TheColourOfHeartache

What do you think is the biggest mistake (as in most impactful mistake, not most inaccurate statement) the mainstream made about a meme?

This is half way between a question and a point that stuck with me and I'd like your opinion on.

You say a fair amount of things like

Ultimately, u/haniisgod misconstrues contemporary Marxist critics as idealistic academics attempting to censor free expression in favor of their own moral compass; meanwhile, the author ignores the Frankfurt School’s valuable critiques of institutions of power, capitalism and American society that are vital to understanding the role of critical theory in the contemporary media environment.

Have you considered why this might be?

In social sciences (and I'm talking outside my own field here, proceed with caution) you have a division between official doctrines and folk beliefs. It seems quite likely that something very similar might be happening here.

You have the official doctrine of the Frankfurt School - which is only understood by academics.

You then have the folk belief - which would be journalists and culture critics outside the university (or less competent academics) who don't understand fully the Frankfurt School and apply their watered down understanding to gaming.

Then you'd have people who's only encountered the Frankfurt School when it appears on gaming news sites rather than academic journals. These people would naturally have only encountered Folk Frankfurt School; and it seems a little unfair to respond to their criticisms of Folk Frankfurt School by pointing to Doctrine Frankfurt School.

edit: Here's an even better example:

Like u/haniisgood above, u/_supernovasky_ slips into anti-intellectual arguments by claiming the language of feminism and cultural criticism is “devoid of meaning” and by dismissing entire fields of study and forms of discourse in favor of the positivist style favored by many within the r/KIA public.

You say supernovasky dismissed entire fields of study and this is anti intellectual. But might it not simply be that supernovasky is accurately reporting that cultural critics of gaming do not themselves understand (or barely understand) those fields of study and so use it them in ways that are devoid of meaning.

I've heard that one of the reason Japan invests so much into robotics is to deal with their ageing population.

But I wonder, have they considered boosting the birth rate using cloning?

Interesting question!

Thanks!

I think we must remember that even though the folk doctrine is used by some to base their beliefs about the critical Marxist theory, many of those same have not dived into the actual books, and only rely on second hand information to inform their opinions.

Absolutely, but is this actually a failing on the part of people who do that?

Lets take a hypothetical person X. X isn't interested in social science, but X is interested in video games and regularly reads and comments on gaming related websites and subreddits. He only notices critical theory when a gaming critic brings it up.

When X talks about critical theory he's not talking about Adorno, Horkheimer, and Habermas. He's talking about he's talking about Polygon and Kotaku.

So basically. If X's criticisms of critical theory are an accurate criticism of Polygon and Kotaku. Is it actually relevant to point out that X is wrong about Adorno, Horkheimer, and Habermas?

I'd say no, it's not relevant. From reading your thesis I'd guess you think it is relevant?

So I'm curious. If you were to go back and reread Kotaku in Action posts, but every time you saw the words "critical theory" you replaced it with "Polygon and Kotaku's theory", would you still disagree so much with what you are saying?

Perhaps these misreadings are furthered by Polygon and Kotaku, but on a large forum, people without understanding about the issues at hand comment on them to the detriment of the actual debate people who publish books actually worry about.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, I see where you're coming from.

Where I disagree is that it seems you're putting the responsibility on people in KIA to go out and learn critical theory before they talk about it.

I think the responsibility is on people who understand critical theory to go out and correct people who're getting it wrong. That would probably mean both KIA, Polygon and Kotaku. We at KIA would probably love an article about how Polygon misunderstands critical theory. And if you wrote about how KIA gets critical theory wrong, well you've watched us for a long time. You know that we wouldn't do anything worse than downvoting.