Blogger mom thinks her teens’ counterculture is white supremacy
If children are taught how to think, not what to think, there’s no ideology or dogmatic force that need be feared. Kids must learn to discern fact from fiction, to form opinions based on given data, to understand what data is relevant and what isn’t, and to weigh judgments against a set of moral guidelines. Parenting is not about making sure kids have all the right information, it’s about giving them the tools to access it, and the awareness to know what to do with it.
This concept was missed by writer Joanna Schroeder, who writes on parenting for Disney’s site Babble. In an epic Twitter thread, she asked “Do you have white teenage sons? Listen up.” And proceeded to rant about the problem with what white, teen boys like on the internet. It turns out that she has white, teen boys, and she’s been concerned about their online interests. She thinks the internet is trying to turn her boys into white supremacists.
GamerGate may have happened four years ago, but it continues to be a subject of conversation—at least among the journalists who owe any amount of social relevance to the event.
As I detailed extensively on Human Events, GamerGate galvanized the gaming community against censorship, corrupt journalism, and efforts to marginalize the core audience of video games. The event, which is described one-sidedly by journalists as a supposed attack on “women, POC, and LGBTQ” within the gaming industry, is once again being talked about after a left-leaning YouTuber supporter, Peter Coffin, observed how GamerGate impacted the two factions propped up by the six-year-old event.
He talked about how the anti-GamerGate faction is using the event to denigrate supporters of Bernie Sanders. Posting on Twitter, he wrote: “The anti-Gamergate people who have remained liberal and are mobilizing against Bernie Sanders effectively demonstrates how the overall effect of GG was the cementing divisions between conservatives and liberals.”
“Gamergaters justifiably felt alienated by the neoliberal fetishization of feminism and the reductionism of politics to identity teams – and powerful people with supremacy ideologies have worked a long time to subsume this alienation,” he continued.
While Coffin’s language is unnecessarily academic, it can be translated thusly: Supporters of GamerGate were alienated from their own space by activists. Described as “misogynists,” and “bigots,” these gamers were disenfranchised by social justice activists and game journalists who occupy mainstream platforms, who used the event to virtue signal and marginalize anyone who disagreed with them. Opportunistic figures from “supremacy ideologies” (i.e. the Alt-Right and the Red Pill/manosphere community) saw it as an opportunity to court marginalized individuals and convert them into their own ideologies, using GamerGate as a means to “redpill” them.
If you were anti-GamerGate, you were a “progressive.” If you supported it, you were knocked into the conservative camp regardless of your political beliefs. You were a harasser, a bigot, and a “deplorable” person. The divisions became further entrenched with the election of Donald Trump and the mainstream media’s attempts to disenfranchise conservative voters. This remains true.
Even though those who supported GamerGate no longer talk about the subject and have long since abandoned the gaming press as anything but corrupt, game journalists continue to cling to relevance by bringing it up, and are now taking Coffin to task for daring to share his observations.
Sady Doyle, a vocal opponent of GamerGate and Salon writer, dismissed Coffin’s points, to claim: “TFW you neoliberally fetishize the idea that hordes of men not call you up late at night and threaten to murder you just because you put a lady in a video game.”
There’s no evidence that anyone ever received late-night calls from “hordes of men,” but the narrative has already been set. GamerGate supporters, one and all, are bigoted white supremacist men who live in their grandma’s basements who make harassing phone calls to female game developers because they hate seeing women in video games.
This is also the plot to the Law & Order SVU episode, Intimidation Game. It never happened in real life.
Doyle was joined by other journalists, including Leena Van Deventer, who claims “Gamergate happened because a jilted f*ckwit wanted to outsource domestic violence on his ex. Sympathisers jumped on because they didn’t want women to think they could do whatever they want.”
YouTuber Jack Saint described GamerGate as “a group of mostly middle-class white dudes built an identity around ‘geek culture’ and didn’t like feeling their hobbies were infiltrated by women/PoC/The Gays. it was the result of a culture that told people they could find identities via consumption.”
Fellow left-wing YouTuber Alexander Mixter, who now goes by “they/them” condemned Coffin’s claims. He wrote: “Rewriting goobergate as a white male class awakening has the dual function of rehabing GGrs outside right-wing crankery, & gives a more believable backstory, covering the unbelievable truth that it was all because a abusive dick set a mob of angry fash nerds to destroy his ex gf.”
New Republic journalist Libby C. Watson managed to drag the Washington Post’s suspension of Felicia Sonmez following her comments Kobe Bryant’s death as a “gamergate style campaign from right-wing psychos”—as if most of Kobe’s fans are unhinged conservatives who also play video games.
Without proper context, it’s possible to see GamerGate as a kneejerk reaction to everything feminine or “diverse” in the game industry—and the presence of actual misogynists and racists who piggybacked onto the movement and used it as a label for their own hateful ideologies lends credence to this belief. But GamerGate was, by and large, a response to the corporate pinkwashing of feminism, virtue signalling by developers intending to court woke game journalists and the corruption of journalists who provide undue amounts of coverage for their friends’ products (which just so happen to carry woke messaging) without proper disclosure.
Efforts by game journalists to protect individuals like game developer Zoe Quinn, who is accused of pocketing over $75,000 from Kickstarter backers for a game that never materialized, further entrenched GamerGate supporters’ understanding that game journalists and their friends in the game industry are corrupt, and boldly so. The same thing can very easily be observed among the rest of the entertainment media, which took to condemning Joker as a movie about “angry white males,” sparking fears of an “incel uprising” following the movie’s release in theaters. With so much information available at our fingertips, we needn’t buy into the official narrative put forth by game journalists when the truth itself is as plain as day.
Not a week goes by when Jessica Yaniv isn’t in the news for committing a crime or doing something so morally abhorrent it might as well be criminal to do so.
Yaniv’s deplorability is depthless. Yet despite the wall-to-wall coverage of Yaniv’s activities both online and in the real world, the self-described “trans rights activist” has managed to elude any serious repercussions from the law.
Writing for Human Events, I previously described Yaniv’s attempts to manipulate the law as state-enforced sexual assault. I stand by it. Yaniv, who is male-to-female transgender, attempted to subvert law enforcement to do her bidding by taking them to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and essentially trying them for anti-trans bigotry when they refused to provide their genitalia-waxing services, male-bodied transgender persons.
Despite eventually losing the case, the legal ramifications to Yaniv were minimal and Yaniv has only gotten worse since then—and the lack of any severe repercussions has only emboldened her misbehaviour.
Not only has Yaniv tried to subvert the law to force women to wax her male genitalia—she’s now using the law to try and silence her detractors. She made false allegations of sexual assault on The Post Millennial’s Amy Eileen Hamm, who has brought a civil suit against Yaniv.
She also assaulted Canadian journalist Keean Bexte. One might hope that the time she spends roaming about in a motorized scooter will soon come to an end as she was finally arrested over the assault. The footage of the attack was caught on camera, which should be an open and shut case for any prosecutor in the B.C. courts.
That isn’t the only felony charge Yaniv faces, either—having previously been charged for possessing illegal weapons, which she proudly flaunted (and arguably used to threaten) YouTuber Blaire White during a live-streamed interview late last year.
Yaniv has proven herself dangerous to young people. The Post Millennial has profiled in detail allegations by a young woman who alleges that years prior to attaining notoriety over the “wax my balls” scandal, Yaniv—then going by the name Jonathan—had attempted to sexually exploit her when she was underage.
Observers, including myself, remain skeptical that Yaniv will see any actual jail time. Her actions would have landed anyone else behind bars long before now.
Why is it that Yaniv can escape the long arm of the law? A public menace, Yaniv enjoys unspoken protections from the law—not merely as someone who identifies as transgender but as a transgender activist, who makes every action taken against her an action that weighs against the trans rights movement as a whole.
Indeed, the LGBT-friendly media—at least in the form of the internationally read PinkNews came to the apparent defence of the accused child sex predator and public menace. As Celine Ryan detailed for The Post Millennial, the progressive publication chose instead to smear Blaire White, who has been outspoken in her criticism of Yaniv.
Unlike Yaniv, White is openly conservative and doesn’t regard herself as any sort of “trans activist.” In other words, White isn’t the right kind of trans. Yaniv, a colossal fruitcake and aggressively woke social justice activist is everything publications like PinkNews look to champion.
Labels, to some, matter more than substance—and therein lies the problem with those in law enforcement who care more about optics than they do about meting out justice. Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy, no politician, judge, or police officer who acts against Jessica Yaniv is going to emerge unscathed due to the protection she is afforded by the privilege of the labels she wears.
There’s nothing just about social justice.
The New York Times endorsement of both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president has been lauded and critiqued, but no take is quite as inane and Lauren Duca’s. Writing for The Independent, Duca takes an essential tack linking womanhood with virtuosity, love, nurturing, and maternal values. These are what Duca believes we need in the highest office, and apparently qualities which are the purview of women at large.
Duca believes that women will bring “unconditional love” to the conference table. She thinks women have less greed and avarice, and that while “the divine feminine is beyond that binary, best understood as the force of nurturing,” gender is a social construct.
It’s surprising that both of these views can exist concurrently within one cohesive ethos. Gender isn’t real, apparently, because it’s made up by society to sell us prescribed notions for what men and women are, but femininity brings with it a form of divinity that is localized within women and those who believe they are women, even though womanhood isn’t really anything specific. Are we all clear? No?
Duca opines: “America, as it stands, is not even pretending to be a free country. We are living in an oligarchy structured by the hierarchy of the white, supremacist patriarchy, and this is where toxic masculinity has led us.”
How can a person of such privilege, who gets to write for fancy platforms, teach adjunct classes, and traipse around the world on tour for a book that doesn’t even sell any copies, claim that America is not a free country? How can a person who has benefited so greatly precisely because of her status as an identitarian grievance monger make the assertion that we live in a white supramacist oligarchy? Isn’t this all getting a little old?
Under the guise of elevating women, Duca puts them right back in their place. Probably she thinks she’s lifting women up by saying that they can achieve world peace and stop World War 3 before it’s begun in a way that men, with their penchant toward toxicity, haven’t been able to do. If men aren’t better suited to office on the basis of their sex, then neither are women. Sex isn’t a characteristic upon which votes should be based.
If a woman were elected on the basis of her sex, and she didn’t magically fix all the social ills with one SCOTUS nom and a few passes of her magical bill signing pen under the light of the full moon in the Rose Garden, how could the US ever justify electing another? Women are fallible, not magical. Y’know, just like other people.
Women are people, with aspirations, faults, wishes, wills, and a drive to succeed. To count them as anything other does their humanity a disservice. Duca writes: “I think it makes a difference if the person at the helm of this transformation is a woman, because of the lessons learned by anyone who has a female perspective on our crisis of toxic masculinity.”
But that doesn’t actually mean anything.
Duca, of course, has been a longtime culture warrior on the woke side—a true believer who has offered up hot take after hot take espousing the most incoherent of woke talking points like “Sean Spicer’s Emmys Cameo Wasn’t a Joke—It’s Dangerous,” or “Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America.”
Duca then had her own turn in the barrel, when her entire NYU class revolted because she was not woke enough. Apparently she hasn’t learned the lessons that you can never be woke enough, and that the woke will devour themselves in the end.
The word “woke” has been bandied around in progressive circles since the early 2010s. Ironically, “woke” has become a pejorative term used to denigrate those who signal their virtue without doing much to advance any progressive cause. Woke individuals are, as the rule (that I just invented) goes, more concerned with making themselves look good and using their platform (or building a platform) to abuse others under the guise of combating social injustice.
None of this has, of course, gone unnoticed by the woke progressives who use the term without any sense of irony whatsoever. In an op-ed for the Guardian, writer Steve Rose opines that the word “woke” has been “weaponized by the right.” But whose fault is that, exactly? It’s certainly not the fault of those tired of being moralized and lectured to that they might repurpose the term to mock those who engage in cancel campaigns against any celebrity or public figure guilty of perceived unwokeness.
Citing the Merriam-Webster, Rose says that the term “woke” refers to anyone “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” And much like the term “political correctness,” the term has come to mean the opposite of what it means—or so he claims.
But is that truly the case? Those who elevate themselves through wokeness have little interest in combating social injustices and simply use it as a shield for their own bigotry, and to shut down dissenting opinions. Their wokeness, if it exists at all, is performative.
This isn’t to say that one can simply go about spouting racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise bigoted remarks without pushback from any decent and reasonable person. Decent and reasonable people don’t care about being “woke.” “Woke” individuals, as it were, cultivate their entire personalities around the fight for social justice without much to show for it besides preening at everyone else on Twitter.
Wokeness has become a social status symbol more than anything else, and the “Right,” or the “unwoke,” or whatever you want to call us continue to be reasonable people while rubbing our lack of wokeness in the face of those who rally around the hollow symbol.
Case in point: Guardian writer, Steve Rose, attacks actor Laurence Fox for—you guessed it, unwokeness. He writes:
“Laurence Fox nailed his colours to the latter mast this weekend, doubling down on his defence of the privileged white male on last week’s Question Time to a Sunday Times article under the banner ‘Why I won’t date ‘woke’ women’. Toby Young piled in, applauding how Fox was ‘terrorising the Wokerati’, while the Sun last weekend branded Harry and Meghan ‘the oppressive King and Queen of Woke’.”
Rose argues that rather than simply rejecting the concept of wokeness, detractors of the term, like Fox, only criticize wokeness as “way of claiming victim status for yourself rather than acknowledging that more deserving others hold that status. It has gone from a virtue signal to dog whistle.”
On the contrary, any individual who makes claims to wokeness isn’t so much of a victim as they are a participant in the race for social status. Being unwoke doesn’t give you an entry pass into a separate league of oppression.
Laurence Fox has been outspoken in his lack of wokeness, simply speaking his mind and saying it like it is with no regard for how supposedly offensive it is to not be mindful to those who hold wokeness up as a virtue in and of itself. He isn’t claiming to be a victim—like any decent and reasonable person, he’s rejecting victimhood entirely. And it’s working.