from a clocktower shouting that vaccines save more lives than they take still has a valid argument whether you like it or not.

      You are of course under no obligation to engage with someone whose method upsets you, but to dismiss their argument as invalid because of it is a childish excuse.

      • What a suprise, another neckbeard who finds harassing women and threatening rape part of a valid argument.

        • Where did you get that idea? Did I say any of that? Or is your actual thought process along the lines of “someone disagrees with me, they must be a neckbeard misogynist”?

          You say harassment invalidates an argument, then in your very next post you harass me with petty insults. By your own logic, you just invalidated your own argument.

          I’m not sure you realise you are the thing you think you’re fighting against.

    • Precisely. If some in a group are bad; the entire group is bad,.

      This is how we know Islam is evil and ALL Muslims are also evil.
      Because some are terrorists, and the violence by some clearly makes them ALL evil.

      If some are bad, ALL must be bad, and equally bad; therefore ALL are terrorists.
      What? That isn’t correct? But it’s YOUR logic from YOUR post; clearly it must be 100% correct.

      Come back next week when we talk about all of some groups of minorities being criminals.

      This is fun; we should do stereotypical bigotry, guilt by association, and group identity blame-throwing more often.

      Or maybe lets not do that…. yeah, that might be better. Lets stop doing this.

  • There’s really one relevant line in the entire response:

    given we as Supanova as a professional organisation must fulfil our contractual obligations

    It’s just money, pure & simple. They don’t give a shit about any issues involved, it’s either about profit or fear of being sued for breaking contract.

  • “Throughout all of this, the most concerning thing is how little consumer input Supanova have seeked. ”

    If Supanova gave a damn about consumer input, they wouldn’t be charging exorbitant prices for EVERYTHING.

    • “little consumer input”… Ha! 800+ replies about their consideration of the situation, hard to ignore that type of response.

      But you’re right about the prices thing. My god it’s expensive. First time i went I was able to get John Rhys-Davis photograph and autograph for $50 total… Now it’s $110 minimum!

  • I’ve been torn about the issue of Adam attending since it was announced. I do think GamerGate is a toxic cloud of abuse and is not at all a positive force for change, if it ever was one. I’m reassured by Adam’s statement that he won’t be bringing it up, and I hope that the attendees (myself included) won’t be bringing it up either.

    While I fully support people’s right to protest, I actually don’t want protests to happen at Supanova. Cons have always been places for me to go and revel in my fandom with other like minded nerdy geeky individuals. They are places of unbridled positivity, where even when you’ve been standing in line for 4 hours and are certain your feet are bleeding, you still smile when you see someone walk past cosplaying Bender! A protest would bring that down and turn Supanova into something I don’t want it to become. An argument can of course be made that Adam’s invitation and attendance has already done that to an extent, but that isn’t reason to pour more fuel on the fire.

    In terms of women feeling unsafe at the convention, I totally agree that the threat of GamerGate supporters attending the con en masse is a valid concern. People have a tendency to act out when they are in a group they know agree with them. Sexism and misogyny on roids isn’t want we need. I for one will confront anyone I see being inappropriate to any con goer and I encourage everyone to do the same. Confront them, tell them their behaviour isn’t acceptable and inform the staff/volunteers present. Perhaps get a friend to record the exchange and make sure you act in a civil manner. The GamerGate supporters are the minority, loud as they may be, and they are vastly outnumbered by those of us that just want to enjoy the experience of a convention and nerd the hell out all day long!

  • The most disappointing thing is that Jason David Frank isn’t coming to the Sydney Supanova 🙁

    • Chances are he’ll do Sydney next year. Supanova likes to rotate guests.
      Otherwise, take a trip to Melbourne. JDF will always be worth it

  • Haha, what a funny situation.

    “Anita is going to have a discussion? Kill her! Kill her and everybody attending! Kill anybody supporting her! What, people don’t want Adam Baldwin at Supanova? Hey now, just because you disagree with him…”

    • It’s interesting… I honestly expected the comment section on this article to be an absolute nightmare.

      And whether your implication is intentional or not, I do believe for most people that don’t like Anita her being female has nothing at all to do with it.

      The rest of them, well… yeah… The internet is a relative safe haven for their bullshit unfortunately.

    • What about the majority of people, who think both of them should be able to have discussions and attend events without being hassled by opponents?

      • The whole point of Gamergate is to hassle their opponents you rube. And guess what? The majority of adults, in the real world, totally reject Gamergate as a movment, thanks to their obsession with threats of rape and violence.

        • Really, that’s the whole point of Gamergate is it? You spoke with Jim, Gamegate Founder and CEO and he gave you a copy of his mission statement? You can’t be that stupid to think you know the purpose of every member of a disparate group of people with no leadership who happen to use a particular hashtag.

          Oh wait, you are that stupid, because you go on to make another nonsense claim you can’t possibly support with evidence about Gamergate’s opponents. You’re incredibly naive. Members of both sides (GG and anti-GG) have used harassment, abuse and threats of violence. Why is it you characterise all of GG when someone misbehaves under the GG banner, but you turn a blind eye when someone misbehaves under the anti-GG banner? Can you explain this hypocrisy?

        • Well thank goodness the anti-gamergate people are here; and will clearly state that no dissent from their political views should ever be permitted in public.

          That’s not harassment at all; that simply using your thought police to run a fascist police state; which is a much better ideal world…

          Oh wait, is that not a good ideal world? Then why does it seem to be the only possible world that actually meets the demands you make?

          If your demand is “anyone who thinks differently from me scares me and should never be permitted near me”… there’s not a lot of other options.

          But maybe I’m not concentrating hard enough to understand your message…
          Maybe I should be sent to a camp to learn to concentrate better?

    • Aren’t you technically implying that the commenters on this very article who are saying the latter have also said (or at least believe) the former? Because if that is the case, that’s pretty gross, bro.

      • When you put it like that, it can come off as sounding like that. Which wasn’t really my intention. I was just being in general and hyperbolic.

  • What Kotaku seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel unthreatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They do feel unsafe around the antibaldwin crowd after recent events at MagFest.

    Here kotaku I fixed your crap

  • “What Supanova seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel threatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They feel unsafe.”

    Seriously, are you for real with this statement? Adam has opinions, like we all do about a broad range of issues. I agree with some of his opinions, I don’t on others, like with most people, everyone has diverse opinions and it is rare to agree on everything.

    How does one person’s views on anything make someone feel threatened or an entire gender? How do you even know what all female attendees will feel, it is sexist to speak for all women. There are many women who support him attending, even if they do not agree with his points of view.

    Stop playing the victim card, women are not helpless damsels in distress, stop white knighting for women who do not need and do not want your protection. Stop speaking for all women, you are not endorses as their spokesman and you are insulting all women by trying to speak on their behalf.

    The more you try and silence people who have legitimate complaints about how the gaming media has conducted themselves over the years, the more you illuminate to the moderates why it is that people have had enough of the media’s attempt to dictate the narrative.

  • Of all the conventions I’ve read about since GG’s inception, I can’t recall any where people were made to feel uncomfortable by Gamergaters. I might be so bold as to say there aren’t any, though I’d gladly rescind with evidence to the contrary.

    However – if these women – and men too – are afraid of feeling uncomfortable, I would say to them that as long as they don’t cosplay as Vivian James, they should be fine.

    • Didn’t @markserrels talk about a GGer who asked him a question during a panel and then walked out during Mark’s answer? That would have made me pretty uncomfortable!

      • Yeah, but also everyone in the room applauded when he left.
        He was the one guy vs the room (and honestly his actions give me second-hand embarrassment). At the very least, I don’t think anyone would have felt very unsafe.

  • Good to see Supernova not bending to the inner totalitarians who would deny someone visiting an expo merely for a contrarian view.

  • He’s racist, homophobic, and sexist. I won’t be paying for tickets that will reward him for that kind of behaviour.

    I’m not going anymore and neither is my partner. They just lost two tickets. I hope they lose a bunch more.

    • I’m sure SupaNova will feel threatened by you and your partner not buying tickets. They’ll be flat broke in no time.

      • See the thing about voting with your wallet is that you have to actually do it. If many people feel similarly, then they will in fact feel the effect.

        If people think a thing is going to be bad, they don’t pay money for it and it doesn’t make money. In the future, the people making the thing for sale might think about how to entice people to part with their money by changing what they do.

        I hope I could break down this very technical idea for you and make it more accessible.

    • Buying tickets to see him doesn’t reward him for racism, homophobia or sexism. Buying tickets to see him rewards him for his acting role in Firefly and Serenity. That’s why he’s there, that’s why he was invited and that’s why he’s being paid. And he will be paid, whether you buy tickets or not, because most people don’t give a shit.

      Keep in mind you’re throwing out the entire Supernova convention, all the cosplay and stalls and games and awesome people, because of one guest out of thirty-something guests that are in one part of the convention. If that’s what you want to do, go for it, but I suspect you’ll be in a minority small enough that it won’t send the message you want to send.

      • I’m ok with having principles. I don’t need to have them align with everyone else. This guy is a shitty person and I won’t knowingly contribute to lining the pockets of shitty people if I can help it.

        • Principles are just a way of saying ‘this is what I believe’, they’re nothing special. Everyone has them to some degree, good people and ‘shitty’ people alike.

          How do you define a shitty person, as opposed to shitty actions performed by a person? At what point does a person transition from normal to shitty? Is there a threshold of the number of shitty actions someone has to perform? Is it a ratio? Do you know enough about Baldwin as a whole to be able to judge that he’s a shitty person, or are you only familiar with a handful of his actions? Or are you only familiar with what other people have said about a handful of his actions, but have no direct knowledge of them yourself?

          If a person can be shitty or not based on their actions, how far do you extend this logic? Are families shitty because they have a shitty person in them? Are organisations shitty because one of their staff is shitty? Are countries shitty because some of their people are shitty?

          • Yes. Nothing means anything. Everything is relative and we have no baseline to measure against. What I obviously meant is that he is shitty so his grandmother is shitty and so is his country and therefore the world, so I am shitty.

            Stop being ridiculous.

            The man has a history of publicly and unapologetically saying bigoted things. That’s clearly how he feels about the world and the people in it. I believe that is enough to make him unworthy of praise, so I won’t praise him by giving money to things he is involved with. Like you said, that’s my decision and I don’t care if you think I’m an idiot because I think you are implicitly endorsing bigotry. So let’s just agree to disagree and leave the ad absurdum moral relativism out of it because it doesn’t help anyone.

          • I don’t think it’s ridiculous to expect that if you’re going to use your principles to attempt to harm the livelihood of another person, that you have adequately considered and defined those principles. I don’t think you’re an idiot, but I do think if you’re willing to make assumptions about what I do or don’t endorse because I asked you questions about your stance, then you’re demonstrating a worrying disregard for information as a factor in your decision-making processes.

            My questions weren’t rhetorical, I want to know your answers. If you believe there is such thing as a shitty person, rather than shitty actions conducted by a person, I want to know how you define that.

          • I don’t see how not buying the product is actively harming the guy’s livelihood. That’s not the case and it’s silly to say so. I am not supporting a product that I don’t like. I’m not stealing money from the pockets of Nestle by not buying their products. I simply show my dislike for their business dealings by not buying from them. It would be the same if I just plain didn’t enjoy their food.

            In fact, everything in your posts are hyperbolic. A worrying disregard for facts? Good lord man… do you know how absurd you are being? I’m not going to argue an absurd point with someone who is at best disingenuous and more than likely just trying to argue for argument’s sake. Unless you are arguing in defence of some sort of Gamergate type deal, in which case I also won’t be arguing with you because earnest and heartfelt defence of THAT is absurd to the point of being theatre.

            I don’t like his opinions on a number of issues I think are important. As such, I will not pay money to enable him a platform where he might voice those opinions. This is my choice. It is a valid one. Just as it is your equally valid choice to support him in any way you wish.

          • Not trying to antagonise you, mate. I’m just trying to understand your reasoning, because it looks to be internally inconsistent. You say you want to deny him income, and for others to deny him income (“They just lost two tickets. I hope they lose a bunch more.”) but then you say you don’t want to mess with his livelihood. You can’t really have one without the other.

            Supernova and Baldwin have both stated clearly that his opinions will not be raised at the event, and that same expectation is applied to the audience. The topic is explicitly off limits. Are both of those assurances not enough to assuage your concern that he may use the platform to voice his opinions?

            Either way, there’s no hostility on my part. I’m disappointed that you think I support bigotry simply because I asked you some questions. I’m not here to make you uncomfortable, just wanted to make sense of your principles that, to me, don’t seem to be very consistent. If you don’t care to explain that, no worries.

            I’m sorry that you’ll be missing out on Supernova this year. The guest list is pretty good this time and the place has always been friendly and inclusive, even the previous times Baldwin has been there.

          • Zombie Jesus, don’t you see?

            You’ve committed the same problem that Baldwin did; you questioned and disagreed with him…
            That ALONE makes you a dangerous person who he feels unsafe to be around; and who should be shunned.

            If you don’t shun the unbeleiver and avoid all outside thought; how can you join the beautiful religion that is leftism?

            You antagonized him when you brought up any other possible viewpoint. If your goal is not to antagonize a SJW leftie;s you can never ever say anything except “YEAH!”.

            Anything but full support of whatever the cause of the day is will get you outcast.

  • I’m a woman who regularly attend Supanova Perth, I have been harassed by other con goers and Supanova staff do nothing. I’ve had to take matters into my own hands and call out dudes harassing other girls (some as young as about 13/14 years old).

  • “What Supanova seems to gloss over in its statement is the fact that many attendees — female attendees in particular — simply feel threatened by Baldwin’s presence and the crowd his attendance will potentially attract. They feel unsafe.”

    OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS you mean they let people WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU POLITICALLY go to a public event?

    How can this be?

    Everyone knows this is the politically sensitive SJW left-leaning political. event; and not some gamer event… so only people IN the echo chamber can be allowed.

    Whoops time to ban me now I’m sure; you must feel unsafe as I DISAGREE WITH YOU the most terrifying thing EVER!

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!