High Priestess of Social Justice Warrioring Comes Out Against Simple Violence in Videogames

#Gamergate was never so much about Zoe Quinn as it was about the rancid little dirtymind Anita Sarkesian, and her shallow, vapid, shamelessly dishonest "Feminist Frequency" videos about imagined oppressions in videogames.

Many #GamerGaters have been stunned by the acceptance this Quivering Censor has gotten from the left wing video game (ahem) "journalism" claque.

Because they all remember that when a rightwing scold, Jack Thompson, made pretty much the same censorious demands on the videogame industry, the entire gamer-culture cohort rose up against him, to call him an idiot, poltroon, etc.

And yet, when Anita Sarkesian makes pretty much the same whiny, bitchy ankle-bites, but this time casting them as arguments from the left, rather than the right, the whole Kotaku Klaque praises her as a serious scholar and Voice of a New Censorious Generation.

Well, today, this smug little scold might have stepped in it, because she and her boyfriend/puppeteer have made it clear that they're not just against alleged misogyny in games, but are simply against violence in games.

They don't like violence in games -- and they think, therefore, that there shouldn't be violence in games.

The most important factor in a thriving artistic culture is an empowered cadre of ideologues and censors imposing their zealous vision of what people should like on the world. Artistic creation, like children, just thrives on boundaries and rules.

Sarkesian's twatty sneers reveal the truth about her (and the truth about all censors).

Censors may seem like they're demanding changes to art or culture -- which is bad enough.

But in fact all censors are megaolmaniacs and totalitarians. They don't just want to change videogames -- which they consider just as trivial as you do (or as I do).

They speak superficially about a project to change art -- but their real goal is to demand changes to people.

That's not a criticism of a violent game -- that's a demand that people change that which they derive pleasure and fun from.

The censor is a subtype of the authoritarian. But the censor is at once both more trivial than the bog-standard authoritarian, and more frightening.

The authoritarian wants to ban this behavior or that. The censor, on the other hand, goes about censoring mere images and words -- not real things. Just ideas.

This may seem trivial -- and it is, for almost all censors are trivially-minded, shallow-as-the-sheen-on-glossy-magazine superficial -- but it's also more profoundly disturbing.

Because, while the run of the mill authoritarian will pursue you for this Bad Act or that one, it's the censor who will pursue you into your very dreams and fantasies.

The Censor goes where the authoritarian usually doesn't -- into the soft places of your very brain.

Because the Censor knows you will do bad things if you're ever allowed to even think about them.

And we all know the way to fix that, right?

The Iron Law of Academic Fights: The more petty the stakes, the more vicious the squabbling.

Feminists like Sarkesian are very nasty about videogame violence, but have nothing at all to say about the real thing.

If you can't feel the decadence, that's because you're soaking in it.

posted by Ace at 07:38 PM

| Access Comments