Yes,@leighalexander WAS attacking nerds & autistics #Gamergate #notyourshield

Alternate title: An explanation of the blindingly obvious



When critics of Leigh Alexander's “Gamers are over” article (https://archive.today/l1kTW) point out that the article drips contempt for nerds in general, for socially awkward people, and perhaps especially people on the autistic spectrum, it is common for her apologists to insist that she was only condemning gamers who threaten or abuse women, or a who are so fixated on gaming that they maliciously lash out at any perceived threat to it, or other morally objectionable traits. Therefore, nerds/awakward people/autistics in general are supposedly not the targets and have no reason to object- unless, of course, they ARE one of those despicable people who send women death threats and what have you.



Alexander's apologists may sometimes go further: By claiming that Alexander's article was attacking nerds/autistics/etc., isn't the critic implying that misogyny, threatening criminal behavior, and so forth are typical nerd traits or autistic traits? So who REALLY despises nerds or autistics here, huh?



Now, I find it hard to believe this argument is ever made in good faith. If Alexander had only wanted to attack abusive people, there was no reason to fill her article with sneeringly contemptuous descriptions of gamers and gamer culture in general. liberally invoking and attacking nerd/autistic stereotypes that- however uncool they may be- harm no one, and which Alexander gives no reason to believe are even positively correlated with misogyny or abuse, much less causally connected.



(Similarly, if Alexander merely wanted to celebrate the popularity of games beyond stereotypical nerds to a wider audience- which is another common defense- there would be no reason to attack people who DO fit the stereotype to one degree or another.)



Nevertheless, since it appears so commonly, I finally felt compelled to spell out WHY it's a ridiculous defense of Alexander's article. Or, rather, to show why.



(Also, in before some dipshit claims I think hating gamers is just like homophobia.)



Suppose I said something like this:



“Let me tell you about a group of awful men. They're very prissy and effeminate. They speak in lispy voices and make limp-wristed gestures. They're into fashion and interior decorating. They have sex with other men. They love Broadway musicals and electronic dance music. They often dress up like construction workers or bikers, or wear assless leather pants. They march in 'pride' parades with others of their kind. They all have at least one heterosexual female friend who they provide with dating tips and sassy reparte. They're really into Judy Garland. Also, they're prone to sexually abusing little boys. They're terrible people.”



Do you think that what I just wrote was a perfectly unobjectionable, straightforward condemnation of people who sexually abuse children?



No, because you're not an idiot.



Do you think what I just wrote was even primarily ABOUT attacking people who sexually abuse children, rather than smearing another group?



No, because you're not an idiot.



Now, suppose a gay man said he found what I'd just written objectionable. And suppose I replied, “Why? I never said anything bad about gay people. I didn't even use the word! I was condemning child molesters. If you don't molest children, I wasn't referring to you and you have no reason to object to anything I said.” Would you buy that?



No, because you're not an idiot.



And suppose I said, “Are you implying that every gay man matches the description I gave, that every gay man fits all the popular stereotypes? Worse, are you implying that all gay men are pedophiles, that pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow inextricably linked? Who's the REAL homophobe here, huh? Huh?” Would you consider that a compelling rebuttal??



No, because you're not an idiot.



Now suppose I rewrote the above in a more Leigh Alexanderesque style. Instead of just rattling off gay stereotypes in a (until the last one) neutral, unjudgmental fashion, I talked about them in highly unflattering terms. I ridiculed the idea of men with interests that are not stereotypically masculine, talked about gay sex being weird and gross and unnatural, I described described the patrons of gay bars and clubs or members of gay groups and organizations as ugly, dull-wiitted, pathetic freaks whose interests and activities were stupid and contemptible. what have you. THEN would you believe that I had no antipathy towards gay men, and that there was no reason for them to feel attacked unless they were also pedophiles?



No, because you're not an idiot, or at least not that big of an idiot. Even if you're pretending you are to score rhetorical points.



I'm autistic, but I'm not an idiot, either. Stop acting like I am by expecting me to believe that Leigh Alexander's article somehow wasn't an expression of hatred and disgust for people like me- whether they're autistic, or just too nerdy or weird for Alexander to be seen tolerating when she's showing the other bullies that she's cool like them.

Reply · Report Post