Hacker News Reader

Comment by teddyh | Hacker News Reader

> Feminist analysis of Gamergate first exposed the online radicalization of legions of angry young men for whom misogyny was a gateway drug to far-right politics.

Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe.

Like I once wrote¹, this came out of nowhere, and is presented as if every reader should obviously agree with it. Is “far-right” supposed to be something which is obviously inherently bad? I can see the case for using the term “alt-right” in that sense. But right/left? The whole point of the right/left terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it were, we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right.

In an article which has nothing to do with actual politics, to bring up “far-right” as a stereotypical bad thing, shows that it’s written by someone living in a bubble.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18160488

View on HN

"Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe."

I don't know if the article could've done without this, actually. The entire article seems to argue that, due to abusive interactions and power dynamics are mostly commonly dealt with in a feminist lens, the strategies of analysis of intersectional interactions under a feminist framework will provide a better context to generate workable, functioning logistics on redefining the human-phone relationship.

In that context, that gamergate's main targets of hate were women is relevant.

I can see the tie to misogyny, sure. It was the “far-right” connection I questioned, which I feel the article absolutely could have done without.

"far-right" sentiments are often against what are typically understood as feminist sentiments. Eg. Abortion access, social services, access to contraception, implementing regulations around pregnant women and the pay gap (as well as the implication that the pay gap exists and can partially be rooted in sexism)...

Yes, I know what you mean, but that can’t have been the reasoning; the article stated that gamers went from misogyny to far-right, using misogyny as a “gateway drug”. Why would the article have used the term “far-right” as a euphemism for “anti-feminist”, when it already postulated misogyny to start with? I think that interpretation makes no sense. The sentence only parses sensibly if you interpret “far-right” as something inherently bad, and something worse than misogyny. It’s hard to tell, though, since the article doesn’t use this connection again.

The rest of the article mostly uses misogynists as the antagonists in its analogy to phones, and that’s fine and makes sense using the reasoning present in the article. It was that random connection to left/right politics which was unnecessary, since the “misogynist” label would have worked just as well, as evidenced by the rest of the article, which doesn’t use the “far-right” connection at all; this is why I called it a “snipe”.

From a feminist perspective, are right and left the same choice on matters of abortion, access to reproductive services, education on sex and condoms, or workplace rights?

keep reading after that sentence and this article continues to undermine itself by actively portraying feminists as the greatest thing ever and men as evil.

> Next thing you know, women will be wearing trousers and thinking they can vote.

what does this sentence in the article have to do with anything phone related? Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years.

the article makes a decent point and then goes full crazy. Too bad.

The bias in your summarization is fairly lazy. The article discusses feminism from a high level and of course there are nuances lost in the brevity. I’m not sure what your comment serves other than to stir the pot.

Apparently, your browser hides the </sarcasm> tags.

>> Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years

Women have had the vote for ALMOST 100 years.

August 18, 1920

It's definitely not the right example to give to impress the crowd around here, but she was basically saying in that part of the article that a feminist background gives you a different perspective on technology. Makes sense. The comparison of unpaid domestic work and unpaid online content creation was kind of interesting to me.

Yeah, sure; it’s a mostly great article otherwise. But it shows that the person can’t make a point without tying it to the whole of their other personal political view. But if you want to convince people, you want to compartmentalize as much as possible. Make the case in isolation. If you tie the smartphone problem to left/right politics (whichever side you’d pick), you politicize the issue, and thereby guarantee that ~50% of the public will be against whatever point you are trying to make.

Came here to say exactly this.

If you are going to inject overt bias into your articles and turn every piece into political argument fuel then don't call yourself a journalist.

That is certainly a defining problem of our era

Likewise, using a single personal political view injected in an article to dismiss the entire article is what, exactly?

Why are you under the impression that I dismissed the article?

I never dismissed the article. I have taken every opportunity to praise the article. Like you write elsewhere, the use of feminist analysis to examine smartphones is novel, very interesting, and praiseworthy. I completely agree with most of the article. I really don’t have much to add to it.

It is merely the throwaway snipe at left/right politics which I deemed unnecessary for the point the article is making (indeed, the article does not use it), and the presence of the snipe is uselessly, and counter-productively, divisive and polarizing.

The best way to create a harmonious new world of progressive thinking and acceptance is by viciously attacking your perceived enemies at every opportunity.

"The whole point of the right/left terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it were, we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right."

Politics is the alternative to war.

I fully believe that there are some evil people on the far left.

I'm not sure that there are any good people on the far right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com