Cultural Marxism & You || A #GamerGate Guide // Step 1: Wtf is CM?
I'm still going to do this as a video set, but for now, I have to get this into a print form so I can take a look at it.
Expect it to be INSANELY long, but I'll try to refine it as much as I can!
WTF Is Cultural Marxism anyway?
You'll find it difficult to Google-fu. Even the wikipedia page has been censored and mercilessly attacked to the point of near destruction, in an unironic ironic attempt to prove they don't censor.... right.
The shortest definition I can give is that it's the other side of communism! Throughout history, cultures developed traditions, religions, histories, stories, and their own separate identities that made them who they are! These can have some pretty good effects like love, and sharing community, joy, and motivations for great things. But it can also lead to separation, competition, and there's room for greedy or desperate con artists to take advantage of it. Couple it with other human flaws, and everything gets a bit messy.
Most people focus on the economic & anti-materialism values Marx espoused and inspired, and therefore completely forget the other side, which is that of culture.
This was a mistake. It left it open for further separation of entities, the use of fear, and in places where the in-balance between two forces has been great, with a small pyramid at the top controlling more power than the numerous base, dissatisfaction grows, and Cultural Marxism finds a place.
Again, if you google it, you'll probably find some conspiracy theories about Judaism, Hitler, the KKK, and how Political Correctness is mind control. Let me stop you there. That's why I'm going into all this stuff, to make it less confusing, I hope.
Cultural Marxism isn't inherently evil, it's just an idea, a philosophy, a group of ideas. Like all ideas, they spread through people. You can take them, or reject them, that is up to you.
What people fear of Cultural Marxism is complicated. Part of it is just that Marx has so many negative connotations with the way communism has been used, and part of it is genuine right wing opposition -- in the sense of to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and even people have pushbacks, but also in that Marx has been used as a bit of boogeyman figure in the States, and other parts of the world.
But in the end, he was just a man, a philosopher with a lot of ideas, and personally I think he was pretty disadvantaged for being born when he was.
So instead I'm going to try to explain the principle beliefs and how to first RECOGNIZE it, so that when someone says "That's Cultural Marxism" you can either figure out if it lines up, or doesn't.
1) Positivism. Positivism is a founding principle in science. What is reality? It's a daily reality check. Science, religion that isn't based in cults, and mathematics all use positivism. And screw google's definition on this too. I encourage you to check it out but they changed it since September, and my books say otherwise. People are fucking with the words and that is part of Cultural Marxism I'll get into.
Anyway, what can you see, touch, and mathematically apply logic to? All things must fit. If something doesn't fit what IS, then it's proof of something, somewhere being wrong, You can see why so much of anti-#GamerGate hates it right?
Positivism uses a quantitative approach, Cultural Marxism focuses on qualitative, and usually emotional, sometimes downright illogical.
One of the biggest reasons for that is that positivism is going to insist on asking multiple sources for a reality check on something, however basic, "What color is the sky so that we can define it?" but Cultural Marxists will argue that the *way* someone answers and the *reason* for answering that way are more important (and interesting?) than what the answer they give. Technically, that might be true, but it doesn't really help to define the color. Now the positivist might just shrug, say "whatever," and go with it so long as they get the data, but what happens later?
This is why Wikipedia is a mess right now. Consensus is meaningless. You have people arguing that the very basics of reality do not matter, because everyone's reality is different and must be taken into account in order to understand better.
Again, not wrong, but not helpful if your goal is something logical.
And speaking of logic? Good luck trying to argue logically with a Cultural Marxist. They might reject Marx's economic principles, but they also reject positivism. So your reality is not THEIR reality, and therefore fuck yours, they feel theirs is right so you can screw right off.
Actually that would be too blunt for some of them (unless they felt for sure you're part of the "oppressor class" aka bourgeois, aka: dominant power class) they would probably be relatively confusing and ask things like why your pants are cotton if you didn't pick the cotton yourself.
The goal of this is to enlighten the bourgeouis and free the proletariat so we can all live happily ever after as one big happy huggy family. Seriously.
2) Marx opposed religion.
It's well-known that Communism is anti-religion. You didn't have so many Russian Jewish fleeing just because of racism, and churches weren't torched just because of mobs, and they weren't sent to the gulag for atheism camp.
Now these are NORMALLY easily proven facts, but I'll get into history in a bit.
Religion is a big part of culture. If you've played Civ 4: Beyond the Sword you can pretty much win a culture victory just by founding enough of the religions. Whatever your personal feelings on religion, the fact that they ARE an emotional thing is a big part of this.
People are touchy about religion. People are willing to DIE for their religion. Some people's main motivation in life is their religion, and every single region of the world has been affected by religion.
Marx wasn't just a philosopher, he studied history too. He knew all the things religions cause. The quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses," is probably one of his most-quoted in certain atheist circles. And I don't mean agnostic. Look at it like this, if religions are like political parties, then agnostics want to abstain from voting, and want the peace of not being forced to fight and argue with anyone about it. Marxist Atheists would be decidedly against voting in this scenario. To vote is take part in the corrupt fucked up system. It's condoning their actions. Fuck that yo. There are no good political parties, so ollie ottie, and anarchy for the people, man!
Not all atheists are Marxists, of course, (usually because Rationalists embrace positivism like a life raft in the Pacific) and hypothetically not all Marxists are atheists -- though I've yet to meet someone who can handle the cognitive dissonance of trying to follow ALL of Marxism and still believe in a religion, I have met some who are certainly followers of SOME of Marx, SOME of their religion.
You see, that some of each thing is a part of Marxism. He wasn't entirely an absolutist, and he rejected the absolutism of MANY organized religions of his time and history. Plus, he had to be a little "think for yourself" seeing as he was rejecting nearly everything everyone else had ever known, and trying to pick out the good parts from the ashes.
In any event, Marxism in atheism is a big part of why Atheism+ happened. And yeah, I'll get into that.
Basically, when you believe a LOT in Cultural Marxism, you can't be too religious either.
-- This DOES open the doorway WIDE enough for a truck to drive through, for all the cultism of Cultural Marxism as well. And again, I'll get into it.
See religions, perhaps ironically to some, reject cults. So if you start falling in with a cult, they're going to try to snap you out of it. Especially since most cults disguise as religion, and therefore they'd be natural competitors -- like those political parties analogy again.
But when you're atheist AND rejecting positivism or just not using it fully, you now have fertile ground for the seeds of Cultural Marxism.
Religion is like a drug right? A sleepy crutch that the people dependent on the past rely on because they can't face the idea that there is nothing else out there but us (and maybe aliens, but they haven't contacted yet, SO MOSTLY JUST US) -- this is an argument I've heard from both kinds of atheists, cultural Marxists, and those that use positivism scientifically.
Thus, let us also use an analogy of hermit crabs. Cultural Marxists are like hermit crabs that use the clam shell as a shield, shell, and house for now, until they can find a bigger and better one. And often, they do believe in atheism. But a lot of them believe in it SO vehemently, and subscribe to the idea that religions are oppressive and harmful that they cannot see the good religions cause either. If you ask someone "Would the world be a better place without any religion?" and they say yes, you might have an objective cynical atheist, but they could also be a Cultural Marxist. It's like looking at some clams, but all you can see is their shells. One of them might actually be a hermit crab, but it's hard to tell from the outside.
3) An underdog story: the Proletariat & the Bourgeois
Okay so Marx believed that proletariat were the hard-working modern day serfs or peasants or slaves. There existed many through many histories and cultures, but you have to admit, they're a bit of an underdog. Western Europe Fairy tales center around the hardworking farmboy who becomes a knight that marries the princess -- King Arthur style. Historically and culturally, what passed down the most through Christianity were tales of the saints and Romans throwing them to the lions and other martyrs like that.
These are obviously emotional appeals, but emotional appeals and sentiment are very important to understand as the biggest part of Cultural Marxism.
Marx also believed that the comfortable middle-class were accidentally/on purpose helping to keep the proletariat in subservience so that they could have material, monetary, and cultural power over them. He also believed that religions were complicit in this, and that governments, even democracies, in order to keep their power, also helped facilitate this. This is not technically wrong. You can argue it, but there are historical reasons to suggest this, and that's wherein everything goes to hell. Which I'll discuss lastly.
To explain the rest of this point; on a global scale this creates a constant bizarre sort of dynamic.
American Civil War: who were the good guys, the bad guys? Was the South fighting for freedom, or freedom to keep slaves? Was the North fighting for unity, or their money?
As the winners usually write the history books, Marx often suggested that as a historian and philosopher, it was the duty of those reading to realize that these things were written with biases in mind.
Again, he's not wrong.
But it opens the door wide open for people who don't use positivism to try to get a collective data to objectively view it.
That's because Objectivism (as we now know it) arose after Marx, in RESPONSE to Marxism, and as Jason Schrier said, "Is a silly thing we will never strive for."
See, if you only ever argue on subjective things and on behalf of qualitative things, you hypothetically, can't be wrong, right?
Ehhhhhhhhh.... I have my own personal biases obviously that get in the way of me trying to discuss that. Back on point though: the idea that there is always an "oppressor" and the "oppressed" is EXTREMELY important. A Cultural Marxist may not examine history the same way others do. Instead on a superficial level it might LOOK really black and white to an outsider, just "good vs. evil" but the good will always be the underdog, the oppressed, the victimized, the one who loses. And the evil is the opposite based on dominance and power.
This is why Cultural Marxism outright gives the fuck up on BDSM. How do you "infiltrate" a community that is openly about one partner's control and the other's submission, and both them liking it?
It tickles me to imagine the attempts, but I think those trying must have had logical or even emotional implosions and therefore had to defect from one of the groups at least.
HOWEVER: viewing history through a Cultural Marxist lens will really start to mess with you.
I'm Huron and Iroquois. Neither of these I would say could be called oppressive to each other, but they warred constantly -- and I argue still do in my head. Instead, it was more like wolf packs, but where the Iroquois were well founded and preferred stable areas and therefore allied more often, the Huron traveled a lot more, had more enemies, and despite being smaller in number, were aggressive as all get out in order to make up for it. Which of these was the underdog? Well the Huron were smaller and more aggressive, but they were like a small dog barking at a big dog and wanting to fight. The Iroquois, meanwhile, had a more matriarchal system and had peace and strength BECAUSE of their more peaceful nature, so while they wouldn't necessarily be the underdog, there may well still be a perception that they earned their peace more. So it's not that Cultural Marxists can't understand complexities. However, in the case I just mentioned, Cultural Marxists call it a wash anyway because both tribes were the proletariat in having "their land" taken by the "evil" "oppressive" [European] colonials & imperials.
In modern day you are seeing this a lot now. Palestine is automatically the supported underdog, whether or not they chose Hamas, terrorism, and trying to provoke Israel with tunnels, it doesn't matter to Cultural Marxists. What matters is that they're the underdog, they're sympathetic. That makes them... good guys? But only in the sympathetic sense that is an emotional appeal and "good" is a social construct, heavily influenced, even controlled, by governments to keep us submissive.
And African Americans thanks to their oppressed segregation even after the slavery is why they must be "helped" -- and no YOU'RE the idiot if you think that's a racist suggestion, what the fuck is wrong with you pissbaby?
And women have been facing historical oppression that....
Well actually if they knew history well they wouldn't be making this shit up, but in gender wars, women are the proletariat and if you don't agree, that's just proof that you're an evil white cis-het misogynist, never mind that Japanese are not white, and being white doesn't make you evil and oppressive. See, that's the thing. Trivia like the fact that a lot of Irish were also American slaves, and there was A LOT of racism against Irish kind of fucks with their heads.
And that's because logically, if we're all descendants of oppression, then even Marx would argue "Now stop oppressing each other and BE FREE" but they never really get that. THAT is the idyllic plane that will take more revolutions or something to reach.
This is also why we're seeing this now. America is reaching a demographic tipping point, and they see that, they FEEL IT, so it must be true, right? It's why we need a NotYourShield style revolution backlash against "People of Colour" as a term. Because it's once again trying to pit whites vs. "everyone else." This is especially true in America where "white" is literally fading out as an identity majority, to be replaced as "everything else." My issue with the term is, and always was, if you can't get to know a person as an individual, you're fucked up. It doesn't matter how many identifiers I use. I can introduce myself to every single Cultural Marxist I meet in anti-#GamerGate as "A bisexual Native American Catholic fantasy-loving, mythology & lore-keeper, New England, Red sox fan, director, gamer woman" and they still will NOT KNOW ME.
You can't water it into a bourgeois vs. proletariat thing, there is MORE to life than that, but cultural Marxists generally feel it is these things that DIVIDE us rather than bring us together. This is also why #GamerGate confounds them. They WANT to be the ones to unite us, and in a way... they are... but they (not all, just a lot of them) want to unite everyone into one big beige blah mess.
This is also why internet anonymity tends to confound them slightly. Anonymity is EVERYONE! And No one. But it's very VERY chaotic. In a way, it's some of the anarchist freedom I think Marx would actually appreciate if he were alive to see it. On the other hand, there's a reason #GamerGate leans anti-authoritarian across the board.
As for how the authoritarians can go from pro-underdog to BECOMING the overlord evil empire... it's a long story I'll have to explain in another step. Or you can read Animal Farm. But for #GamerGate purposes, the reason some of them still see themselves as underdogs and insist we should be going after the AAAs is EXACTLY this. Hell, it's why some of them who nothing LIKE traditional nerds with the last two decades of getting bullied, still want to be with us... because on some little weird emotional level even THEY see us as underdogs.
But you'll always run into problems with stacking.
Who deserves the most help among a black, three-foot-tall, disabled with four mental disorders, gay little person man and a first nation, poisoned, amputated, cancerous woman?
Now anyone sane (I hate myself for adding this, but no offense meant by the "sane" comment) would say, "Why the fuck do you even have to choose? Stop that nonsense." And it would end there. But the point is to illustrate that when you start trying to water down the power struggle to make it as "even" or "equal" as possible you also create a LOT of room for bigotry, accidental, or purposeful.
Luckily, they have almost NO sense of irony, which is why the Cultural Marxism article has been edited to oblivion in an effort to prove they don't censor. Oh. Okay.
However, for it's worth noting that this presents a skewed picture of reality, history, current events, and all sociopolitical situations. It's LITERALLY PURPOSELY relativist. Which brings me to:
4) It's all relative, baby
What's the strongest force in the universe? God? Super massive black holes? Gamma rays? Compound interest? Intelligence?
Nah, it's emotion, baby!
Okay if you agree with that last one, I might not be calling you an idiot in my head, but I might not be side-eying you either. Spoilers: I'm totally doing both.
There is a lot to be said for emotion though. Why is #GamerGate kicking ass? Why have we held out? How the fuck do ANTIS hold out beyond when most trolls would get bored, and find someone better to pick on?!
And the answer is for the same reasons. They have friends that support them, and they use their RIGHTEOUS RAGE as energy just as much as we do. Although frankly, I'm not even ashamed of saying this, we have logic and they don't.
However, relativism is basically WHY #GamerGate is called an anthropologist's wet dream. It's a modern chance to view an entire small culture evolving in real time, with scientific provable data! KICK ASS YO!
It also brings all the Cultural Marxists to the yard. And they're like,
"Yo my theories of there being no absolute truth is better than yours!"
And I'm like, "Check my positivism privilege and gtfo."
And they're like, "I'm just trying to apply Chaos Theory to people! Why so mean?! T_T"
And I'm like, "Why you gotta socially engineer my gamer culture?"
And they're like "How weak and pathetic to base your identity on consumerist materialism which only likes corrupt corporate pockets, and you call yourselves for 'ethics' hah!"
And I'm like "OH YOU DID NOT JUST CALL ME MATERIAL CONSUMERIST! I'M NATIVE AMERICAN! I WILL FUCK YOU UP!"
And then they're like "?!?!?!!!????"
And everyone ELSE is like "CC calm down. Shhhhh."
Or more simply: it's all relative. The idea that there is no absolute truth is part of rejecting Positivism and KNOWN FACTS. It's the idea that there can be no "truly known facts" because it's all relative. What may be fact to someone else might be opinion to another. This is why so much of #GamerGate is scientists. This is why hard scientists (especially since they're also more likely to use positivism) loathe this intrusion. This is why it's found a home in cultural studies.
This is usually based in emotion. Emotions are strength. And it's literally what Stalin and Mao Zedong USED to overthrow the respective stronger powers in their part of the world. It's also how Cultural Marxists rationalize the underdog proletariat vs. bourgeois thing, sometimes without even realizing.
It's also why you don't really need to tone police -- even though I wasn't sure myself at first! But once I figured them out for this, it fit better. Just ask if they are uncomfortable with your language, and tone it down as you choose.....
AND THAT brings me to the last point:
5) Everyone Just Play Nice -- Why a fight was Inevitable.
Cultural Marxism among the right-wing was pretty synonymous with "politically correct." And in a way this is true. This is because when your world reality is relative and based on your emotions, you will be pretty much assume "politically correct" IS MORALLY correct. Keep in mind, this is another reason religion will generally supersede over this sort of mindset, or at least, they are not compatible together.
This is also why Gamers Had to Die, and Atheism+ was a thing.
Because reality is not politically correct.
Politically "correct" is a great concept that Orwell explained really well. It's simple, really. It's a very VERY basic morality that people shouldn't OFFEND each other, and it is, of course, predicated in relativism, but also appeals to the international and outside of relativists. Because who wants to accidentally cause an international incident by saying the wrong WORD of all things?
My bff once had a friend over during lunch and offered him fried chicken without knowing it was a black stereotype. When he joked he was unsure how to take that, she was confused and said if he wanted to eat it, and he worried that maybe he'd insulted her with his joke. She, in turn later, worried she'd insulted HIM because she didn't get it.
IN A PERFECT MAGICAL PLANE: such as the ONE UNIFIED WORLD Marx wanted, where there are no financial classes, religions, race, or cultures dividing us, SUCH THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NEVER EVER HAPPEN, OR EXIST. BECAUSE STEREOTYPES WOULD BE KNOWN FALSE AND EVERYONE WOULD SHARE LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP THE END.
Sadly, ours is not a perfect magical plane. In order to someday hopefully, get our descendants and/or future generations to reach that, politically correct was born.
If you are 100% politically correct all the time, you will never ever offend anyone ever.
You will also be a unicorn.
Or at minimum, impossibly in tune with the current mood and mannerisms of every known culture in every part of the world, and flawlessly able to utilize all of them better than any known ambassador or diplomat.
My Grandmother is sort of Blue-Blood without actually being Blue-Blood. Don't ask. Point is she rather strictly taught me perfect manners, I think to make up for how my mother and aunts don't do that. I rebel vehemently especially on stupid little things like I used to purposely mismatch my socks to drive her crazy.
My Grandmother isn't necessarily P.C., but she does try to be perfectly mannered and such. I think the only thing I truly value of lessons on properly identifying and using fishforks vs. salad forks (etc.) is that she always said "True class and grace is always making another person feel welcome and comfortable around you."
More than the rest, I try to remember that. I wear my hat indoors, I swear like my Dad's army platoon, and despite learning to walk balancing a dictionary I lounge like a panther, but I DO want people to feel free to be THEMSELVES around me.
This is something forgotten, or maybe purposely misplaced in a P.C. culture. See, when everything gets turned beige, individually and the bright vibrant colors go with it. My Grandmother isn't perfectly PC but I still think she'd secretly like it. At least the beige and "everyone be nice" part.
This is also why even a lot of Cultural Marxists will get confused. As political climates change, so does what is offensive or acceptable. For instance, it wasn't politically correct even ONE DECADE AGO to use "persons of color" (a term I already said why I hate, and we should be allowed to get annoyed at) yet now, there's a cultural shift to sort of push white vs. "the rest of the world" even though that is NOT progressive, that is REGRESSIVE.
Which is sort of the thing.
Marx wanted to go back to basics, a simpler time, a happier place, a utopia in a new future for humanity.
So if Marx wanted peace and love and mankind to be one, why do Cultural Marxists seem to be pushing us apart?
Well in their mind, they're not. Naturally. They think they're righting wrongs.
"Cultural equalists" was another term for (some of) them back when Marxist was a red flag scare.
This is because of the fallacy of ends justifying the means.
What matters to them is not the journey, nor the adventure in finding it, but the end outcome.
This is why a lot of the game journalists can't stand a game longer than six hours. That, and they are just about the money, but that I'll go through in another Step about them abusing privilege. Yes, I'm serious.
In any case, it's also why PLAYING doesn't interest them as much as equality of numbers.
It's funny, because they assess things qualitatively, since positivism is rejected, and yet they want equal outcome.
Here's the thing....
They want equal outcome among US. The players. This is why we call it cultural engineering too.
Whether or not gamers enjoy it does not matter to them. Whether it's better to financially appease us? DOES NOT MATTER TO THEM.
Whether we learn to all hug and play nice and run off to a giant utopia compound free of material greed and oppression? That might. To some of them. The ones who aren't conning us and to be perfectly honest, I'm not even entirely sure that includes JoshNTosh.
Which brings me to the final part for this step (/sob Did you know I was going to try to make all 5 steps one movie but I got exhausted just trying to figure out how to get into an hour and then chewed my nails going "NO ONE WILL WATCH AN HOUR EXPLANATION OF MARXISM AND GAMERGATE FUUUUCK") though I must add, swears used to be politically incorrect. Porn too. Porn still is, which is why we have porn stars as allies, and "OpPostLewds" and while I'll explain porn & feminism: How Marxism took over the discussion in another step, LASTLY: The reason certain swears are allowed among "true Marxists" is because 1) Sexual liberation of societal taboos insofar as language goes, and 2) It pissess off the right-wing. This is hilarious to me. It used to be the right-wing would swear to piss off the PC-left, but for awhile the left was running the "NOOOO FREEDOM" crusade. That they have abandoned that leaves it up to us anti-authoritarians to make sure they regret it and return to it, however grudgingly. Sometimes maybe, just maybe, being offended is good for you. Somebody study it for great justice.
6) Characteristics of Cultural Marxism, most notably: Critical Theory
There are some major characteristics of Cultural Marxism which will take a lot to go through.
A) Critical Theory*
B) Censorship/Control (Includes WORD CONTROL) --> [Loophole for Dictatorship and Corruption] Again, check out Animal Farm by George Orwell or wait for another final step
C) Opposition to Patriarchy
D) Perception of an Underdog Bias Not Necessarily Based on Logic, NOR what is good for the individual (ie: fucking with Coke's #MakeItHappy bot. Coca Cola will never be seen as an underdog to anyone I think. Their historical stuff just makes that truer. So even though it fucks over Gawker and makes us able to get all their partners to RUN AWAY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE and/or poison the well, they really just don't care)
E) Cultism** (complete with ironic alienation from ~others~ even though that's you know, so not Marxist but it has to do with de facto rulers, again I'll explain in corrupt con artists & dictators)
F) Indoctrination (see also: cultism)
G) Nepotism & Cronyism: An Aftermath*** (Again, so not Marxist, but I'll explain)
H) Emphasis on society as a whole taking precedence over individuals.
Fuck me this is why Sargon of Akkad didn't want to go through this shit.
A) Critical Theory: an Asshole's Guide to Culture!
Here's how to be a critical theorist:
1) Criticize EVERYTHING.
2) Be a hipster douche about it, except instead of "I found that first" it's only ever referencing other philosophers saying, things like "Slavoj Zizek understood that neoliberalism is problematic because it doesn't aid progressivism in an obviously futuristic socialist route that all economics must take." and "Oh and also, he totally accurately psychoanalyzed Jaws as capitalism, and outsiders, because it's just about what YOU fear depending on where you're from, because culture."
-- True story.
3) Don't be a fan. No. Really. None of this stuff is like GOOD or anything. Unless it promotes your political ideologies. Then it's wonderful :) Isn't propaganda grand?
4) Propagandize. Aka: when all else fails, lie.
5) ONLY point out what is "PROBLEMATIC." Is that dress too short? Misogyny. Woman of color being hit on by a main character of a different race? Fetishizing + assumption of property based on subservient role. CROSS YOUR FINGERS FOR SOMETHING, ANYTHING, YOU CAN CALL OUT!!! -- See in the past, calling thing politically incorrect? No one would GIVE a fuck. Nowadays, you donate to an anti-gay marriage charity IN SECRET? Not anymore it's not.
6) No, but for real yo. This is about the Emancipation of ALL OF MANKIND. Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Super Duper Uber seriously.
"According to Max Horkheimer, Director of the Frankfurt School's Institute for Social Research, a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation."
-- http://sociology.about.com/od/N_Index/g/Norm.htm --> Also Anti-GG ironically strictly enforces the norm, but they're kind of dense. Literally too dense to realize they are doing the thing they claim to hate. :| :| :| Irony is lost on them.
-- http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/marxist.crit.html -- This is how Marxists read a book. Yup. YUP.
-- Should the other links die due to some crazy Marxist plot to end gamers (again? For what the 9000th time?) http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur -- enjoy some delicious propaganda because it's in their own words. Also there are some really weird conspiracy theories about Judaism and how any criticism of Cultural Marxism & Critical Theory is secretly anti-Semitism................... No. See that? That's a deflection. When you reject positivism you must get a handbook full of them.
/back to facetious sarcasm:
And always remember, the personal is political, and it's easier to smear people than works, but either one will run rampant with rumor before the truth can ever possibly catch up!!! And if they have to deny it forever? Oops, it's probably fine, so long as they're bourgeois.... SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER. And if you can't convince yourself that they are, just remember to stop trying to apply logic silly! You're a relativist now! You couldn't have KNOWN you TRUSTED someone who is TOTALLY NOT WRONG BECAUSE EMOTIONS ARE NEVER WRONG!!!!!111!!!!
And your readers?
Well if they're me, they do a "I THREW IT ON THE GROUND" And #GamerGate happens, but fuck us. We weren't gonna read Critical Theory bullshit anyway.
-- Okay but in all seriousness, Critical Theorists literally DO ask how whatever media they're review is or isn't helping the emancipation of all mankind.... BUT UH GIVE YOURSELF A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. You ready? How about now? How many video games could you name where these are the questions you would want answered so you could decide to buy it:
"The Marxist critic simply is a careful reader or viewer who keeps in mind issues of power and money, and any of the following kinds of questions:
What role does class play in the work; what is the author's analysis of class relations?
How do characters overcome oppression?
In what ways does the work serve as propaganda for the status quo; or does it try to undermine it?
What does the work say about oppression; or are social conflicts ignored or blamed elsewhere?
Does the work propose some form of utopian vision as a solution to the problems encountered in the work?"
If you said "Definitely all of the above," I am questioning your convictions in #GamerGate. You can still be one of us, don't get me wrong, but I'd be surprised. Since I'm pretty sure most of them are still reading Kotaku and cannot be redpilled. They would be blue pill and refuse to leave the imaginary world the robots made, I am 99% sure. I hope someone proves me wrong, but I'll be surprised.
In any case, when you have been taught to review ALL MATERIAL like that, you sure as hell aren't going to one day wake up and go "Wow this might be kind of bad for me financially." Uh no shit. Good thing you're Marxist and the world is totally going to understand the true glory of communism any day now right? RIGHT?
B) Word Control is my last characteristic for now since I THINK You can get a basic enough picture (I HOPE?) to spot a Cultural Marxist at this point and learn to run away or troll them. (Bring up Ayn Rand, watch them foam at the mouth and call you Republican/Right-Wing Libertarian.)
Control the words, control the message. Control the narrative, control the thoughts, control the world.
I really wish 1984 was still required in schools. The fact that it isn't, says something about Common Core.
A lot of people have been linking the passage about Double-Speak so feel free to look it up or refresh your memory ever.
They unironically use Double Speak all the fucking time without even getting the irony of it.
This is why they are so fussy about words and Political Correctness.
Words. Are. Powerful.
And they know it.
Words don't just evoke emotions, especially ones like "Fear," or "anger," or "hate," or "lust," or "terrorism." They get latched onto forming "buzzwords" that you heard so often you just become the reaction to it before you even have time to sit and think how it's controlling you instead of vice versa (I am VERY guilty of this.)
Control the word, control the identity.
Control the identity? Control the person.
Want to know why the smarter and more outspoken we are the sooner we went on the blockbots?
Because they already own the word "harassment." And they'll use it. Beyond that, they can't have us pointing things out to them, we'd manipulate their emotions and make their convictions waver.
Also they're a little bit desperate.
CAREFULLY WATCH EVERYTHING THEY SAY WHEN THEY DO.
They give more tells than Kindergarten kid who has to go to the bathroom. Their every word is usable and that's why they delete shit constantly. AND repeat themselves.
Words are important. But they're still stuck using fear and words. We have fun with words like #PizzaGate. They literally don't get it. Sad for them. Also they do not get irony.
Don't even bother to redpill them, just make sure people AROUND THEM know it's crap. Marxist Critical Theorists want to CHANGE THE WORLD with culture. That's sweet of them, and I'm still SJW, but the minute you get stupid and authoritarian, my foot goes in your face.
-- Anyway, good job for reaching the end (if you did)
If you want to 1) correct me 2) discuss it with me 3) Tell me how the fuck size this down 4) Suggest shit for the OTHER FOUR PARTS (/brb crying into my blanket) Just tweet me @Silverwolfcc
FTR: I do not claim expertise in this. I know anti-Communism better (AMURRRICA FUCK YEAH) the historical impacts, the economic structures, and while I've read Marx, I side-eye relativists still, oops. Anyway, if you wanna bitch at me what I got wrong, I'll totally listen. Just please no bullshit.