Libertarianism is an
idealism or more politely a
totalizing discourse used to rationalize policy solutions that are distinctly non-idealist when used in popular discourse. For example, the
minimal state is used by the GOP to rationalize attacks on non-minimal state intervention as de-/re-regulation of large-scale capitalist market domination becomes necessary to ensure a functioning national economy. It is also used to rationalize individual action that might be more sociopathic yet anonymized by being on the Web as some form of idealized social media(ted) frontier wilderness yet to be civilized. In each instance the logical and material contradictions get conveniently omitted.
Some would even try to parse a Left from a Right libertarianism to protect the important privacy and civil libertarian discourse, yet it is always constrained by its logical incompleteness as policy: RKBA versus public safety or outing abortion doctors' home addresses versus doxxing KKK members. Ultimately it is in a democracy, about protecting individual rights rather than distorting that concept by granting corporations rights reserved for individuals using the same idealizing discourse as a foundational contradiction of what is "essentially" materially human (as species being). In each instance the logical and material contradictions get conveniently omitted.
So heteronormal jealousy as situational ethics will out? And is left wing doxxing any more justifiable than RWNJ doxxing. A reasonable example of the abuse of human rights rooted in pathological reciprocity can be seen in #gamergate as a crowdsourced hate campaign (reactionary "game'baggers" against "social justice warriors")
in a depressing demonstration that one can never underestimate the awfulness of the Internet, the whole #GamerGate phenomenon has become, well, a phenomenon, one that’s sort of burbled over from the world of gaming and into the world of pop culture generally (shit, even the New Yorker is writing about it).
The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.
The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Greyson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. Quinn was then subjected to severe misogynistic harassment, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. A number of gaming industry members supportive of Quinn were also subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and the malicious broadcasting of personally identifiable information about them (doxxing); some of them fled their homes. The targets were mostly women, and included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan, 8chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. Often expressly anti-feminist and frequently misogynistic, these attacks heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community.
Male testosterone levels increase when victorious in competition against rivals, but not friends
gamergate defenders are only an ethical hobby lobby for warriors who don't fight for social justice
GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games
First, we have a young industry that began, like so many others, as a male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains. The media is even younger than the industry itself and it’s experiencing growth pains, too. These growth pains have resulted in some raw, open wounds that fester whenever controversy erupts, and risk being infected further by politicized forces that care less about video games and more about political agendas. (All of this is a distraction from the real business of reporting on the video game industry and critiquing video games, though I think there is plenty of room for cultural commentary with political slants here as well, just like in TV, film, etc.)
Second, we have deep mistrust between consumers and the video game industry thanks to years of bad DRM and other poor business practices. That mistrust is now being cast on the press that’s supposed to be covering the industry to protect the consumer. Consumers (gamers) have increasingly viewed the press as “in bed” with the industry rather than working for consumers. This is enforced by stories of chummy developers and journalists, lavish AAA publisher-thrown parties, high-scoring games that aren’t particularly good, and so forth.
Finally, we have a video game press with a largely left-leaning political bias in some ways alienating itself from much of its readership. This seeps into the first two problems and complicates the matter, but isn’t in and of itself an invalid complaint. If the video game press were deeply conservative, you’d have a lot of left-leaning voices decrying it as well. The tenor of the discussion has become so “us vs. them” at this point, that many gamers simply feel unrepresented and condescended.
The problem of course at its core is that a selective or gender-privileged view of libertarianism seeks minimal limits whereas a real system of individual rights protection under libertarian regimes would be maximal in terms of the application of force/harm. The irony is of course in a gaming industry still largely dependent on games that epitomize the ultimate form of force application albeit "fictionalized".
Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm." This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.
(2011) A 46 year old man tracked down and choked a 13 year old boy after he had killed the man in Call of Duty: Black Ops and taunted him about it. After going to the boys house, Mark Bradford choked him with both hands and left him with a scratch. Bradford was arrested, admitted assault and will be sentenced on October 24th. He seems a rather sympathetic character, and I hope he gets off on this one: “I’d been playing the whole day and he was baiting me and just would not shut up. I just lost it. In a moment of madness I went round to the house. I didn’t know what I was going to do. It wasn’t malice. I just grabbed him. I’ve seen him since and apologised. The injuries weren’t that bad but I do regret it.” - See more at: http://snarkcriticpop.com/...