OMM, Gamergate, Bannon, Trump, and the End of Democracy

[_honorentheos]

As I said, I think we're screwed. I read your OP and wonder how apparent the blame seeking nature of this kind of analysis fails to be apparent to people I know are intelligent...yet I also realize there is a certain consistent sense of rightness that isn't new so it's unsurprising if also unlikely to lead anywhere but that same from the other side. So, yeah. You're looking for a cause that explains your biases and it was successful. I assume you aren't surprised things work that way and are clear eyes about it when it comes to others. So it may be understandable that it isn't necessarily respectful but probably seen as rather aggressive due to methodology. Respect includes a more well rounded approach.

[_beastie]

As I said, I think we're ____. I read your OP and wonder how apparent the blame seeking nature of this kind of analysis fails to be apparent to people I know are intelligent...yet I also realize there is a certain consistent sense of rightness that isn't new so it's unsurprising if also unlikely to lead anywhere but that same from the other side. So, yeah. You're looking for a cause that explains your biases and it was successful. I assume you aren't surprised things work that way and are clear eyes about it when it comes to others. So it may be understandable that it isn't necessarily respectful but probably seen as rather aggressive due to methodology. Respect includes a more well rounded approach.

So do you think that the factors outlined in my post have had no effect on the problems we face today?

Or is it just that I have to include a section about how liberals are also to blame before you'll actually consider what I wrote? And yes, there's plenty of blame for liberals. But the particular factor I explored in my post wasn't one.

[_honorentheos]

I think the investigation of how 4chan-ish gamer behavior interacts with other behaviors is both symptomatic as well as partially causal, and your OP focuses on a very narrow and single aspect of this. It's not about just lumping in all parties to be equitable. It's that the approach of focusing on one aspect of it serves a function that subverts truth-seeking. In this case, this very behavior is intrinsic to the observed escalation of attitudes and behaviors that are jeopardizing the form of liberal Democracy that I personally value.

Remember when the Ta-Nehisi Coates article was being discussed and my issue wasn't that racism isn't a problem in America; but by framing all American politics in the lens of racism against Blacks culminating in the 2016 election of Trump was fundamentally flawed as an approach to explaining...well, anything? It's like that. I appreciated that my exact argument was later put to print in the Atlantic as another perspective as expressed by George Packer.

[_beastie]

I think the investigation of how 4chan-ish gamer behavior interacts with other behaviors is both symptomatic as well as partially causal, and your OP focuses on a very narrow and single aspect of this. It's not about just lumping in all parties to be equitable. It's that the approach of focusing on one aspect of it serves a function that subverts truth-seeking. In this case, this very behavior is intrinsic to the observed escalation of attitudes and behaviors that are jeopardizing the form of liberal Democracy that I personally value.

Remember when the Ta-Nehisi Coates article was being discussed and my issue wasn't that racism isn't a problem in America; but by framing all American politics in the lens of racism against Blacks was fundamentally flawed as an approach to explaining...well, anything? It's like that. I appreciated that my exact argument was later put to print in the Atlantic as another perspective as expressed by George Packer.

I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I wasn't firm on these conclusions and was seeking input.

Off and on for the past six months or so I’ve been trying to figure out gamergate in general, and its influence on specific trends in the US. It’s been challenging, to say the least, because gamergate is so polarized that I’m never sure if I’m reading an unbiased reporting. So it’s possible I have some false ideas about it all. I’m posting this in the expectation that at least a few posters here have looked into this as well and can help me out.

If you have additional insight that you think will enlighten me, for heaven's sake, share it. I know you have good insight, but just chiding me for not meeting your standards (which you've done several times) doesn't help anyone.

To tell the truth, I think you're pretty eager to find examples of behavior that don't meet your standards, and are more apt to post about that versus the actual topic. And perhaps that contributes to the very problem you decry.

[_honorentheos]

Beastie, I don't see it as me being able to enlighten you as I know and respect that you are incredibly intelligent, capable, accomplished, and someone I generally do admire for many reasons.

The challenge with the discussion around the topic to me is that one is left trying to read minds as to peoples sincerity where I doubt they themselves know where sincerity ended and the kinds of groupthink behaviors begin.

The first people I ever met in real life who were into the disgusting websites of the mid-90's like Rotten.com and the like were Raver kids and punks. People whose lives were invested in their social subcultures and opposed to parent culture norms. The typical person in these groups tended to experiment a lot with drugs, worked jobs that weren't career-oriented, thought they were too smart for college in many cases, or out to give the finger to the world in some way or the other. To a person they were secure in believing they were the ones who had the world figured out, didn't care for main stream political parties, and were basically sure the world was wrong while they were right about...well, I don't know. Boundary maintenance was intense. Generally going to college, serving in the military, being religious, getting married, raising a family, doing things that some might see as responsible were viewed as proof one didn't get it. I found it intensely interesting for what seemed like never ending contradictions of views. They were male, female, straight gay and bi. The major identity issue seemed to be if one got it or didn't more than anything else.

One hears that expressed online in many forms in the Chan culture with terms like normies or cucks expressing condescension for people who "don't get it" and choose to be safe by taking the blue pill in matrix lingo.

But that is only one face of the same thing one finds throughout internet culture. Social outrage online is groupthink expressing disdain for the unenlightened, the concept being one just as derogatorily aimed at someone who doesn't get it. Cis gendered white privilege misogynist becomes the lowest of the low one side calls the other and the other side looks for LOLZ and trolls because they're viewing the insult as an attack on their being straight, white and a male so what's not to troll about that? There's nothing being discussed. It's just...it's all absurd on it's face. Nine years ago Ron Paul's revolution was fueled by people who were disenfranchised and lashing out at society. And imbedded in that were Chan-ers and legalized drug advocates, peaceniks and gay marriage advocates, enraged common currency opponents and nationalists. But nine years ago we also had the promise of hope and change, and anything one could hope for might just have been possible so...who was manipulating this sense of disenfranchisement then?

I read Reason magazine, the Wall Street Journal, The Nation, and The National Review as regular digital sources, subscribe to hard copies of the Atlantic and The American Scholar, and for years the question of freedom of speech being oppressed, viewed as caused by over-zealous "intellectuals" and well-meaning liberal institutions in some publications while protecting student's rights in others, has been a theme that each has covered radically differently and with ever increasing frequency and volume of reporting. So when the events of this year escalated to the riots at Berkley, the Charlottesville protests and man-slaughter of a counter-protestor, and every other event where a Charles Murray or a Milo gets chased off of a campus, there will be a tug-of-war in the media over what the threat is, who's to blame for it, and what is the remedy. Which represents what is right and which is taking advantage of the disenfranchised or those looking for something to give a hint of meaning to their lives? in my opinion, I don't think any one side is right 100% or 100% of the time, but I also rarely see the views expressed as unfounded. There is something in the argument that has truth value if I disagree with the conclusion. Yet I don't see those being debated in any serious way in the public forums. If I'm left to my own devices to try and get a better understanding to see where I think the truth lies I have to assume it's the case generally. We're on our own to sort out the issues in a critically thought-out manner.

My general view is most accurately expressed in an economic argument made by Tyler Cowen in his book The Complacent Class where he points out American innovation and social mobility has been negatively impacted by our ever escalating urge to silo into groups most like ourselves in all aspects of life which makes us less innovative, less likely to take risks, and less likely to encounter differing views except as presented in the form of oppositional framing. Democracy is failing because we are failing to live up to the potential of embracing actual pluralism in favor of seeking ultimate security of our current silo of choice.

At a meta-level I think we are scared of change that we can't control, we see the absurdity in the views of those with whom we disagree, and we follow pied pipers who are all too willing to take advantage of this be it the Steve Bannons of the world, the Sam Harris', the Bill Mahers, the mobs on social media marching to who knows whose beat, or whatever.

So when we talk about the rise of the alt-right, we're talking about a symptom not a causal thing. Radical opposition to free speech is the right's equivalent enemy, attacks on American values and traditions the equivalent of the "normies, cucks and basics".

And it's easy, it triggers lots of dopamine, there is so much evidence available one can support anything one cares to believe so long as one searches narrowly enough and man that feels good to be right.

So, yeah. We're screwed.

[_beastie]

honor,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will return the favor, but since I'm going back to work tomorrow, it may take a bit longer. I want to think about it and not rush. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you after I asked for your insight and you so kindly provided it.

[_honorentheos]

I've been thinking about how to try and more economically further the discussion.

Gamergate as a topic is a bit bizarre, in my opinion, because it has at its heart subcultural infighting and immature behaviors overlapping consumerism built up around a multi-billion dollar industry with "athletes" now, YouTubers making jobs out of posting videos of them playing games, and mashing up into all things "Nerd" in the culture that is basically mainstreamed in the younger generations. To me, the topic demands touching on Benjamin Barber's Consumed because the intentional infantilization of consumers has consequences for society that come as part of the total package for living as we live. So does the bubbling out of intensely social identity-based politics. Can we distill the concepts in Eric Hofer's The True Believer to reinforce the idea that disenfranchisement is a powerful liability used by the powerful in mass movements of all kinds into a simple point? How disenfranchised are people today? It's a constant topic as exampled by this pre-election report by Bill Moyers - http://billmoyers.com/2015/05/01/many-a ... powerless/

How about the topic of immaturity when it comes to social activism? For example - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... le/414810/

But after some thought I feel few things exemplify the insanity of this as the Shia LeBoeuf v. 4Chan-ers fight over his "He Will Not Divide Us" art exhibit as discussed on RadioLab which they ended up taking down because...yeah. But also, yeah, the internet: https://archive.org/details/01TruthTrolls

That RadioLab is an interesting episode that really talks about the mindsets of the people involved, in my opinion, but it's take down is also just as worthy of thought. Here's the RadioLab site that explains why they took it down: http://www.radiolab.org/story/truth-trolls/

[_honorentheos]

honor,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will return the favor, but since I'm going back to work tomorrow, it may take a bit longer. I want to think about it and not rush. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you after I asked for your insight and you so kindly provided it.

That's very understandable, and appreciated as an approach.

[_moksha]

I would have thought that Shub-Niggurath of Quake, or possibly even the game Postal 2 may have been the start of the Alt-Right movement.

https://i.imgur.com/Q7bB0nN.png

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Looks like the Texas shooter fits Beastie's narrative vis a vis the Nu Deplorables:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heism.html

As they do the 4chan nihilists use the shooting to create more confusion and discord:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Hyde.html

And here's a typical 4chan thread ref the shooting:

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/1481 ... g-thread-1

- Doc