Intellectual bullying and the postmodern discourse of GamerGate

The discrediting of voices in intellectual discourse is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, when a person holds a position that is indefensible and plain wrong, they should either accept that they are wrong or have their soapbox revoked. Most of the time it isn’t this clear. Different opinions are held by disagreeing parties, and silencing dissenting voices requires tactics that are a little more underhanded. The tactic of dishonestly re-framing a viewpoint into something outrageous in an attempt to discredit those who hold the viewpoint is known as intellectual bullying.

Black_box bulling

This is a powerful tool. With enough voices dishonestly insisting that someone holds all those beliefs that everybody hates, the person in question will either be shamed into silence or suffer from character assassination. The black box takes an honest input and produces a dishonest output. But what goes on inside the black box? I am going to try to explain that, both in general and specifically for the GamerGate controversy.

A lot of of the tactics of the anti-GamerGate intellectual bullying campaign were famously codified in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  The ideological guerrilla warfare tactics encouraged in that book and others like it include character assassination, isolation, and ridicule. Ad hominem attacks are implicitly encouraged, because people are easier to hate than abstract ideas. Strawman arguments are particularly effective – rather than addressing actual arguments, so one should ignore the points of those who disagree with you and respond to something else.

I initially scoffed at the prospect of Cultural Marxism being real, because in common parlance among conservative pundits, it’s used as a stronger pejorative in place of “political correctness.” Despite what the noise around the provocative term might sound like, Cultural Marxism is not Alex Jones-style paranoia. From the beginning, Marxism rejected positivism – positivism meaning the belief that mathematical logic and scientific experimentation are the sole authoritative sources of knowledge. This should be interesting for the reader who has heard of Marxism being scientific socialism. To Marx and Engels, scientific was merely a nice sounding word that meant that their socialism had a philosophical methodology behind it. This is true: Marxism does have a methodology, it’s just a non-rationalistic methodology.

Cultural Marxism is basically the application orthodox Marxist methodology, which is relegated to economic and political matters, to all of society. After the obvious failure of the Soviet Marxist-Leninists to bring about a desirable society, Western Marxists of the Frankfurt School determined that we must also revolutionize our culture as well. Culture’s traditional structure is responsible for the legitimation of oppression, and in  doesn’t occur naturally, but at the command of another oppressive ideology. Those with cultural dominance are the class of antagonists, just like those with economic power, and are therefore wrong. And so, critical theory was developed. Cultural dominance isn’t well defined, but in contemporary usage, it more or less applies to white males and any institutions or phenomena that one might attribute to them.

Going hand in hand with or at least methodological assumptions of Cultural Marxism is the postmodern discourse. Postmodern philosophy is characterized by the rejection of objective truth, and postmodern discourse emphasizes that the identity of a person is the essential determinant of whether their argument is true or not. Two people with different characteristics will have a different level of authority on truth, even if what they say is identical. A very stark demonstration of this occurred within the Occupy Wall Street movement. A method sometimes used was the “progressive stack” to determine speaking and the weight that should be given to speakers. Those who were parts of groups determined to be oppressed were given precedence. This makes sense in the context of an ideological revolt against culture and “cultural” methods of reaching truth, such as rationalism.

Rationalism is necessarily the nemesis of ideology. From the ideologue’s point of view, rationalism is assumed to be not only wrong, but an ideologically imposed wrongness that exists to legitimate oppression. Keep in mind: to the ideologue, everything is ideological. In this particular case, we see examples of non-white women making tweets in support of GamerGate accused of being sock puppet accounts of white males. The fact they must be white males isn’t an every day practical truth, but an ideological truth. It’s the special kind of truth that can illuminate a world that was constructed to keep you down. Some of the women respond with timestamped photographs of themselves. I can only imagine the kind of ideological tailspin that this puts their accusers into.

The assumptions of Cultural Marxism aren’t relegated to radical or academic spheres. Herbert Marcuse was the father of the New Left, the left that we know today, and he was a Frankfurt School Marxist. Our politics absorbed these assumptions to the point where don’t even notice. We still see this rejection of positivism in political discourse. Run-of-the-mill video game journalism constantly demonizes video game culture as too male, adding to the powder keg of suspicion about ethics and agenda pushing.

All of us have positivist assumptions to a certain extent. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to say anything, because meaningful speech requires logical construction.

Something is mean -> mean things are bad -> you shouldn’t do mean things.

Planes fly, mathematics works. Some are consistent with this, and thus have an immunity to ideology that is as perfect as their consistency with positivist thought is. People who (usually unwittingly) use the methodologies of Cultural Marxism are less consistent positivists. They use logic in some occasions. For example:

Oppression is bad -> culture legitimates oppression -> we must have a cultural revolution.

Assumptions, implications and conclusions are the bread and butter of the “ideology” of positivism that they are revolting against. Similarly, their use of the term “sexist” as a smear to incite popular support to show that GamerGate is an expression of anti-woman cultural assumptions is logically predicated on dominant cultural feelings that a sexist is bad and a non-sexist is good. The contradictions seem to be piling up, but we’re just getting started.

The best place to see this praxis is on the GamerGate Wikipedia article, and the article’s “talk” page. First, the reader should become familiar with three Wikipedia policies. Reliable sources, a neutral point of view and a lack of subjective judgment in what is being sourced.

The GamerGate article itself begins with a line describing the reaction to the subject matter itself; we can already tell this is suspect, since describing reaction or opinion before the actual subject of the article itself is bizarre. No other Wikipedia article does this. At all.

edit requestThis first underlined comment is indeed true, reliable sources are required, and for whatever reason, most reliable sources cover the reaction rather than the movement. And why would they cover the movement’s points about corruption in video game journalism? That’s pretty trivial in the grand scheme of worldwide news. But women being victims of harassment? Now that’s a story.

But the first red line is wrong, first of all, because the opening line of the article itself doesn’t even have a source (notice the lack of superscript number at the end of it.) More importantly, the reliable source policy doesn’t require dictate the construction of articles – that falls under the neutral point of view, where commentary never comes before subject matter. Selective adherence to rules has prevailed. Mixing truth and falsehood is an extremely powerful tactic. The GamerGate Wikipedia article serves its purpose as a mouthpiece of ideology.

Equally deft misdirection comes in the form of ignoring points and repeatedly responding to a point that the opponent simply never made. The rest of the underlined comments in both images show this. The same sort of thing defines the entire talk page.

distinguishing

Not underlined in either of these screenshots are ad hominem attacks, for clutter reasons.

GamerGate has about as much to do with Zoe Quinn as much as World War 1 has to do with Gavrilo Princip – someone was going to ignite the powder keg. The fact that this someone happened to be a woman was a Bonfire of the Vanities-style political theater opportunity for video game journalists, who had a lot of narrative and not enough examples of oppression. And the ethical violations came in the form of her sleeping with people reporting on her game? Ha! Slut shaming! This is the perfect storm that allowed ideologues to co-opt the momentum and stoke the fires of their permanent revolution.

We once again bear witness to that bizarre narrative that always pops up, that this campaign that is just people being angry about someone being a liberated woman with many partners. Is this the fucking 70’s? There is no longer a spectacle in a woman being open like that. Sleeping around just isn’t radical any more. Progressives refusing to realize that their politics aren’t as transgressive as they used to be is like a case of Alzheimer’s. They are not iconoclasts to anyone outside of rural Mississippi, and haven’t been for many decades. The sexual liberation camp won, and I for one am pretty happy about it.  This kind of lack of self-awareness, or perhaps lack of error detection among social justice ideologues is going to contribute to a piling up of contradictions. The more out-of-touch and off-the-wall your narrative is, the more scummy shaming tactics are required to manipulate the discussion.

GamerGate has nothing to do with gender politics or feminism beyond the incessant (and ultimately successful) underhanded tactics employed by ideologues attempting to frame an earnest call for ethical scrutiny as an insidious political attack on them. In truth, GamerGate is a storm in a teacup. To anyone paying attention, video game journalism clearly lacks the ethics and professionalism that is demanded from and by respectable journalists. But in the end, who the hell cares abut the actual goals of the movement? Not the mainstream media, as I mentioned before, and not me either. While nobody in any industry should be unethical, let’s be rational here: someone with ambitions that amount to talking about video games on the internet should not really be expected to conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism. Video game journalism doesn’t need to exist. If I am considering a purchase, I will do my own research using abundant firsthand sources.  We’re well into the age of user-created content, after all. Anyone who plays video games is savvy enough to do the same thing. Video game journalism needs video game players, not the other way around.

I don’t care about GamerGate. I care about an ideological smear campaign symptomatic of the political assumptions that exist in our culture. This can be expressed through the black box model.

Black_box ethicalNormally such a model would be simplistic; in this particularly creepy situation, it’s exactly what happened. Interested parties tried to morph GamerGate into a feminist passion play and they succeeded with flying colors. Mainstream media sources reporting on the GamerGate simply saw this as some kind of woman-hating campaign organized by sexist nerds.

In truth, some of the nerds definitely are sexist. There are a lot of immature, hateful assholes online. This is a basic truth about the internet held by people between the ages of twelve and fifty. But the professional victims, who happen to be internet celebrities — you know, celebrities who have this status due to being internet savvy — are apparently astonished by this fact over and over again. Their reactions to the revelation that internet is an outlet for jerks is reminiscent of a child discovering that Santa Claus isn’t real. And with each successive anonymous harassing, this amazement is just as fresh as the first time. Never do these savvy veterans react like savvy veterans, they are perennially naive. This doesn’t mean they are bad people. There are just incentives, ideological and financial, to remain a clueless victim.

It should be noted that receiving harassment and threats doesn’t change the truth value of what someone says. Threats are a dime a dozen in this age of spectacular interconnectedness. Death threats were made against the people who fucking took Ellen DeGeneres’ hairdresser’s dog away. It’s horrible, it’s immature, and it’s unacceptable; but receiving a threat doesn’t automatically make you right and does not make anyone who disagrees with you an unreasonable bigot.

The victim narrative, here and elsewhere, is really peculiar. We have a handful of women who get harassing messages on the internet. One of them literally gets paid an annual salary of $36,000 for being a victim. Another got a lump sum of $160,000. These ambitious victims have a narrative that is supported by:

It’s a perfectly Orwellian contradiction. This is a group so oppressed that if you even tangentially offend their ideological sensibilities they will bully you into silence with the full weight of dominant cultural institutions behind them. Indeed, this intellectual bullying occurs in service to a heroic effort to resist the oppressive dominant culture. But the manifestations of these oppressive structures are strangely absent from this controversy. The patriarchy did not save GamerGate from being consigned to the trash heap of history.

Should this site be smeared so that we become bona fide victims, The Mitrailleuse has a patreon. I guess it’s going to be hard to cash in unless we have a hip, culturally dominant narrative that aims to end the oppression of the culturally dominant narratives.

Advertisements

75 comments

  1. this is refreshing, sadly you cannot fight the manipulation of facts with facts. it’s like trying to cure an schizophrenic by presenting evidence of the falsehood of his hallucinations.

    Like

  2. Excellent article and so many great points. Yes I have noticed that the only victim of legitimate harassment in this whole mess was a man. Phil Fish who deleted his twitter account and never said another word. If you know Phil you know he can’t shut up. He is friends and business partners with all these people and with him sequestering himself all the victims are women.No one talks about him and Zoe recently only referred to him as a friend of hers who lost everything. No gender mentioned since that would take the limelight off the girls.

    I worked in Education for 10 years and all I ever saw from 95% of all the teachers was this Marxist dogma. It is part of the system and every child is being ingrained with it. The horizon is not as pleasant as it use to be.

    Also recently a group of them all got together at a conference to discuss their business future. What I did notice is almost 100% of the attendees were white, upper class privileged people…which I find funny since that’s what they accuse all their detractors of being. I guess they never learned to check their privilege.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. This isn’t left versus right. This is authoritarianism versus libertarianism. I’m left-libertarian, and so is the vast majority of the consumer swell driving GamerGate into the non-existent hearts of the authoritarian media. We despise cultural Marxism just as much as you righties do. We just don’t happen to agree on some social and economic fronts.

        Like

    1. Yeah, there was a reason Fish sold out and quit. What you might not have known was that someone found out about his little payouts to the judges of the Indie game award that he won, because they invested in his company.

      Like

    2. Ah yes, Phil CHOKEONEIT Fish. (He did in fact say Choke on it) The man who also used his virtual platform to bully the Gamergate movement, including so called “E-Celebrities” like Total Biscuit, whom he called “A gross nerd” (quote is not word-for-word, but he used everyone of those words in the same context) as well as supposedly committing racketeering. Phil Fish may have lost everything, but he didn’t have too much in the first place, considering his cancelling of Fez 2 and other games that no one would ever play, as he has had his 10 minutes of fame and knows it.

      Like

  3. hey guys i am telling you this article here could help make the wikientery less bias
    thoug so far noone has used it: (posted it today in twitter and forum)

    Here is a link to an french site:http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2014/09/17/christina-hoff-sommers-figure-de-proue-feminine-du-gamergate_4488856_4408996.html

    i will translate it here (though my french is not the best i am german)
    could someone edit them into wikipedia, because as you see my english is horrible (also check if it is reputable but it should be, at least it is as repiutable as kotaku for sure)

    translation

    Title:
    Christina Hoff Sommers, a Figurehead for gamersgate

    Because violent videogames do not make you violent, why should then sexist videos make you sexist?
    This is in essence the substance of the message of the video which was posted,on thurstday 16 septembre, by christina hoff sommer, feministic figurehead of the movement gamergate, an important campange that has a lot of different people with diffrent backgrounds and also a lot different goals – there are also some antifeministic activists.

    [Video embed]

    emphasised the author of The War Against Boys et Who Stole Feminism? (Translation of the titles)

    In the same manner she said without the mentioning of a certain study.

    In plain polemic she sais over the sexism in a video game, and denounces virulently a “new army of critics, gender activists, hipsters with a diploma in cultural science”, who say that videogames propagate a

    NEW TITEL The of Gamergate
    The video of this american youtuber did produce a big wave. (strongly paraphrased)
    Many users commented that they do not know if video games sexist, but that they know from experience that they propagate a negative picture of women, that is already acceptent without people knowing it.

    [A name of some book you can read on that topic]

    Outside of the US Sommer is not well known, until this summer, that Christina Sommers is an important figure …. (Someone else needs to translate this part its too hard for me though it is not too important)…
    She herself says of her that she is a “factual” liberal feminist, not “aggresive”.

    “men like games with manly heros and sexy women. Could it be … because they are men?” ironisized for example christina hoff sommers, now feministic gamer, that supports Gamersgate.

    Christina Hoff Sommers is part of the aboratoire d’idées néoconversateur American Enterprise Institute (AEI), part of the bush administration, and that is watched 150000 times… (unimportant)

    [Grey Box at the bottom]
    Cites the wikileaks comment about gamersgate

    Like

  4. Guys i am telling you this aritcle could help make teh wikipedia article less bias but i think noone used it in the linking so far (i posted it yesterday in some forums)
    feel free to use it i will not

    Here is a link to an french site:http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2014/09/17/christina-hoff-sommers-figure-de-proue-feminine-du-gamergate_4488856_4408996.html

    i will translate it here (though my french is not the best i am german)
    could someone edit them into wikipedia, because as you see my english is horrible (also check if it is reputable but it should be, at least it is as repiutable as kotaku for sure)

    translation

    Title:
    Christina Hoff Sommers, a Figurehead for gamersgate

    Because violent videogames do not make you violent, why should then sexist videos make you sexist?
    This is in essence the substance of the message of the video which was posted,on thurstday 16 septembre, by christina hoff sommer, feministic figurehead of the movement gamergate, an important campange that has a lot of different people with diffrent backgrounds and also a lot different goals – there are also some antifeministic activists.

    [Video embed]

    emphasised the author of The War Against Boys et Who Stole Feminism? (Translation of the titles)

    In the same manner she said without the mentioning of a certain study.

    In plain polemic she sais over the sexism in a video game, and denounces virulently a “new army of critics, gender activists, hipsters with a diploma in cultural science”, who say that videogames propagate a

    NEW TITEL The of Gamergate
    The video of this american youtuber did produce a big wave. (strongly paraphrased)
    Many users commented that they do not know if video games sexist, but that they know from experience that they propagate a negative picture of women, that is already acceptent without people knowing it.

    [A name of some book you can read on that topic]

    Outside of the US Sommer is not well known, until this summer, that Christina Sommers is an important figure …. (Someone else needs to translate this part its too hard for me though it is not too important)…
    She herself says of her that she is a “factual” liberal feminist, not “aggresive”.

    “men like games with manly heros and sexy women. Could it be … because they are men?” ironisized for example christina hoff sommers, now feministic gamer, that supports Gamersgate.

    Christina Hoff Sommers is part of the aboratoire d’idées néoconversateur American Enterprise Institute (AEI), part of the bush administration, and that is watched 150000 times… (unimportant)

    [Grey Box at the bottom]
    Cites the wikileaks comment about gamersgate

    Like

  5. Absolutely correct. You’ve hit on a lot of points that I think both sides have not grasped or have not realized yet. And a very good breakdown of the elements of Cultural Marxism that tie into this.

    Like

  6. If everyone approached our world with thus level of analyze ti on we would not have gamergate, Ferguson, climate change, isis, Ebola epidemic, mass instability in south America and Africa, middle east holy wars, systemic economic failures. And we might be on Mars by now.

    Like

  7. A very well-written article, makes understanding a lot of the underpinning philosophy easier for many to understand. I think however, that you might have missed the far greater danger that these idealogues wanted to accomplish. They were not interested in just changing videogame journalism. They wanted to change *videogames themselves*. From a 2014 DiGRA conference analysis- http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

    “So yeah. Over on The Twitters we (as in yours truly, +Ian Miles Cheong, +Brendan Keogh, +Rowan Kaiser, +Mattie Brice and +Annie Dennisdóttir Wright) started discussing our various attempts to undermine the heteronormative hegemony. And now we continue it where we don’t have wordcaps.”

    So, one of this group’s primary goals is to *undermine* our ‘hegemony’ in making videogames. This actually is why they went after the indie scene first. It was easier to ‘infect’.

    “Adrienne: Why do we see such tension between academics and game designers? less of an issue with indies, but there are always some people in industry that have similar questions until industrial logic takes over later and how can we better intervene in industrial logics to disturb that process. How can academics bridge the gap to the industry audience to help them do different work? How can we disrupt the capitalist norms that facilitate this?”

    So, they wanted to disturb the capitalist system in order to make it easier to facilitate their undermining. Not ethical in the least. Also remember that their biggest excuse was ‘But we only want more ‘diversity’ in games! (Whine, whine)

    “Aaron: Peer review and publishing models. The corruption of the peer review system is problematic. The reliance of peer review to get tenure and a job impacts us and slows us down.”

    Elsewhere in this analysis, the point is made even clearer, they also want to undermine the very Peer Review process that they used to get where they are. Very Unethical.

    Here also, is an entire conference for anyone to peruse who is fluent in Academese-

    http://pastebin.com/X46rkJJu

    Again, please understand that this had more to do with changing the nature of videogames than it had to do with corrupt games journalism.

    Like

  8. I have no idea how this article differs from combining some of the well-made, reasonable points found on the Internet (e.g. the paragraph about the sexual revolution, a criticism of modern women’s advocacy _in general_) mixed with something that’s seemingly grounding the actual argument in a viewpoint about Marxism which I’ve never heard before except from the keyboards of wingnuts. And to be sure, in Northern Europe the expression of “Cultural Marxism” is only spoken by people ranging from both members and higher-ups of various EDL-esque radical right-wing parties to Anders Behring Breivik, an internationally noted mass murderer with explicit politically fascist ideological goals.

    Nothing here seems to back the strong implication that ties strawmanning and accusations of hating all women (again a common criticism of the women’s movement in general) to some nebulous upsurge of “Cultural Marxism”. The article doesn’t even cite the man, for heck’s sake! Surely a spot of research would’ve made this credible as more than a minimum-effort rehashing with a spot of Conservapedia in it.

    Like

    1. Nice, I am being accused of being fascist/conservapedia-tier already. Keep up the good workd literally executing the anti-intellectual and anti-rational tactics I outlined in the article you’re responding to.

      Like

  9. They are becoming prudes no different than what is name accusing gta of causing violence. The notion of videogames “causing sexism” is just as preposterous. Wanting developers to self censure isn’t much different than imagining a “christian bigot” culture wanting games to be inclusive of christian themes. They are undermining themselves with their own hands, the edgy kids are embracing racism, sexism (for shock value humor) from the maladroits that held these views; offending these prudes with games with over the top macho themes will be unresistable, just like kids loved to play mortal kombat or doom back in the day even just for shocking adults. The sjws are getting older, they don’t inspire much admiration as it is, offending them will become more and more tempting as time goes on. They can bully and censor as much as they want, but they are way too tempting a target for ridicule; for their mannerisms, looks, and easily offended attitude. Well this is my prediction at least

    Like

  10. Hey, you pencil-dicked jackoff of a worthless author. There’s still humanists out there. Debate me, one on one on this issue.

    I know you can type a lot, and really fast? I can type way faster than you. I’m smarter than you, and until I feel ‘comfortable’ about you, I won’t demonstrate my abilities.

    Instead, send me an e-mail. Tell me why I’m worthless for taunting you. If you don’t send me an e-mail, then toss this comment in with the other bunch. (btw I know the opening sentence doesn’t make grammatical sense)

    The truth is, this is not the norm. This will never be the percievable norm, your view of the ‘model’ of intellectual bullying. You don’t know enough. You are posting this to CREATE out of nothing, but your key fallacy is there was something already there.

    Like

  11. Re: the compilation image – these academics are incredibly out of touch with reality. Gamers are nerds, generally. They were bullied, rejected, shamed and ostracized all their life. The Narrative was shoved down their throats every day at school, college, the workplace and all media. Except it didn’t fit the gamers lived experience. Nothing was fair or equal or PC in reality. They sought refuge in games, and until GamerGate they had (for the most part) an exclusive cultural enclave. As always, this just cannot be tolerated by the Cathedral – Cthulu always swims left and all that.

    Like

  12. Excellent analysis of the situation.

    #GamerGate is important not because of some promiscuous girl or dishonest video game journalist. It is important because it shows the perverse nature of ideologues who are found in more important domains like academia, politics and media.

    Like

  13. Hey Robert,

    Aren’t you kind of doing the same thing you accuse anti-GamerGate folks of, here? I mean, specifically when you get into the stuff about Zoe Quinn’s Patreon and Tropes vs Women in Gaming’s Kickstarter. I’m certain coverage of their harassment and so on netted them more money than they would have otherwise gotten (both from the additional attention towards their fundraising and from people pitching in to ‘fight against the jerks harassing you’, or whatever), but saying they got/get paid for being victims? C’mon. Zoe makes games (among other things, according to her Patreon). Anita Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter was for a video series on a topic some people have a genuine interest in. Describing them as professional victims just seems to be the same sort of narrative spinning you’re opposing.

    This is what turns me off from what GamerGate folks have to say. I see a lot of people saying that they’re interested in journalistic integrity and so on, but so much of it seems to end up looking like anti-Liberal/Feminist stuff in disguise. You say Zoe doesn’t have much to do with the overall thing, yet you end up specifically calling out her income. It really seems like many GamerGate supporters are saying they’re interested in one thing, but spend their time talking about something else entirely.

    (To be clear, I’m not trying to suggest you’re secretly sexist or whatever, just that it feels like you’re dressing up opposition to Feminist viewpoints as opposition to intellectual dishonesty, which itself seems dishonest.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. James,

      I think there is certainly an element of anti-liberalism and anti-feminism among #gamergate supporters, but of course that is not the full spectrum. The same can be said of those in opposition; it ranges from the well-intended to the militant and highly authoritarian. Even so, some of these ideas (third wave feminism, for example) are worthy of criticism in this context as they do demonstrate the characteristics identified by Robert.

      What I’m saying is, try and take the arguments on merit, without looking at an agenda, because you’ll surely find what you’re looking for.

      Like

    2. What would be dishonest is ignoring the incentives of this type of victimhood. I am not even saying that they are bad people, or only feminists would be vulnerable to these types of incentives. Pretty much everyone would cultivate a victim image to receive money and ideological clout. I am saying that our current cultural dogma allows for certain types of narratives to lead to this kind of farce.

      Like

  14. Anita clearly doesn’t know her stuff and this bolsters the argument that she is a victim. It’s superificial waffling that relies on bullshit narratives.

    Like

  15. GamerGate is no earnest call for journalistic ethics in gaming! I’ve seen what that looks like, with the Doritos pope scandal of 2012, and it wasn’t like this. There was actual discussion of the real problems in game journalism. GamerGate is just a lot of incoherent, vague complaining about “problems” that range from minor to nonexistent, and that’s when it’s not cover for a coordinated harassment campaign. There are plenty of people with serious concerns about ethics, and they don’t associated themselves with GamerGate, for good reason.

    It’s not fair to say that Quinn’s Patreon revenue exists because she’s a victim. And it’s a non-sequitir to say that Sarkeesian cannot experience oppression because lots of people backed her Kickstarter.

    The compilation image is pretty typical of the bullshit conspiracy theories put forth by GamerGaters, trying to portray perfectly normal business and personal relationships as some kind of underhanded secret.

    Like

    1. You think Quinn is getting over 36,000 dollars a year because she made some hyperlink game?

      And some people in gamergate are almost certainly sexist harassers. This doesn’t mean that gamergate is some effort to harass specific women for no apparent reason.

      Like

    2. Strangely, many places have updated their ethics policies due to GamerGate. There have been FCC clarifications, and quite a bit of money donated to a FEMINIST charity, among others.

      How is it that “conspiracy theories” are able to find so much collusion and corruption, but those against GamerGate manage only to talk about harassment on the internet. Something, which honestly, gamers do not have the secret magic solution for.

      Like

  16. Holy crap. It’s like you’ve been reading my thoughts. >_< Well, it's good to know that someone talented can communicate these sorts of things if not me. Just not where I landed career wise! But FANTASTIC article. And THANK YOU for pointing out Wikipedia's despicable bias. 🙂

    Like

  17. The GamerGate part seems accurate enough, but there are so many errors when describing Marxism and Cultural Marxism. According to you by this logic Darwin was the one who started Social Darwinism. Even though it was a nice read for me, maybe you should read more about the topic of “marxism” and “positivism,” if possible get a book written by a foreign author (not English or American).

    Like

  18. It is interesting how far you go to try to remove your statements from 4chan.org/pol. Intellectual bullying might just be mixed up with criticism in your mind. To which I say, fucking lol, intellectual organizations don’t give a shit about subreddit drama.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. I find it funny that you talk of feminists and sexists as if they were separated entities. Objectively speaking, feminists ARE sexists. The only difference would be in what a feminist (cultural marxist) herself understands as sexism, which most often than not, is just a person not yet brainwashed by their cult (which conflicts with every other feminist cult).

    Cultural marxists seem to use the same words than the rest of people, but they have vastly different meanings, most often orwellian ones. For example, good = evil, evil = good, peace = submission, equality = privilege, public = oligarchy, quality = trash, and tolerance = zealotry. Every marxist country in the world is the worst form of dictatorship, and USA hasn’t really suffered one yet, but their billionaries have been pushing for a marxist agenda since 1978, specifically the technology industry. They want to corrupt the population.

    The entire Web 2.0 scam is about tricking tons of gullible people to work for free to make the owners of the websites millionaries and important (facebook, wikipedia, digg). Please note that in cultural marxism, liberal = gullible people = useful idiot.

    Like

  20. Lots of ridiculous posturing in the comments. If you cant just make your point, then why would anyone bother? What the hell is so hard about just posting a rebuttal?

    Nope, it’s just BS from here on. :

    Like

  21. This is a very long winded essay demonstrating how the author doesn’t actually understand Marxism. Considering how little read Marx is, it is admittedly very easy for him to get away with publishing such nonsense as serious intellectual thoughts. Cultural Marxism is a made up term by right wingers who understand Marx precisely backwards. Hint: Marxists see culture as primarily a product of the economic setup. You wanna change culture, you gotta change the economy, because culture will always drift back to the economic base that generates it. Which the Frankfurt School well understood, as they were analyzing mass culture as the product of and interaction with capitalism, not creating a meme virus.

    But I shouldn’t be surprised, as one of the defining features of conservatism is its inability to comprehend the political agency of the masses, instead only able to conceive of threats to the Ancien Régime as a conspiracy of intellectuals. It sees in its opponents a distorted reflection of itself, just more elites. Fixating on the Jacobins was no help to the French aristocracy, as it missed the real driving force out in the open – the people themselves. It’s a trait birthed in conservatism’s founding moment. Fortunately such pigheadedly wrong analysis has meant the inexorable expansion of political franchise to wider and wider society.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I was specifically talking about increased political participation through more voting rights, but it’s a bit rich to be throwing around “true believer ideologue” when you are laying out the conspiracy theory of “Cultural Marxism”.

        Like

      2. Cultural Marxism is generally known to be real. Trying to paint generally accepted information like that as a conspiracy theory is intellectual bullying. Keep up the good work m8

        Like

    1. Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxism, you are hardly the first person to notice this. It has infested all left-wing movements which is why you have morons ascribing all social ills to “patriarchy” even when the sexes who benefit and suffer are inverted completely from 40 years ago, and when capitalism has completely coopted and promotes womens rights. It is obvious how much of “feminism” is first world women trying to gain access to privilege while giving only lip service to FGM and other real problems. But mention it and get called a “brocialist.”

      “Conspiracy theory” my ass. Just because they don’t know shit about Marx doesn’t mean they can’t logically exist so they must not.

      Like

    2. Marxism is an invasive, parasitic ideology based upon subversion and theft, that has no respect for individualism, democracy and property rights.

      The Frankfurt School (Gramsci. Alinsky, et al) developed the Cultural Marxism strategy (“the long march through the institutions”) as a means to overtake the capitalism system from the inside out, the way a virus does to a host.

      “Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism’s opponents. Men will indeed “love their servitude,” and will not even realize that it is servitude.” -Antonio Gramsci

      Like

    1. @Sulman – actually its the original approach. the first rule of cultural marxism is there is no cultural marxism. the second rule is that the failures of marxism are really failures of implementation (e.g., the soviet union), and that when “the people” truly become “educated” (brainwashed via cultural marxism) then “true marxism” will happen.

      Like

  22. Excellent post, and excellent analysis.

    I’m always a little jealous of people like you, who delve deep into these ideologies and learn what makes them tick well enough to explain them to others.

    Maybe I could do it also, but I always feel like I’d go insane. There’s only so much bullshit I can read before putting it down and distracting myself with something more consequential…like staring at the wall and rubbing the roof of my mouth with my tongue.

    Like

  23. The author outlines an excellent theory and argument on intellectual bullying and then – as if on cue – several commenters chime in to provide uncanny examples.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pingback: Spillpikene.no
  25. Hi, I agree that the anti-GamerGate folks are definitely under the baleful sway of postmodernism. But it is either a smear against or a misreading of Marx and Engels to present “Cultural Marxism” as an application of orthodox Marxist methodology.

    The methodology of Marx and Engels is referred to as Dialectical Materialism. In short, they extracted from Hegel the dialectical method and ditched the idealism that was inherent in Hegel’s philosophical outlook. What this means, briefly, is simply that they concluded that the physical world is not a product of the mind, but the other way around.

    The postmodernists, influenced by revisionist trends in Marxist theory, primarily from the Frankfurt School, are thoroughly idealistic. Feminisim exists to fight cultural oppression. Cultural oppression is totally abstract; it exists prior to the existing material conditions within the world. This is a rejection of orthodox Marxism.

    Also, I take issue with this comment: “After the obvious failure of the Soviet Marxist-Leninists to bring about a desirable society,”

    It is glib and exhibits the same kind of idealism found within postmodernist arguments. With this statement, you ignore the historical context within which the Soviet Union was created and how that context shaped its outcome; instead, you settle on a completely idealistic formulation: the failure of the Soviet Union was the failure of a specific ideology.

    While the rest of your article is well-written and well argued, I wanted to point out these issues that caught my attention.

    Best,
    Adam

    Like

Sound off

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s