Let me nip that right in the bud. Nobody is
'crying about the left', what people are criticizing is the growing trend of
social authoritarianism among the left.
As a European leftist who tends to vote a mixture of social democrats and green, I always get a chuckle when american liberals consider themselves 'on the left', whilst
clinging to the delusion that Hillary is left-leaning.
What I consider as social authoritarianism is probably best described by their view on
censorship and free speech, or '
freeze peach' as they so
mockingly like to refer to this basic human right. They are usually in opposition to an absolute interpretation of free speech by arguing in favor of certain restrictions. Their argument usually goes like this:
- The absolute definition of free speech includes the right to say anything you want
- Some people abuse that freedom in order to say vile and hateful things
- Therefore free speech is not an absolute right and must be limited
Now let me explain why that argument is not only incredibly lazy, but also antithesis to leftist values, by presenting an historical and a philosophical counterpoint.
a. The historical argument
The modern left got its historical roots during the industrial revolution. During that time, the largely urban population was forced to slave away in factories, plagued by poor work conditions and almost nonexistent worker rights. Freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly allowed these workers to form unions in order to organize, strike, protest and express their demands. This all happened much to the chagrin of the factory-owners, who would have very much preferred the status quo. Free speech has always,
always come in favor of the oppressed and disenfranchised. From an historical perspective, free speech has always been a core value of the left and
omitting that simple fact is absolutely inane and marks the difference between a leftist and an authoritarian leftist. I'm sure many a factory-owner would have loved to abuse above stated argument against free speech in order to break up those pesky unions.
b. The philosophical argument
Arguing that speech needs to be limited, because a few bad apples are abusing that right in order to express vile things is an absolutely disingenuous position. Coming from that position, basically any civil liberty can be abolished or restricted because there will always be people engaging with these freedoms in an irresponsible manner. By the same measure, you could circumcise freedom of assembly out of fear of violent protests. You could abolish the right to drive cars, because a few idiots are driving drunk or restrict freedom of movement because some people commit crimes. Besides, who gets to decide what's deemed acceptable speech? Certainly those in power and not the other way round. Yes, we have laws that deal with people overstepping their bounds, but they need to be applied on a case by case basis.
What does all this have to do with the topic at hand?
Well, I consider Anita an her ideologically charged ilk to be
leftist authoritarians. Remember when
they went to the UN in order to make their case that free speech needs to be restricted? They did so by explicitly conflating harassment, ridicule and valid criticism in order to
silence their opposition. I quote: "
Harassment is threats of violence but it's also the day-to-day grind of ‘You're a liar,' ‘You suck' ... making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos."
Like, I get that
harassment is bad, nevertheless that is
not the issue. I cannot let reason slide, only because somebody makes an appeal to emotion. Especially not if they are in front of a political institution
pushing for policy changes that affect the lives of everybody, including the innocent people pursuing their civil liberties in a responsible manner. What about them? Do they not matter? I take issue with the insidious nature of her argument, construed in such a manner that everybody who dares to criticize could be labeled as in support of her harassment. I'm sorry, but no, just no...
- Questioning the validity of a claim (i.e. calling somebody a liar) is not hateful speech
- Claiming that somebody sucks, can be considered as rude, but is not hateful speech
- Ridiculing somebody is considered satire, not hateful speech
Her appearance before the UN is doubly grating, considering how she basically characterized all gamers as being misogynistic hateful trolls. Did she seriously expect absolutely no push-back against these very serious implications? Hence why I already stated that her arguments are destructive by design and only serve to rile up people as much as possible in order to cash in on some outrage bucks. Let me tell you, anytime somebody comes along
claiming to be an expert while trying to
immunize himself against any form of criticism
to such a high degree, you can safely dismiss it as snake-oil bullcr*p.
Listen & believe is exactly the kind of self-righteous authoritarianism that led to the owner of this forum to be judged and condemned in the public eye before he could even prove his innocence. It's the same kind of belief system that leads other closed communities (not wanna name names here) to pursue one public witch-hunt after another. That is what Anita and her uncritical press has brought upon the gaming community and I hold them responsible for that. I'm sorry but you don't get to shame me into silence, for expressing my reasoned concern only because you don't like what I have to say.
"But", I hear you say, "Anita and co. are not in positions of power, they are
punching up". Yeah, no. She was given a powerful public voice, a huge platform, industry invitations and had so many people following her every word. For once, she was in a position of power and influence. She could have done so much good for women in gaming, yet she and her ilk chose to squander it all in order to impose their narrow-minded belief system by riding the outrage train for their own financial gains. I would not trust these people with any sort of political power.
Now you go ahead and label me however you want. I know what I am.