Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • eacaraxe 2:40 am on September 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ACLU, , , , Jewish, Nazis   

    Bob Chipman (@the_moviebob) and free speech 

    I saw this series of tweets, which I’ll block quote, and had to say something (emphasis mine).

    Picking your battles is tremendously important. “Free Speech” is devalued as something to fight for when too many people claim it. [sic] when they’re really just “fighting” to abuse people without consequence. That’s dangerous. As a result, there’s a perception that “the left” doesn’t fight for speech, when the reality is that it DID – and largely won. Speech, particularly in the U.S., is freer today than its ever been. And that’s the “problem” – when everyone can speak, no one voice can shout all others down. And the people who used to have that power call any pushback “oppression.”

    Bob, let me tell you a little story.

    In 1977, the leader of the National Socialist Party of America announced plans to march through the town (well, suburb) of Skokie, Illinois. Skokie, at the time, was a majority Jewish community (approximately 40,000 of the town’s population of 70,000 were Jews), and one out of every six residents in the town were Holocaust survivors. As you can imagine, such an announcement was just a little controversial.

    So, the town sprung into action, decreeing the NSPA post $350,000 liability insurance (a purely punitive amount) before obtaining a permit, and banning the exhibition of Nazi imagery, with the argument free speech protections were outweighed by potential violence and danger to life and health. All of which to stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie.

    The Nazis appealed. It actually went straight up to the Supreme Court, who eventually ruled in their favor, allowing the Nazis to march in Skokie and overturning punitive action by the municipal government. In the end, only about twenty Nazis actually showed up, loitered by ten minutes surrounded by counter-protesters, and left. As a movie buff, you should know the story well:

    But, the outcome isn’t the interesting part of this story. It’s how we got to the outcome that’s the interesting part. See, the American Civil Liberties Union — an organization of which I was a proud member for six years, until withdrawing my support in 2009 — took the case. And, they took the case at the urging of an attorney by the name of Burton Joseph. Burton Joseph was Jewish, and he came from a Jewish firm (Joseph, Lichtenstein and Levinson). So was the national director of the ACLU at the time, Aryeh Neier, who was actually born in Nazi Germany.

    The ACLU was in for a hell of a fight even before Joseph set foot in the courtroom. The ACLU drew heavy criticism from the Jewish community, in Skokie and without, up to and including the Anti-Defamation League. Even the ACLU’s own members protested; the ACLU lost membership and funding over Skokie. Yet, it persisted — and prevailed, in defending the right of one of the most-hated political organizations in global history to exercise its right to assemble and speak freely.

    The Skokie case is now regarded as the ACLU’s finest hour, and perhaps the greatest victory for the First Amendment in the 20th Century. Skokie was when “the left” fought for free speech and won, when it was as you put it, “fighting to abuse people without consequence”. And, in the wake of the Skokie case, the Holocaust Memorial Foundation was formed, and the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center built. As it turned out, twenty morons in jackboots posed no palpable threat whatsoever to Skokie or its residents, nor was it cause to put on jackboots of their own in response.

    I wonder if Skokie would have turned out differently today. You, Bob, definitely seem to be of the opinion here Skokie should have turned out differently.

    No, Bob, “one voice [shouting] the others down” is not the “problem” with free speech. The “problem” with free speech is when majorities shout down unpopular voices, informally (the “heckler’s veto”) or formally (legislation, executive action, or jurisprudence). It is when majorities dehumanize the speakers of unpopular voices for simply speaking. It is when majorities inflict harm, physical or emotional, real or perceived, on those speakers. It is when majorities silence by way of fear. That is oppression.

    And yes, that applies to everyone, period. Of course, free speech is neither guarantee of audience, license to speak unopposed, immunity from criticism, or consequence for engaging in particularly stupid, meaningless, or false speech. It as much my right to call you an asshole as it is your right to say or do something assholish. That’s something you damn well know, since out the other side of your mouth you use that very argument in defense of cultural criticism and cultural critics in gaming.

    That is something I damn well know, considering in 2003 I was put in cages and surrounded by armed law enforcement for speaking my mind that invading Iraq may not have been the best idea — entirely legally. I also was called a traitor, appeaser, inhuman, and worse, receiving death threats myself, online and in person. And, at times I did genuinely fear for my life and safety.

    I wasn’t at Zucotti Park, or Pioneer Courthouse Square, in 2011. Nor was I at Ferguson last year.

    So, “freer today than it’s ever been”? Fuck you, asshole.

    Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize it is never the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship.

    • Aryeh Neier


  • eacaraxe 1:15 am on September 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply  

    John Scalzi (@scalzi) and #masculinitysofragile 

    Something about these two tweets made by science-fiction writer and self-avowed feminist John Scalzi really stuck in my craw:

    Stuck enough that here I am, twenty-four hours after the fact, taking to WordPress. According to Mr. Scalzi, if I’m reading this correctly (and it’s not hard to unpack, being two tweets), if men are secure in their masculinity, they have nothing to say about the hashtag as it does not affect them, and therefore remain silent (and if they don’t, they’re apparently <insert straw man here, in this case “dudebro”>). In other words, exercise stoicism and a general lack of emotion in the face of criticism. Personally, I would say “adhere strictly to their pre-defined gender role as men”.

    That, Mr. Scalzi, is the very definition of toxic masculinity. Especially taken into account Scalzi’s accompanying antics on social media, and this quote from that very linked page:

    …And because they challenge the status-quo, they must be forced back into compliance, whether through mockery and derision or through outright violence….

    Something in which Scalzi participates not merely casually, but gleefully. It is very possible (and likely true) Scalzi is attempting to make a point that systems of oppression affect men as well as women, and that men need to realize how systemic oppression affects them negatively and break themselves out of it, first and foremost by redefining manhood and masculinity.

    The problem is antics like this hashtag reinforce toxic masculinity; they don’t challenge men to overcome it. As do individuals like Scalzi, for mocking and deriding critics who would speak out in response. And, they do so by perpetuating a culture of fear and silence in regards to gender issues that negatively impact men, through the very highlighted erasure, mockery, derision, and victim-blaming.

    Somewhere between 45-47% (napkin math, here) of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence victims are men (pages 17-27). That’s self-reported. In the last year; the CDC can’t even get lifetime estimates, due to insufficient reporting. The United States is hardly alone in this phenomenon, nor is the CDC alone in reporting it.

    It’s Women’s and Gender Studies 101 to know what happens to abuse and violence reporting in the presence of a climate of fear and silence perpetuated by erasure, mockery, and victim-blaming. This is where Scalzi, the hashtag itself and those participating unironically in it, prove wantonly reckless at best; at the end of the day, reinforcing a gender role is still reinforcing a gender role, regardless of ostensible purpose.

    “But it’s not me,” I’m sure at this point Scalzi or a surrogate would say, “it’s the patriarchy! I’m just the messenger…” I’ve been in this conversation far too many times with individuals like Scalzi, and I’ll just jump straight to the endgame. Have a quote by Audre Lorde,

    … the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

    I’m sure everyone reading that will recognize it, as it’s become the unofficial screed of radical social justice “advocates” across the first world. Of course, that’s where it ends as Lorde is understood and used within social justice circles as well as they do Foucault; which is to say, about as well as Marx used Hegel, the Nazis used Nietzsche, or the Tea Party uses Paine.

    How, one might ask. Let’s take a look at the full context of that oft-cited quote (emphasis mine).

    [Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society’s definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference — those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older] — know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.

    Oh, a note about that bit in brackets. When Lorde wrote this, she was calling out the classism, eurocentrism, racism, and homophobia of second-wave feminism. Sound familiar? Far be it for me to say were we to roll copper wire around Lorde’s grave, we could power the eastern seaboard indefinitely solely off her words’ misappropriation by the contemporary social justice movement…but fuck it, I’ll say it anyway. Nor am I done.

    What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that only the most narrow parameters of change are possible and allowable.

    Frankly, that speaks for itself. Being “just the messenger” is sufficient in and of itself to be, paradoxically, an agent of the selfsame oppression. Let alone when the message is carried as loutishly as has been of recent years, evidenced by none other than this very hashtag. End of story.

    Crap like this hashtag and Scalzi’s words are reductive, incendiary nonsense that puts the very men that are being “helped” at greater risk in the long run. It’s not about genuine change, least of all gender equality; it’s about scoring political points, getting one over on “the other team”, as Lorde would put it “temporarily beat[ing the master] at his own game”. At worst, it’s about kicking the “old” master out and moving in to take his place.

    Personally, I’m reminded of an oft-misquoted excerpt from a famous Peter Arnett article about the shelling of Ben Tre city during the Vietnam war: “we had to destroy the town to save it”. Make of that what you will, and I urge the reader to look for themselves the historical context of that quote in the process.

  • eacaraxe 11:31 pm on September 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply  

    How I would destroy #gamergate, revisited 

    Just replace “shill” with “ethics cuck” and it’s still relevant. Even moreso.

    Moving forward, ask yourself this, “whose interests does it serve for Gamergate to eat itself?”.

    Third-party trolls. Game journalists looking for attention anywhere but on their own maleficence. The “social critics” in gaming. SJW devs, indie and triple-A. The SJW cults of personality that have arisen around them. Attention-whoring e-celebs and wannabe e-celebs. Morons looking to co-opt Gamergate to serve their own political or personal agendas, left or right.

    Now, ask yourself this, “does it serve Gamergate’s — and that of the people involved in it — interests for Gamergate to eat itself?”

    Abso-fucking-lutely not.

    Here’s the fucking truth of the matter. Individuals who claim to pursue a social justice-related agenda have infested games journalism and development. These individuals are anything but interested in social justice; they’re out for money, influence, and the power that stems from both. And, exactly as you would expect, they are deeply unethical in their pursuit of money, influence, and the power that stems from both. And worst of all, they exploit people with a good-faith interest in social justice and equality to achieve their goals.

    It’s about “social justice” (and I use those parentheses intentionally) and it’s about the lack of ethics in game journalism, because one does not and cannot go without the other. This is beyond argument at this point, and anyone who would claim it is merely one or the other is either (probably, willfully) ignorant or lying. Worse, they’re third-party trolls feeding from the ongoing drama; or worst, they’re aGG working as false flags or agents provocateur.

    Divisiveness, drama, and e-celeb bullshit in no what whatsoever serves Gamergate’s best interests, nor that of the people involved in it in good faith. It serves the interests of people who would exploit it for personal gain, or see it destroyed for personal gain.

    Stop serving the interests of others. Serve your own. Tell the drama whores, trolls, and idiots where they can stick it.

  • eacaraxe 5:33 pm on September 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

    MGSV, “Blood Runs Deep”, and ludo/metanarrative 

    Warning, spoilers ahead. Obviously.

    Out of all the missions in MGSV, “Blood Runs Deep” is easily one of those complained about the most due to its extreme annoyance factor. Now, this is in a game that has also been criticized over certain missions being too easy, being able to be completed with an S-rank in less than ten minutes (eight of those being traveling), like for example “Lingua Franca”. So, after playing through it myself, I felt it deserved a deeper analysis given the game’s and series’ focus on metanarrative.

    “Blood Runs Deep” is an escort mission. That involves children…who happen to be child soldiers. Child soldiers who, apparently, lack the capacity to hide very well nor defend themselves. Who tend to not listen to Snake’s orders to “go” or “wait”, which is an unexpected gameplay mechanic. Who have to be escorted through the easily the most restrictive and linear environment in the game. One of the child soldiers is crippled with a leg injury, which forces Snake to carry him, which means only pistols and SMG’s are usable…unless the player chooses to drop the child, move forward, and then backtrack to retrieve him. The mission has a soft time limit, as the PF soldiers invariably realize the children are missing and step up to combat alert, reinforce, and begin searching the aforementioned restrictive and linear environment. There’s also a gunship constantly flying overhead on a tight search pattern. Neither guards nor gunship can be evaded (in a stealth game). And of course, none of the children can die or be left behind.

    This is all after the lengthiest and tensest infiltration scenario in the game to that point, setting aside “Hellbound” due to the latter’s length being found in the benign and risk-free travel time between the power plant and base camp.

    In any other circumstance, that’s a laundry list of how to not design a game scenario, in or out of an open-world game. Every last aspect of that mission’s finale is, superficially, poor game design about which practically the entire gamer community complains and has complained for years, which even the most amateurish studios avoid like the plague sparing mitigating mechanics. Kojima Productions was better than this, so clearly this mission had to have some intent behind it to ratchet the player’s tension and frustration levels to the maximum.

    And, I believe the answer lies in the gaming community’s own natural solution to the problems that plague the mission: kill ’em all. Shoot down the gunship, and it can’t spot you or gun Snake or the children down. Kill the guards, and they can’t be woken up by the reinforcements (of course, neither can they be fultoned, but due to the mission’s design the player is left precious little time to fulton). There’s little point to stealth or evasion, because the PF forces end up in combat alert anyways; and, the more careful style stealth and evasion warrants (especially in the cramped quarters of the ravine) runs the player against the soft time limit.

    This, in a game series where lethal and overt play is de-emphasized, and almost continually penalized (either through immediate consequences during the course of gameplay, or in the longer-term by affecting mission score), where genuine action scenes are rare moments of catharsis generally doled out upon major plot advancements. The ravine escort during this mission is neither cathartic nor following a major plot advancement; quite the opposite, the ravine escort escalates tension, and follows a scene which raises questions and plot points but resolves none.

    Cutscenes from this mission were portrayed in trailers as a defining point in Snake’s descent into the madness and villainy of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake:

    The reality of this cutscene is vastly different than its portrayal in the trailers. What happens after is what matters; that ravine escort where the player is placed into a scenario intentionally designed to annoy and frustrate them, all but told to “kill ’em all”, and with practically zero negative consequences for doing so.

    Let alone the emotional impact of this scene as a reflection of reality:

    TL;DR: It’s some seriously fucked-up shit. Especially in the context of, in the game, predominantly white PF’s enslaving and trafficking African children for labor and soldiering. Then Kojima indirectly throws apartheid into the equation with one of the PF’s being South African in origin.

    Now, back to the original point. Many players seem to have expected some defining moment in one or more cutscenes to be the point Snake turns bad. That’s not what gamers received; gamers instead received a cutscene- and dialogue-light open-world game, in which Snake’s actions as not determined by the player (that is to say, in cutscenes) are, at worst, morally ambiguous. An open-world game in which the horrors of war are laid bare, for the player to perceive and do as they will on the basis of those perceptions…with only a “karma meter” that is both inscrutable and opaque, but changes gameplay not in the least, to reflect how those player’s choices reflect upon Snake (and in fact, is very likely only an hallucination on Snake’s part, indicating this is how Snake as an entity distinct from the player perceives himself).

    There is no single point Snake turns to evil. No single, defining moment (except perhaps the construction of a nuclear bomb in the optional, online, multiplayer FOB mode, which simply maximizes Snake’s “demon points”). Instead, Snake’s descent is a slippery slope of minor actions that build up over time; actions, which due to weapon and equipment upgrades over the course of the game combined with the capability to cripple enemy forces, become easier to commit and easier to justify in the player’s own mind as they progress (for in-universe reasons as well as metagame reasons; perhaps players may simply resort to more lethal and brutal tactics out of boredom, or lack of need of soldiers to fulton for Mother Base or the FOB).

    Simply put, Snake’s descent is entirely of the player’s own making. I’ve mentioned before how MGSV is a game that puts a mirror to the player’s face, and that assertion is the same here. Sandbox games are notorious for “video game cruelty potential“, and by linking Snake’s moral descent to ludonarrative rather than cutscene, Kojima makes a bold but undeniable claim players themselves (at least, in the absence of negative consequences) are inherently villainous.

  • eacaraxe 4:06 pm on September 14, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: elite theory, , , Marxism,   

    #Gamergate is a Marxist movement. 

    Hopefully this will be a short post, since the point is easily made, but who knows where this will lead. I’ve discussed left-right politics before here, but I think it’s time to make a more salient point about Gamergate’s politics and the implications it has on game journalism, social media, and the industry at large.

    A lot of ado about nothing has been made by anti-Gamergate individuals about how the movement is fundamentally right-wing. I’m going to set aside the blatant falsehood of these claims as already linked, and that words such as “conservative” and “reactionary” are as much dog whistles to the left as “states’ rights” and “welfare queen” are to the right (which is actually a key to anti-Gamergate’s rhetorical strategy against the movement, but I’ll leave that to you, the reader, to discover for yourself), to concentrate on why this myth perpetuates especially in a context this is a left-versus-left battle.

    I will not concentrate too much on Marxism itself, which is well-enough elucidated here, but rather a sociological evolution of Marxism, social conflict theory. In a nutshell, it’s Marxism applied not as economic theory but as social theory; social power rests in the hands of the bourgeois, who oppress the proletariat, and so forth. This is in contrast to elite theory which deserves special mention (see also, Robert Michels’ iron law of oligarchy).

    That Gamergate is a populist movement is obvious; even anti-Gamergate acknowledges this (as exemplified in this Tumblr post). But…who is affiliated, or at least sympathizes, with Gamergate? Well, gamers naturally, journalists “outside” the mainstream, popular YouTube critics, former triple-A devs, CEO’s of software companies that (in the big picture) dabble in game dev, and news outlets on “the fringe” of the mainstream.

    Who is opposed to Gamergate? Gawker Media (KotakuJezebel), Vox Media (PolygonThe Verge), UBM (Gamasutra), Conde Nast (Ars TechnicaThe New Yorker), affiliated writers and editors, (former) triple-A devs with heavy clout in the industry, and industry association executives. That’s not to mention affiliation via sympathetic works by traditional mass media.

    Who, in this particular case, is the bourgeois and who is the proletariat should be self-evident. This should be particularly evident in “mainstream” gaming journalism’s ongoing battle against YouTube critics and LP’ers, which really ought need no reference. I’ve said before and I’ll say again this is really about money, influence, and the power that stems from their acquisition, and social justice is a convenient excuse.

    [PS, I’m keeping a running tally on any game journalist or developer opposed to Gamergate who wants to seriously answer that question, even though such behavior persists. So far, that’s zero. And as always, if anyone wants to weigh in feel free.]

    This is why Gamergate is a fundamentally Marxist movement. On one hand there is an established bourgeois (game journalists) whose vested (financial) interest is in the maintenance of the status quo (oligopoly of gaming news), who uses their social power (the bully pulpit of industry access and media influence) to marginalize and silence an established proletariat (the consumer and new entries to games criticism via social media). And, in return, the proletariat seeks to overthrow the bourgeois and seize that social power for themselves (otherwise known as the democratization of information).

    And, if that isn’t persuasive enough, take a page from the anti-Gamergate playbook and consider for yourselves the predominant color (white), socioeconomic background (middle- to upper-class), and level of education (graduate or higher) of most anti-Gamergate individuals. They’re not merely bourgeois in the social microcosm of gaming and geekdom.

  • eacaraxe 11:53 pm on September 8, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Quiet but not Silent; MGSV and game journalist bullshit 

    I don’t think I actually need to link any articles to demonstrate the rather extreme criticism of Hideo Kojima, Kojima Productions, and Konami for the appearance of the character Quiet in Metal Gear Solid V. Instead, I’ll lead with what Kojima himself had to say on the matter:

    We all know Hideo Kojima is meta and modernist as fuck. The reason for Quiet’s exposure is hardly secret; the player is outright told in the game. The “secret” was out before the game’s retail release, due to leaks and street date-breaking. So, what is the “secret reason” for Quiet’s exposure? Well, unlike most game “critics” I did Kojima the favor of actually paying attention to the game, what goes on in it, and the social commentary being made.

    Let’s start with this:

    And, in this video, Joosten discusses the level of mocapping she did for the game (long story short, everything but the stunt work). So, the big question is “why?”. Well, “why?” beyond the realm of the technical. This video answers that quite succinctly, at least in my opinion:

    The central theme of the game is communication. More superficially, communication as expressed through spoken language, but lest we forget communication is also carried out (for the most part, even) nonverbally through expression and body language. So where does that leave a character who is effectively mute?

    One that communicates through nonverbally, that’s where (well, aside from her humming to indicate she has a target and is ready to open fire as a game mechanic conceit, that is). If the player actually watches Quiet rather than gawks at her lack of clothing, it becomes pretty damn clear pretty damn quick she’s easily the most communicative character in the game, especially contrasted against an entire cast of characters that talk at length but say little if anything (Ocelot, anyone?). The converse of that, of course, is that if the player gawks at Quiet’s lack of clothing rather than watches her, they’ve effectively silenced her as a character.

    I’d bet the farm that’s the “secret reason for her exposure”, as Kojima put it. To accept Quiet as a character means the player must first see beyond her (lack of) clothing, and to see nothing but her exposure is to negate her character entirely. Hell, Kojima dares the player to do it, for all the (superficially) gratuitous T&A Quiet brings to the screen. Without mentioning spoilers, it’s even something the character herself calls out in a subtly fourth wall-breaking scene later in the game.

    We know where critics of Kojima have placed themselves vis-a-vis Quiet. It’s bitter irony — and a rather blatant, but on Kojima’s part incredibly devious, display of hypocrisy — that in fixating on Quiet’s appearance, they’ve erased a very strong female character who is anything but silent.

  • eacaraxe 10:49 pm on September 8, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , transgender   

    Brianna Wu and Ellen McGrody are completely full of shit. 

    I was going to write a thing about Quiet in MGSV today and how the SocJus narrative ultimately annihilates itself in their condemnation of the character, then this came to my attention.

    Now, here’s the thing that struck me as funny about this article. Brianna Wu and Ellen McGrody seem to be awfully fixated on Samus Aran’s genitals, rather than gender expression and identity. As we see here, here, and here, that’s a pretty big social faux pas when it comes to trans people; but don’t take it from me, take it from Laverne Cox (again):

    In fact, to drive the point home, I’ll even quote Cox from the Kouric interview:

    “The preoccupation with transition and with surgery objectifies trans people. And then we don’t get to really deal with the real lived experiences. The reality of trans peoples’ lives is that so often we are targets of violence.”

    Moral of the story is, don’t objectify trans people, don’t fixate on their bodies (let alone their genitalia, and don’t misgender them. Which are the very three things Wu and McGrody in that very article.

    What matters is their identity and expression. That is the goalpost, isn’t it?

    Or, are we just making shit up as we go along to fit our ideology?

    This article debunks the linguistic foibles quite nicely, and brings up a very interesting point and unintentional conclusion to be drawn as I see it. Namely, the colloquial definition of “newhalf”, which seems to intone Samus is, if anything, male-identified and male-expressive even as she is female-bodied (that is, admittedly, up until Other M but we shall not discuss that game). So yes, there is an argument to be made Samus is trans — a trans man.

    But we can’t have that now, can we.

  • eacaraxe 11:47 pm on July 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , sex, sex positivity, SJW logic   

    That “S” Word 

    No, “sex”. Get your minds out of the gutter, pervs.

    That said…hi, I’m a Gamergate supporter. Since the sex thing came up again with a handful of aGGros repeating the big lie Gamergate is sex-negative, I felt obliged to say something as a Gamergate supporter.

    I freely and enthusiastically support the right, and choice, of women to engage in whatever sexual acts with, or in the presence of, however many informed, enthusiastically, and expressly consenting adults they wish.

    The end, PERIOD. Well, no, perhaps I shouldn’t say that.

    I freely and enthusiastically support women’s right and choice to all of the above, for the sake of their own pleasure, in a safe environment, and free from guilt and shame or societal repercussion.

    Like, for example, distorted-but-transparent attempts to guilt women into not doing the above, through claims of internalized misogyny, or accusations of pandering to the male gaze or to seek male attention, gender treason, or being complicit in The Patriarchy™. Or, attempts to shame women publicly as a result of aforementioned claims or accusations, or attempts to out-group women or otherwise exorcise them from communities.

    And, ALL of those things are what I see from aGGro, without failure, each and every time this discussion once again rears its ugly head. They think they’re doing it “for [Gamergate women’s] own good”? Good for them. So do the patriarchal boogeymen they’ve constructed, if their own words are to be read, heard, or understood on the basis of their own explicit context. And, from where I sit as someone who actually is sex-positive opposed to simply having appropriated sex-positive language to further a radical, sex-negative agenda, there’s not a lick of difference between the very real SJW’s and their boogeymen.

    At the end of the day, attempting to control women’s sexuality is still attempting to control women’s sexuality. No, the rationale or methods are irrelevant. Sex-shaming women is still sex-shaming women, and rationale or methods remain irrelevant.

  • eacaraxe 5:41 pm on July 7, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , mainstream media, racism, , social media   

    Why I hate SJW’s 

    So…those in social justice circles are celebrating, apropos of nothing, the removal of Confederate (battle) flags from Southern state houses and public grounds (that aren’t historical landmarks, anyhow)…after a three-week-long crusade that began with the Charleston church massacre (which was TOTALLY NOT TERRORISM because White America and the mainstream media says so).

    Good luck getting them to remember that part of it.

    Or the shooting of Michael Brown, the protests and riots that followed…

    Or the Walter Scott shooting, which hey! happened in the same state (hell, the same fucking incorporated metro area) as the Charleston shooting…

    Or Trayvon Martin…

    Or any of the other thousands of beatings, taserings, shootings, and other assorted acts of police overreach and brutality, or random violence by citizens, against black men and women that have occurred in this country in the last year alone…

    Or, hell, even the recent spate of black church burnings (two of which were confirmed to be arson, and three still under investigation with announcement forthcoming) in any context save to push their own topical agenda.

    Changing gears a bit, I thought of this today thanks to a cousin who made a Facebook post, talking about how the removal of Confederate flags would hopefully “lead to” a wider conversation about race and privilege in America. That “conversation” was already being had, and that conversation was completely derailed over this flag nonsense. And, yes, nonsense is exactly what it is.

    The Confederate (battle) flag is a symbol; it has precisely as much meaning as is attached to it by others. That symbol is unequivocally racism, indeed, but in the end it is a symbol. Removing symbols is, at best, addressing symptoms rather than causes, and in the short term likely to agitate and exacerbate those causes opposed to ease them; worst-case, those symbols take on entirely new meanings as speech expressed through the use of symbols is still speech, which means attempts to suppress those symbols are attempts to suppress speech (something to which Americans tend to not take kindly).

    By “causes” here I mean economic inequality, de facto segregation, resource accessibility (see, food deserts and utility access in urban areas), inequality in education, lack of equitable job access…the list really does go on. Unless we forget, those issues impact whites as well as (though, certainly not as badly as) blacks; the key factor in the implementation of Jim Crow and the Southern Strategy was deluding poor, uneducated whites in the South into blaming their own misfortunes (at the hands of white Southern bourgeoisie) on blacks, and encouraging them to take out their frustrations on blacks rather than those who actually deserved it.

    Which, out of all that I really do have to point out one of those key causes: economic inequality. You know, that tiny little matter that got Martin Luther King, Jr. finally shot after nearly a decade and a half of being the de facto leader of the civil rights movement of the ’60s? Not that anyone remembers that, either, funny enough.

    So…back to the point. Now we have a bunch of over-educated, overwhelmingly white, middle- to upper-middle-class morons bleating and yowling on social media about flags opposed to any underlying, meaningful cause of the ongoing problems with race in America, as prompted by liberal political and economic elite and the mainstream media. In the meantime, this:

    is quickly becoming a symbol for this:

    …and the worst part is, thanks to much of what has been said of the topic in the past few weeks combined with actions taken, it is not wrong. If I were someone paying the least bit of attention to what’s going on in this country, the very first thing I’d be asking is, “why is that?”.

    Anything to keep the outrage-industrial complex well-oiled and fed, right?

  • eacaraxe 5:47 pm on June 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , FullMcintosh, ,   

    Jonathan McIntosh is Still an Asshole 

    Adapted from this Twitlong, June 28, 2015:

    It all started with this:

    Etymology can be a funny thing sometimes…

    The etymology of “bozo” is largely unknown, but likely has its origins in the word “bozal” which is not just a Spanish creole that originated in the slave trade, but was used as a derogatory term for its speakers (and for African slaves). Just to drive the point home, “bozal” is the Spanish word for “muzzle”; which were very commonly used as torture devices on African slaves by their European-descended captors and owners.

    Verdict: RACIST AS FUCK.

    The word “yoyo” is derived from the Ilokano language of the Phillipines, and was exported to the West when Pedro Flores produced and marketed the traditional toy to the United States…from which its use as a derogatory term stemmed.


    The word “rapscallion” is a derivation and merger of two words: the archaic French “rascaille” and the Middle English word “rampallion”. Rascaille was a derogatory term used to refer to the poor, and rampallion was a derogatory term used to refer to “ill-behaved” women.


    The word “hooligan”…wow. Just wow, where do I even begin. I’ll just let it speak for itself:


    The word “scuzzball” is actually pretty straightforward. It’s appearance-shaming. Of course, it bears importance to look at its etymology, too, especially since its root word, “scuzzy”, had its first recorded use in the film Midnight Cowboy in reference to the character “Ratso” Rizzo, played by Dustin Hoffman.

    I’d look that movie up and find out what it’s about, and what role that character plays in the film. I don’t want to ruin the hilarity.


    FINAL VERDICT; You guessed it, McIntosh is still an asshole.

    This post brought to you by the five fucking minutes on Google it took me to source this shit.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc