Reddit reviews The Philosophy and Politics of Abstract Expressionism, 1940-1960

> [iii] is prima facie false considering the entire purpose of GG is to shake up a status quo in gaming journalism.

I'll be blunt - this strikes me as a remarkably disingenuous argument for you to make. The video could not have been more clear that "status quo" in this context referred to the maintenance of gaming as a (straight) male-dominated space, particularly in the face of increasing pressure for better representation of women and minorities. Hence the insistent belief that Anita Sarkeesian and like-minded individuals (i.e. "SJWs") are invading their cultural space, and the frequent clamoring to "keep politics out of gaming". If you failed to understand this extremely basic and oft-repeated point, then I question whether you're really attempting to engage with Foldable Human's ideas and arguments.

> Taken from the /r/GamerGhazi[3] sidebar. While anti-GGers do not constitute a movement, they do constitute a group. And the distinction between GGers as a movement and anti-GGers as a group is unclear.

It's more or less the same distinction that allows us to claim that atheism isn't a religion. No equivalence exists between the group of people who choose to unite under a particular banner and the much broader group of people who choose not to. The former made an active choice to take on a label, follow a leader (or in GamerGate's case, merely influential voices), and work together towards a common cause; the latter, well, didn't. Or to paraphrase someone else whom I can't remember, just because I'm opposed to cannibalism doesn't mean I have to answer for everybody else in the world who also happens to be opposed to cannibalism.

And even if you're right and there isn't any distinction, so what? Whether or not it's fair, the legitimacy of the anti-GG side isn't in question.

> This is a simple misunderstanding. The "Literally Who" code was designed to strip the names from people GGers felt were "professional victims" and "attention-seekers." After all, they reason, why give an attention-seeker what he or she wants by referring to his or her name constantly?

Except that GamerGate never once stopped talking about these women. It never stopped giving them attention, or being incensed at the things they have to say. And everybody knew right away who those code words referred to. Literally the only meaningful effect of these rather derisive code names was to strip these women of their identity in frequent discussions about those same women. Do you know what GamerGate could have done instead to avoid giving these supposed attention-seekers what they want? Not pay them any attention.

> FoldableHuman loves nonfalsifiable interpretations of social phenomena, and this is a nonfalsifiable interpretation. Any group can be interpreted this way:

> GGers: Sure, we're mostly white males, but we have women and minorities in our movement! We're totally not using them as tokens to further our agenda!

Falsifiable or not, what matters is that this assertion is true. It's not like GamerGate is subtle about it.

> She's introverted, has a healthy and realistic figure (not anorexic, not busty), dresses in casual, normal clothing, and just wants to play games without all the politics.

(emphasis mine)

You said it yourself - Vivian James is a girl who would never voice any concern over the representation of her gender in the hobby that she loves because she just wants to play games. She's a gamer girl that doesn't meaningfully challenge or critique the increasingly former status quo (there's that phrase again) of gaming as a male-dominated, frequently sexist cultural space. This is the crux of Foldable Human's argument, and you apparently agree with it.

> Gaming criticism is still in its infancy. Just as gamers need to learn how to accept criticism from perspectives they don't share, critics need to learn how to communicate their ideas effectively and dovetail criticism to its medium in meaningful ways. In short, a Rogers review of Bayonetta 2- same issues with clothing and design, same final score, but with depth and knowledge and medium awareness- would've gotten a much healthier reception. This is what it means to just care about games.

I have seen and even participated in several arguments with GamerGaters regarding that Bayonetta review, and not a single one complained about depth, knowledge, or medium awareness exhibited therein. What they did complain about was that the review was "pushing an agenda", because what GamerGate really cares about is to remove or mitigate the influence of so-called SJWs in gaming culture, and for their precious games to be treated as toys and consumer products that cater to their tastes rather than as art that can be critiqued as sexist or racist. GamerGate wants politics out of games - didn't you just give Vivian James as an example of this very sentiment?

> Everything is political? Even the culinary arts? Even Pillock paintings? Even gardening? Even Super Mario Bros.?

...have you not watched Anita's videos? If your one example of an apolitical video game is the single most iconic example of the Damsel in Distress in all of video game history, it would be an understatement to say that you're not making a very strong case. The same can be said for your other examples. Gardening absolutely takes place in a socio-political context, and is performed to serve the needs of its owner or creator, whether that's to provide supplementary sustenance, cultivate rare or exotic plants, or exhibit an ostentatious display of privilege and wealth. A community vegetable garden makes an entirely different statement from a conservatory, a Japanese rock garden, or a hedge maze. The same with cooking - there's a reason that banquets and feasts accompany all manners of cultural festivals, formal ceremonies, and other important events. (Try telling the White House Executive Chef that she doesn't serve a political function). And assuming you're talking about Jackson Pollock, are you seriously arguing that there's nothing political about a painting by possibly the most influential figure in abstract impressionism? Really?!?