Marina Warner thinks higher education has become corrupt. Do you?

I.) Of course, that’s a trick question. The trick is getting you to believe that higher education wasn’t corrupt at some point. Let’s go through a short history lesson. In the western world, the first universities were so expensive, only the wealthy could attend. You either had to be rich, be the child of someone who is rich, or have someone who is rich be indebted to you somehow. The function of the university was to continue the entrenchment of the aristocracy. If only rich people can be smart, then only rich people can run society. We usually gloss over that though, because public college and universities were supposed to be the exact opposite. Education for everyone, regardless of status was the motto for everyone who thinks that’s what college is for. However, anyone born in the 1920-40’s can actually remember when the number of colleges exploded in the U.S. I’ll give you hint, it starts with ‘f’ and rhymes with ‘ball of Hitler’. After WWII, a lot of young soldiers came home with an awful lot of money (G.I. Bill). Many people (read: non soldiers) saw the G.I. Bill as basically free money. Now, what’s the easiest way to wrest money away from people? Convince them it’s worth it. College: training soldiers to re enter the work force at home, was the real motto back in the day, funded by the suffering and death of millions (read: weapons manufacturing), brought to you in part by Hitler (read:Global Politics). Eventually, colleges became readily available to everyone around 1965. What’s also interesting to note is that advertising became much more aggressive in that decade as well, but that’s probably a coincidence. The point here though, is that the second that college became available to everyone, it became available to everyone. Including corporations. Including think tanks. Including anything you don’t like. The fact is, College has never ever ever ever been ever separated from special interests at any time or place. “Oh, you have a college degree?,” says the employer ,”You’re hired!” “You only have a college degree?” Says the modern employer. “I guess we could start you at minimum wage. How’s 24 hours a week sound?”

II.) There is an abstract force which guides our society, I’ll call it ‘the system’. No, the system isn’t the man, it’s not the government, or big business. The system is you. The system is you, me, and everyone else. Specifically, it’s the accumulation of all participant’s desires. Here’s an example: You want an iPad. You also don’t want to pay $7,000 for an iPad. Apple wants to sell you an iPad. They know you don’t want to pay $7,000 for it. In order to get what you both want, Apple will create a sweatshop in Taiwan where it can be made such that an iPad can be sold to you for $499. You see, the system isn’t good at managing which desires have more merit than others, or which ones will be more important later down the line, it just takes them all and makes sure they all intersect at some point. Herein lies the actual problem with college. It tells you that all degrees are equal, which you know is bullshit. However, college isn’t telling you that so it can get your money because you’re moron and it knows better (mostly), it’s telling you that because that’s exactly what you want to hear. If college was as honest as you don’t want them to be, they would take down all of their extraordinarily unprofitable degrees and only allow you to take ones that would ensure success on some level. If you wanted to take creative writing as a degree to become a novelist, they would tell you to start writing, that you don’t need college for that; you need drive and constant practice. However, because you want to feel like writing sci-fi is just as important as curing cancer, and college wants your money, that’s exactly what it’s going to tell you. in the words of the last psychiatrist, “Sum the vectors.”

III.) Marina Warner is apparently a really famous novelist over in England, and good for her. She wrote the piece that I am basing this post off of. She subscribes to the romantic philosophy of higher education being the expression of western democracy and all that good stuff. Note, she identifies as a novelist (read: not an economist). This is why her piece is fundamentally flawed. She thinks that higher education has become flawed in modern times. She believes that when she went to school, there was no/very little corruption, as in, it never occurred to her to think this in the first place. If she ever admitted that she was duped and couldn’t see it until she was effectively double duped, I think her mind would break on the assumption that everyone’s mind would break if they admitted that most of their adult life was spent living in comfortable ignorance.

IV.) Ms. Warner’s thought process is representative of the mind’s defense against change. We all do it. It’s a powerful mechanism as creatures of habit. What makes it so tempting to do this is that it is so easy, and so powerfully irrational. It relies on confirming what we already believe to confirm what we are going to believe. If we see something that doesn’t align with what we already believe, we don’t explore new options, we usually just switch our viewpoint on the event to where it lines up with our preexisting beliefs. Here’s an example. Christians don’t believe in evolution. Irrefutable evidence of evolution comes forward. At first, they just refute it. Then they say God made evolution possible. Now we have distinctions in science made by Christians, separating science into observational science and historical science. Historical science can’t be observed, and therefore, we can’t really know what happened. Rather than accepting that everything they know could be entirely false, which I’m not saying it is (I’m also not not saying it), They merely found a work around that allows them to still believe what they were going to believe in the first place while coexisting with the evidence. That’s what happened here with Ms. Warner, down to a ‘T’. Not only did she refuse to believe that higher education was corrupt while she went there as a student, she even wrote an article about it. If you don’t think that’s important, you’re about to find out why it is.

V.) Defense against change manifests itself in one of two ways: Crowd sourcing opinion and frantic activity. Ms. Warner accomplished both. Rather than re-thinking what she knew, rather than at least forming a group dedicated to fighting corruption in higher education, she convinced herself it couldn’t have been corrupted while she was attending as a student and then wrote an article about it. Since she expended energy both convincing herself and convincing others by writing an article about how higher education has become corrupt, she no longer has to challenge her own beliefs. Status quo is maintained in her mind, and she can continue being a productive consumer while convincing herself that she isn’t one. What we keeping forgetting is that this works both ways. as long as status quo is maintained for her and everyone who agrees with her, so too is the status quo for the corrupt universities. Marina isn’t going to realize this, she’s set in her ways. To any of you who believe you can change the system, I will offer you these words: This will be cripplingly difficult, but you must find people who believe in what you believe in, and you must act.


TTIFRY Feminists, #Gamergate, and Labor Costs

I. For those of you have been living under rock and/or doing something with your life, there’s actually been a whole controversy going on for the past six months known under the hashtag #gamergate. I’m not going to rehash what everyone has already said, I’ll just provide links for that. However, for context, I’ll give a brief summary of what’s been going on:

Zoe Quinn came under attack for allegations of cronyism (sleeping with five different people in the gaming industry for positive reviews, as well as receiving funding from them) and for false flag operations of harassment against herself in order to generate more views and sales of her game, Depression Quest. Are the allegations true? Are they False? I don’t fucking care. What matters most is her response. Her response turned what was an investigation of unethical journalism practices in the video game industry into a culture war.

This is her response:

“(…)What I am going to say is that the proliferation of nude pictures of me, death threats, vandalization, doxxing of my trans friends for having the audacity to converse with me publicly, harassment of friends and family and my friends’ family in addition to TOTALLY UNRELATED PEOPLE, sending my home address around, rape threats, memes about me being a whore, pressures to kill myself, slurs of every variety, fucking debates over what my genitals smell like, vultures trying to make money off of youtube videos about it, all of these things are inexcusable and will continue to happen to women until this culture changes. I’m certainly not the first. I wish I could be the last.” – Zoe Quinn

Let me be clear, No one should harass someone else with the above. That’s ridiculous. However, when you’ve been accused of false flagging harassment to yourself (there is compelling evidence for that position), do you really think you should respond with more supposed instances of harassment?

In response to the allegations, instead of admitting to anything she had done on her own, she instead decides to enlist the help of every. single. woman. in. America. Christ. This is an established tactic of Twitter/Tumblr/Instagram/Facebook/Reddit/Youtube Feminists and has been for awhile. If you don’t believe me, just go to ye olde feminists sites like Jezebel and Feministing. However, Zoe decides to break tradition, and go one step further. She decided to bring in transgendered people. Did it really matter that her friends were transgendered? Of course not. However, by specifically mentioning that they were transgendered friends that were being attacked, she wants to communicate one thing to you:

If you are transgendered, everyone that hates me hates you too.

There should be a special place for people like Ms. Quinn.

Then of course, Anita Sarkeesian had to get involved. She’s also infamous for putting out her video series Tropes vs. Women in Video games, which she paid for through kickstarter. All of her videos have been continuously refuted countless times, so I’m not going to go into that. The only thing you need to know is that she subscribes to the same philosophy of Zoe, which is, ” If I have a problem, it’s everyone problems. If someone disagrees with me, they obviously hate everybody.”

And who can forgot Brianna Wu, another victim of the misogyny of the gamer culture. But she’s not really that important, she just completes the trifecta.

II. At some point after the entire point of #gamergate got redirected, the news got involved. The fact that it’s on the news demonstrates the most powerful weapon TTIFRY Feminists have at their disposal:

Misogyny is a career killer.

Let’s put it this way: You go to CNN and ask to have a piece done about misogyny. You give them your  story and they tell you to shove it. You do the same thing with MSNBC. Same Response. Finally, you go to FOX News, where not only do you get to tell your story, but you also get to tell the FOX news demo that CNN and MSNBC don’t care about your misogynist story (Read: They don’t care [Read: They are misogynists])

Because of this, the media has to play ball. In fact, they actually have to go out and search for it. If they don’t search, they don’t care. If they don’t run the story, they don’t care. Unfortunately, I don’t have time for your insanity is no longer an acceptable answer, as public perception is more important than truth. This is what happened to Gamergate, and why they are going to be on the losing side of this battle in the eyes of the public (Read:Truth) forever. They now have to constantly defend themselves against misogyny, the community as a whole, consistently. Every day. As long as this controversy continues. Yes, they have made some victories, but none of these have been publicized as heavily as the allegations lobbed against them. #Gamergate now has to play the feminist game, even though they don’t want to. They even disavow anyone that does harass another. But anyone that does give harassment to whoever is against #Gamergate is instantly assumed to be someone who affiliates with #Gamergate, and the cycle never ends. Here’s why this has happened:

#Gamergate chose to defend themselves against the allegations.

III. You might be thinking, So what? They should have defended themselves against people that are lying. Well, uh, duh. Of course you should do that when someone accuses you of something you haven’t done. Except for when the accuser is already the accused. Except for when you could have just ignored it, let them writhe in their filth, and let them expose themselves. When you respond to bullshit of this magnitude, you accept the premise. You accept that their argument now has just as much validity as your argument. Unlike human beings, not all arguments were created equal. Does misogyny in any industry matter? Of course it does. Does it matter when the allegations against those who cry misogyny are for cronyism and false flag operations? Fuck no. Two COMPLETELY SEPARATE matters for two COMPLETELY SEPARATE discussions. That’s how it should have been played out. That’s not the way it went, #Gamergate has tried to handle it the best they could, and props to them for doing so.

IV. Crying culture war is an effective tactic. It always has been. What’s sad is that this is not so much accidental as it is totally on purpose. By totally on purpose, I mean the problem that feminists see is put there in front of them to distract them. Here is a very simple truth. In order for publishers to fund games that include everybody in the country in their demo, then everyone has to buy games. Since everyone won’t buy games, Publishers can’t do it. If you’re wondering how that works, let me give an explanation free of mumbo jumbo. People make games with a certain demo in mind. That demo gives expected sales figures. expected sales figures are a major determining factor in the budget. That’s how publishers avoiding wasting millions developing and marketing a game to a demo that has no interest, or isn’t that interested in that kind of game. Now unfortunately, this is something no one really thinks about because none of us even know the names of the people responsible; the only thing we get to see are the lackeys doing damage control. Game devs, journalists, community managers, etc. etc. They don’t decide the budget, and they usually don’t even decide the demo. The more control game devs want over their product, the more they have to fight for it. The more they have to fight, the less likely they’ll be called upon in the future. That simple. You wanna keep your job, then play ball. I’m not saying they shouldn’t fight (I’m not not saying it either), I’m saying that’s the reality. They got mouths to feed, and one of those mouths isn’t you.

V. When we finally accept that the issue is about labor costs, and not about inherent misogyny in the industry, the solution becomes surprisingly simple. Whenever you see a game come out that you feel addresses the issues you find need to be fixed, then buy it. Get your friends to buy it. Put out blogs about it. Hell, try your hand at making one. But keep doing it, and don’t stop. Eventually, Publishers will see you as a demo worth targeting, and you’ll see the games you want coming out. You might think to yourself any number of things that distract you from that reality. Don’t let that happen. Publishers don’t care if you cry their games are sexist, especially when they’ve sold a couple million copies of them. It doesn’t matter what you can prove because people are going to buy games. The fight on #Gamergate is only going to drive sales of games. That’s all the publishers care about. Let me be more clear in case you still don’t get it TTIFRY feminists, progressive writers, or anyone else who believes that the games industry in somehow full of weak willed women and women-hating men: YOU CANNOT WIN THIS FIGHT. Proceed with observation and inference.


Picture Source: