Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor of the right-wing website Breitbart, is a professional provocateur. He’s a gay man who goes around criticizing not only the student “offense culture,” which is a good thing to do, but also feminism, which is a bad thing to do. He doesn’t distinguish between different brands of feminism, but simply dismisses the whole enterprise as “a cancer,” as he did in a recent speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. I disagree with that, and wouldn’t go to see him were he speaking on my campus. But if I did, I’d sit and listen quietly, and then discuss his views either on this site or during the Q&A period.
But Yiannopoulos is also savvy, and has embarked on a tour of American colleges. As his views are a flashpoint—a “trigger”—for authoritarian Leftist (AL) college students, their reaction is predictable. The conservative and sexist elements in his audience applaud him, but they’re drowned out by the noises, hoots, whistles, and demonstrations of the AL students, who repeatedly shout out to interrupt Yiannopoulos and create demonstrations that, in the end, do nothing but reinforce the stereotype of ALs as spoiled brats, increasing the opprobrium of people who might otherwise hear them out.
Here’s an video of Yiannopoulos speaking about “safe spaces” at Rutgers in New Jersey, whereupon a group of ALs shout, whistle, and finally smear themselves with fake blood while having a mass conniption. Who wouldn’t be turned off by such demonstration?
The whole canny psychology of this tour is described by New York Magazine. Its commentary is pretty accurate—save for one thing (I’ve put it in bold):
Here’s how it works: Yiannopoulos goes to a college. He says dumb and offensive trolly things. Students react with outrage and sadness, either during the talk itself or in gatherings afterward. Inevitably, some of them either freak out or burst into tears, because college students are college students. Breitbart and other right-wing outlets then trawl for student-paper coverage, footage of angry students, or both, and then cover these reactions as “proof” that everything Yiannopoulos says about colleges and modern society — something something free-speech SJWs feminazis lesbians — is true.
Here’s the part that’s troublesome: “because college students are college students.” That’s not necessarily true: college students are usually over 18, which means they’re adults. By that time they should have learned to sit quietly and listen to a speaker, and not suppress the speaker’s words through interruptions, demonstrations, and the like. They should have learned some civility. They should have learned that the best way to combat the ideas of such a speaker is by questioning them at question time, writing posts on their website or Facebook, and even demonstrating outside the venue. That is what we did when I was in college—a time of great ferment about civil rights, the Vietnam War, and so on. It’s simply a fact that the civil disobedience and nonviolent protests of the civil rights movement carried over to general student unrest, and most of us would have found it unthinkable to make such a ruckus during an opponent’s speech.
Let me tell you a story. At my graduation in 1971 from William & Mary, most students wanted a left-wing graduation speaker. Instead, the administration, almost to slap us down, chose Thomas Downing, a conservative and undistinguished member of the Virginia Legislature. (The administration was quite conservative then.) Did we go to graduation and shout during his speech? We didn’t even consider that. Those of us who were leftists wore black armbands over our graduation gowns, and some put peace symbols on their mortarboards. As valedictorian, I was called out from the stage to stand up and be recognized. I did, but made the “black power” fist when I stood up. (I’m not necessarily proud of that now, but that’s all I could do, and I got a lot of flack from the College for it.)
I say this not to demonstrate our left-wing credibility, but the fact that, at least among those leftist students I knew, the idea of disrupting such an event was unthinkable. Yes, it did happen sometimes, but it was a rarity. Instead of disrupting, we made a quiet protest, and later had a “counter-commencement” with our chosen speaker being Charles Evers, brother of murdered civil right leader Medgar Evers.
The lesson is this: if you want any respect for your ideas, you can’t act like spoiled brats. Protest in a civil, dignified, but passionate way, and if you must disobey the law, do so like the civil rights protestors did: civilly and without resistance. (This only works in a democracy, of course: civil disobedience of the Jews against the Nazis would have failed miserably.)
Students like the entitled whingers above only discredit their own leftist ideas—and some of those ideas are not only worth hearing, but worth adopting. When New York Magazine says “college students are college students”, it must be referring to the arrogant and self-absorbed Snowflake Students of the past five years. It is, in effect, trying to excuse the students’ behavior on the grounds of their youth.
But it’s not inevitable that students must behave in such a stupid way. I hope they realize that if they really want to spread their ideas, this is not the way to do it. You don’t win a debate like this by refusing to let the other side speak. When you do that, as AL students have been doing repeatedly—and not just in response to Yiannopoulos—they lose in the court of public opinion.
These students, deeply marinated in identity politics and virtue signaling, are playing right into Milo’s hands. They aren’t really trying to change minds, but trying to censor others while demonstrating their own moral purity. Their actions have an effect directly opposite to what they say then want: they let the conservatives, the sexists, and the Trump-ites win.
sub
“Inevitably, some of them either freak out or burst into tears, because college students are college students.”
Even as a Dutch student I feel ashamed by that statement. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations and it’s totally deserved. How did we get to the point where university students are not held to the same standards as 6 year olds? Fortunately, I haven’t seen this behaviour on my university yet.
“These students, deeply marinated in identity politics and virtue signaling”
A couple points of admiration:
— Use of “marinated” (I’ll be making off with that and using it)
— The above phrase just nails so much of campus life for me, who runs in ethics circles. It’s a relief to have (word) images for the virtue signaling
Similarly, I wish the anti-Trump protesters would stop disrupting his campaign events. His mouth is his worst enemy- let him use it.
I feel the same. People doing what they did in San Diego or Chicago engenders sympathy for Trump as the victim. Now he has an example of a Trump supporter being bloodied, for example, to trot out when people talk of the violence he himself encourages.
And I completely agree with what Jerry has written as well. Protesting in the way these students have takes away from any argument. It’s all about themselves instead of the ideas.
It seems to me that with these students it’s another form of virtue signalling. They’re getting themselves noticed personally, knowing they’re being filmed. They’re attempting to (and probably succeeding) gain personal stature in the cause. In reality though they’re not only doing nothing for it, they’re setting it back.
The way to advance is to win hearts and minds by winning the argument. It seems to me that these students care more about being able to tell others about their “brave” protest than advancing the cause. I wonder how many even know the arguments to use in opposition to speakers like Yiannopoulous.
I agree. This is all much less about the actual issues than about getting noticed, as you wrote.
Sub. Nobody should be prevented from speaking anyway, Trump or others.
So correct on the performance of all who do this type demonstration, if we could call it that. And not just confined to the college campus either. Several of Trump’s gatherings included loud demonstrators who shouted and disrupted his time on stage. All this does is allow Trump to spend the time calling the people names and telling the monitors to get them out. Everyone loses, instead of letting Trump lose by himself, which he is perfectly capable of doing.
Why would anyone want to shut him up? Give him all the rope he desires.
“Why would anyone want to shut him up? Give him all the rope he desires.”
The problem they have with him is that when he’s not being intentionally provocative, or saying things that he admits are hyperbole, he can make reasonable arguments on some issues.
My comment above was referencing Milo, not Trump, if that wasn’t clear.
I’m glad you said that – I was thinking you were a closet Trump supporter for a moment there. 🙂
As I noted before, Trump can make complete sense on occasion. In the same way that a loose cannon is sometimes pointing in the right direction. The problem is, you never know if he’ll be pointing the same way next week and, even if he is, cannon fire may not be the best way to resolve the issue.
😉
The problem they have with him is that when he’s not being intentionally provocative, or saying things that he admits are hyperbole, he can make reasonable arguments on some issues.
That’s what I noticed during his appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast. And I have to admit, I get a kick out of a (rather flamboyantly) gay man riling up feminists, at least when his points have merit. Plus, the name of his college tour is hilarious.
Indeed. MY is often quite sound and calm.
“Playing into his hands.” Proving he is right. You say potato …
And Trump is often right too. Trump is the only politician who stands up, every time, to this kind of mau-mauing. Stuff like this plays to his strengths and distracts from his bad ideas. I call it The Conspiracy to Elect Donald J Trump.
It is not mentioned often enough that this attitude comes mostly from the social sciences and humanities. Natural sciences students are probably too busy studying to care about who Milo is.
+ 1
Your comment may be accurate, but as a Humanities graduate, such statements always make me bristle. One of the advantages of a Humanities education is the ability to argue which these students don’t seem to be learning. I was a member of the campus anti-racism group when I was a student, but I would never have engaged in such behaviour.
I agree. Pure speculation with the added implication in the remark that Humanities is easy.
And I’ll add that not every scientist is an intellectual nor every intellectual a scientist. The Humanities teaches how to think. Scientists learn how “to method”, which is also a way of thinking. But without the interpretive equipment of logic and reason, science is not of much use.
Not all in the Humanities use reason well. But many in science are just technicians.
“I’m offended” is acceptable as an argument now? The humanities ARE slack. There are two kinds of people: those willing to be wrong, and those not. The second cannot survive in STEM, so they fill up the humanities. And the humanities, at least in recent decades, embrace them. Not everyone in the humanities is like that, but enough to justify the comments.
No, what is an unacceptable argument are assertions without evidence as you are making. With arguments like those, you would survive neither STEM nor Humanities. I think you’ve made about 3 or 4 non evidenced claims so the work is all ahead of you.
I donno. Speaking for myself, something like literature analysis or composition is much harder for me than “STEM” simply because of how my brain works (or doesn’t work). A lot of scientists and engineers are unable to write or communicate well. Can we say that they couldn’t cut it in the humanities, so they went into science? 🙂 While there are some classes that are easy for almost everyone, and they tend to be in the humanities, I think overall the humanities are not easy street.
When New York Magazine says “college students are college students”, it must be referring to the arrogant and self-absorbed Snowflake Students of the past five years. It is, in effect, trying to excuse the students’ behavior on the grounds of their youth.”
This attitude is deeply ingrained in our society. Repeatedly, we hear politicians and other law-breakers excuse their scandals with the haughty refrain that “Everyone makes mistakes like that.” and “Oh, everyone acts that way when they’re young.” One of the worst offenders of this sort was George W. who forgave himself for his “youthful excesses” because he was, shucks, just 35 years old when he made those mistakes.
The problem is not only are they turning off people who otherwise might ally with them in peaceful protests outside the event, they are turning on people for Milo who agree that “something something free-speech SJWs… — is true”, and who instead of joining the peaceful protest are attending the speech to support Milo’s right to speak.
This sounds like nothing less than religious hysteria. I bet some of these folks could give a Pentacostal church a run for its money.
Unlike “freaking out and bursting into tears”, smearing oneself with fake blood requires having fake blood prepared beforehand. So it is not true hysteria – it is premeditated, acted hysteria.
An excellent point!
As one of my great-great-aunts is reputed to have said to her friend next to her in the church pew, “Here, hold my bonnet while I shout.”
You should have posted this video from UMass this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1H1rZL53I
The best part starts at 1:30
I don’t think there could be a better embodiment of the whiny brat college activist than what you will see there, it’s as if that things was taken out of a satirical cartoon and brought to life.
I like the part “don’t treat us like children” which followed very child-like tamper tantrum gestures.
I just can’t fathom ever behaving like this when I went to school, especially in front of our professors.
That was around 2:20
“Stop talking to us like children!”
“Then stop behaving like a child!” – which got a huge round of applause, I note.
Of course, someone with more intellect would avoid using a perfect set-up line like that.
cr
That’s around 2:15 I think.
“Stop talking to us like children!”
“Then stop acting like a child!” – which got massive applause.
Someone of slightly higher intelligence would know not to use a perfect set-up line like that. Just asking for it.
cr
(My original reply went missing. I suppose WP will suddenly retrieve it from oblivion at some point…)
Heh, it was a perfect set up line too!
I saw that video a couple of days ago – on Fox News. They used it as proof of whiny, childish students at liberal universities, making your point perfectly.
Incredible. Playing right into their hands.
Again, I would like to see these privileged kids work for one summer at an open hearth in a steel plant. Check your privilege indeed!
Agreed, or in any blue collar job.
Of course, even if you have had it worse than them, they will still find a reason to claim that you have always been more privileged. Kinda how they can say that it’s possible to black ‘white supremacist’ based on ‘internalized racism’ should one disagree with their ideology.
Mostly though, they approach every confrontation as if you are automatically more privileged in every.single.way. If you disagree, you are a rich cishet white male sh*tlord.
And of course they have to scream like a two year old who needs a nap every time they want to express disagreement or outrage.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-22-14.13.39.png
Hahahaha but of course, you’d never get away with this if the girls were non-white.
They’re not morbidly obese land whales and this looks like somewhere in Eastern Europe (which is directly related to the fact that they are not morbidly obese land whales) where feminism isn’t very popular.
But it makes the point 🙂
Milan Ys modus operandi is to abrasively provoke targets. Though emotional regulation is a continuing challenge for everyone, for people under the age of 21 it is even more so as their brains are still whittling down synapses at a nice clip. This age group exists along a spectrum for this response; some are more able to regulate than others based on the complex mingling of biology and environment.
During my own pronounced protesting in the sixties, I personally never came across this kind of career provoker. He knows there is always some that will react strongly. He is the problem, not students who are finding emotional regulation challenging. How appropriate it would be if campus counselling could prep students regarding his easily identifiable manipulation before his arrival. Boredom alternating with laughter would probably rule instead.
I think there were provocateurs in the 1960s, but their goal was to provoke to action people of the same mindset. The current tactic of the right-wing to provoke their opponents into a frenzy, thereby alienating them from the support of public opinion, seems to be working. It is not uncommon for crowds to be whipped into near madness (think of the Nazi rallies in the 1930s) since, I fear, most people respond to emotion rather than reason. Trump has learned well this lesson in psychology. That is why to his supporters he is the man on the white horse. When reason is crushed by emotion, civil society is threatened. I don’t know if American society has reached this point, but I am starting to worry.
There are always provacateurs. It’s a question of how one reacts to them. It’s training that should have started on the playground, and should be well advanced by college.
Well, actually, this tactic – of provoking to action your opponents – only works in a basically well-regulated society where the rule of law prevails.
Anyone trying it in a less well-regulated society would only try it once. Unless they could run very, very fast. 🙂
cr
As usual, several thoughts:
1. Many teenagers and young adults on college campuses have left homes from which they were not permitted to hold a reasoned dialogue on issues with their parents (especially far right, evangelical kinds of families). College often is the first opportunity they have to develop their own world views without parental control, and to speak (or rant) about those views. Many of these kids have been raised in “a whack-a-mole” environment and haven’t ever yet had the opportunity to learn civil discourse. It’s ugly but, hopefully, changes with education and maturity. Some of us “grew up” and we once were college students.
2. There are many of us who were college students in the 60s. Some of us were quiet as mice in fear of the Cold War apocalyptic
world and HUAC threats to freedom of speech. FBI agents were on campuses to observe students attending films on the HUAC that were negative. On the other hand, we had students behaving in such disruptive ways that tear gas was (and nightsticks were)used by police officers on campus to disrupt them. Not all students were activists and, not all student activists behaved well.
3. From that time, some of us yet remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the fear that imminent nuclear destruction was at hand. We lived in the Los Angeles area and had small children. We literally feared for their lives and made plans to get our family out of the city to safety in the event of a nuclear strike. That shows our innocence/ignorance. None of us could have made it out of the city, or survived.
Yep. You would have been caught in a traffic jam 1/4 mi. from your house, and vaporized there.
Sadly, as a child of the 70s, we were taught that the missiles from Russia would take out industry and hydro-electric so we couldn’t supply that to the US. Them on top of that, the US would intercept Russian missiles over Canada so we’d get a face full of those too.
I figured I was lucky if I were vaporized as I didn’t want to try to survive a fallout scenario. Suffice it to say, I developed a lot of anxiety in my childhood and I wonder if my whole generation is messed up because of it.
“Many teenagers and young adults on college campuses have left homes from which they were not permitted to hold a reasoned dialogue on issues with their parents (especially far right, evangelical kinds of families). College often is the first opportunity they have to develop their own world views without parental control, and to speak (or rant) about those views. Many of these kids have been raised in “a whack-a-mole” environment and haven’t ever yet had the opportunity to learn civil discourse.”
Is the number of 2016 university students who were brought up that way really that high ?
It is hard for me to believe.
Also it is hard for me to believe that the adolescents coming from tar right or evangelical families become the students we see on that video once they set foot in college.
I think feminism is so tarnished now that to make the distinction is pointless. As with theists there is a lot of Motte and Baileying going on with a retreat to feminism just being about equality when the bullshit is challenged.There is a romantic notion of the noble old time feminists and of the cultural marxism and intolerance of debate being a new phenomenon. There was heavy suffragette involvement in white feather shaming of British men during WWI, calling on men to fulfill their societal duty to women. The vote at the time was understood to be partly linked to an obligation to fight, yet many (if not most) of the men fighting did not have the vote. The likes of Pankhurst were demanding that men protect them, while lobbying for voting rights for some women (i.e. privileged women) without wanting the responsibilities that come with the vote. For an insight into the Marxist influence in mainstream feminism and the virulent reaction to criticism of their rhetoric one could do worse than read Erin Pizzey, the woman who started the domestic violence shelter movement in the UK. She grew to recognise that domestic violence was not a gendered problem. Her efforts were hijacked by feminists who proceeded to exclusively push the women as victim narrative and shut down efforts to provide aid to men. The shelter industry has been a massive fraud based on lies and drawing in huge amounts of money. Pizzey herself had to leave the UK as a result of the level of threats of violence.
There are so many ways that the justice system has been skewed against men by feminist lobbying using falsehoods like the ubiquitous Duluth model of domestic violence. Organisations like the US NOW give away their true character by the way they vehemently oppose attempts to correct inequalities faced by men. The current anti male bias at US universities is government sponsored and due to feminist lobbying. Feminism is not a movement of the oppressed, it is now the oppressor inventing justifications for it’s existence.
To be fair, there are some grievous wrongs which the feminist movement has corrected and I’m sure there are perfectly objective and reasonable gender studies courses being taught somewhere. However I think that the feminism that counts, the one with the money and power, is a malicious fraud. The name itself is a giveaway. Why not the women’s rights movement? I could get behind any movement that proved itself to be truly in favour of equal opportunity for all regardless of group identity.Mainstream feminism ‘aint that. AFAIAC what is needed is more Camille Paglia, more Hoff Sommers and far less Naomi Wolff, Mary Koss and Hilary Clinton. What we have is a movement which claims to be objective but promotes propaganda, claims to be the only legitimate movement to correct inequalities faced by men and women and then does it’s best to crush recognition of men’s grievances.
I have no doubt that there are innate differences between genders, but I strongly oppose any limits placed on individuals due to gender identity.
I disagree that it is just conservatives and sexists who support Milo. He has a lot of support from left leaning individuals who really had few effectively championing their corner against the SJW narrative pushed by the media. This was particularly true of the Gamergaters who were being slandered by all and sundry, with demonstrable conspiracy by the gaming media to tarnish them as sexist. It is trivially easy to see that the gaming media had become incestuously corrupt and infected by the gender police and the gamers were angry about it and their portrayal as motivated by misogyny. Milo was one of the few who saw through the lies and wrote about it. He deserves a lot of credit for that as far as I am concerned, although I have problems with his views on transgender and definite problems with his rightwingnut commentariat. I agree that he can be a bit of a stirrer, but that is also part of his charm. He does regard atheists as being particularly easy to offend into self-righteous blather, which I sadly have to acknowledge the truth of. The one positive that I have personally drawn out of the atheist schisms, gamergate and student shenanigans is the recognition that the left and right are equally guilty of dogmatic stupidity and that the likes of Milo are not worth discounting because they do not agree with me on all things.
As regards Milo’s anti-feminism, bear in mind that he has done a speaking tour with feminist Christina Hoff Sommers. I’m sure they have areas of disagreement, but she seems perfectly happy to be associated with him.
I consider myself to be a liberal and a feminist (2nd wave), and I like Milo. I don’t necessarily agree with *all* of his views, but he is absolutely correct about many things.
+1 to your post.
What exactly about Milo makes him likable?
I don’t support what these demonstrators did, but Milo seems like a religious right wing nut.
He spits out comments about Jews controlling everything. He has stated that gays should go back in the closet and he seems to be against gay marriage as well. I don’t even need to start on his comments about women. He also sees religion as being our source of morals and have stated that our sense of right and wrong comes from the Bible. He is also anti abortion. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about the idiot. I’m really curious if he’s ever said anything that made sense, because after reading about him during the gamergaters debacle, I wish I could erase him from my brain. He seems worse than Trump and Cruz put together.
1) I have not seen or read every Milo opinion
2) He is a professional troll
3) Of what I have seen, he makes sense
I can agree with a right winger on some things, whilst finding their opinions abhorrent on others. I no longer play identity politics. I listen to all sorts of bloggers and Podcasters now – regardless of political affiliation. The only kind that I won’t listen to are the extremists – I swear, I tried, I really did, to listen to arguments put forth by MRAs, but “women are 100% responsible for the collapse of Western civilization” is just too cray cray for me.
That’s fine. Milo does seem to be the most crazy MRA ive ever seen though. I just haven’t seen him say anything sensible yet. He just seems to be so self hating that I feel sorry for him.
It’s like women who states that they wish to be men and spends all their time claiming that women are whiny and that men are always right. Milo seems to do the same, being homophobic and a deeply religious anti Semite while being a homosexual Jew at the same time. A little fascinating, if it wasn’t so sad.
Milo is an MRA? News to me. Hint: Anti-feminist is not always equal to MRA.
I have seen him argue in support of 2nd wave feminism. It is the third wave ‘everything is misogynist’ meme that he disagrees with.
And MRAs, the most extreme, that is, seem to think that women should have zero rights, not even the vote.
“Milo is an MRA? News to me. Hint: Anti-feminist is not always equal to MRA.”
I’ve never gotten that impression from seeing him either. In fact I suspect he would ridicule MRA’s as much as he does some brands of feminism.
The only ones I’ve ever heard compare feminism to cancer and the like have been MRAs so I suppose that is why I have thought of him as one. I’m open to admitting I’m wrong though. I suppose he just uses all their arguments without agreeing with their views.
But his view on feminism is the least problematic part. His ridiculous religious right wing views are what bothers me.
Luckily, the guy is like the Kardashians. He gets a lot of attention, but he doesn’t really matter. He simply likes to get some popularity among the right wing nuts, though I doubt he would like it if they actually won and made homosexuality illegal (or maybe he would, considering he hates his own sexuality). It’s like the left wing nus that ally themselves with Islamists. It’s a strange thing.
Also, to clarify before I’m going to be painted as a crazy feminazi. I truly dislike how many modern feminists laugh at men’s right issues. Some feminists out there seem to be true misandrists. The world isn’t easy for men either. And I think that feminism should focus more on the horrors of f.ex islamic countries, rather than a miniscule wage gap in western countries.
Not all MRAs are crazy, but in the same way it’s ridiculous of people like Milo to say that feminism is cancer as well. Women are being treated like 2nd class citizens in major parts of the world. They are raped, beaten by their husbands, killed at birth because parents want a boy etc.
I don’t think those of us that want to battle such issues should be dismissed as hysterical.
Anyway, I’m done with the discussion. I’ll reiterate that his views on feminism is the least of my worries about Milo. He should still be allowed to say whatever he wants, just like Ted Cruz and the other religious right wingers. And in the same way, the anti feminists should allow feminists to say what they want too. It’s that simple.
I also want to state my agreement with sedgequeen below.
Weird. I saw Milo on The Rubin Report, and he said that he supported 2nd wave feminism.
I shall have to rewatch that.
“the feminism that counts, the one with the money and power, is a malicious fraud” — I read that as “The feminism that I fear, and that gives me an excuse to be angry, is a malicious anti-male fraud.”
Feminism really is about seeking equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal rights for women, including a right not to be sexually harassed or attacked. I wish one could write, “there are some grievous wrongs which the feminist movement has corrected” and be accurate in the implication that now all that’s taken care of. It’s not.
Judging feminism by the extreme and even silly fringes would be as silly as judging you by the vicious and often mindless rhetoric of the MRA’s, right?
+1
+2
“Feminism really is about seeking equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal rights for women, including a right not to be sexually harassed or attacked”
Why even call it feminism then, just call it humanism and be done with it. The very word feminism is divisive, because it only highlights the rights of women. Humanism is a much better umbrella to get equal rights for women but also men who almost always lose custody battles.
Feminism in my mind is therefore deprecated, Humanism is much more inclusive and all encompassing.
I am happy to consider feminism one of the subcategories under a general humanism. (As a plant taxonomist, I spend my working life on names; they truly matter and yet they don’t matter as much as does reality.)
When society works in a way that limits the rights and opportunities of some Group B, making that society more equal requires working specifically on the laws and traditions that limit that Group B.
Why concentrate on the problems of Group B, whatever it is? Because many, many things need to be fixed to make society a fair, equal place that doesn’t limit opportunities. Each part of the problem requires the efforts of many people working together.
We all should be working on the parts of the problem that we can work on best, and try to avoid causing trouble for the other efforts. (Is there any reason to oppose working for equal rights for women??) A sub-sub-category of environmentalism is my work. What’s yours?
+1 Well put!
+1
Sorry….. Nonsense. Bet you think we should be known as “mankind”. Until the last 50-60 years women were not treated as equal humans and sometimes barely human. Only in the very recent past have humans developed technologies in health (especially infant and young child health), food production, reproduction control, and other resource efficiency technologies that have enabled women to play more part in workforce and be valued and to assert themselves. Life is evil in many ways and hard for both sexes but historically women have not had it good and women have often been treated as bearers of men.
Long details This might give you some idea of the reasons why … only about 16 lectures but 1&2 and 12-14 the most relevant
http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/mcdb-150
Obviously I must be angry and scared because I disagree with you/ Next you’ll be bringing out the male tears coffee mug and calling me a dudebro.
I judge feminism by the influence and power it has to get discriminatory laws enacted.
I also judge many feminists by their inability to actually engage with valid MRA grievances without strawmanning and crying misogyny and hate speech. Paul Elam is not the sole voice of mens rights, you know. To take that view would be to judge MRA’s by extreme and silly fringe, and I know you are against that.
I think he has some valid points. You say “Feminism really is about seeking equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal rights… Judging feminism by the extreme and even silly fringes…” But he gave an example about NOW – the largest feminist organization in the USA and thus not at all a fringe group – opposing equal rights when it comes to women losing a traditional privilege that they’ve had over men. They want equality when women stand to gain relative to men, but not when the opposite is true, which indicates that they are not truly “seeking… equal rights”.
I think much of feminism is great in theory, but in practice there’s a lot of politics and power-seeking that not only undermine their theoretical goals but work to partially discredit feminists and feminism. (I suppose the same can be said about many other theories – capitalism, communism, etc. – because humans are still animals and are rarely truly principled.)
Sorry….. Nonsense. Bet you think we should be known as “mankind”. Until the last 50-60 years women were not treated as equal humans and sometimes barely human. Only in the very recent past have humans developed technologies in health (especially infant and young child health), food production, reproduction control, and other resource efficiency technologies that have enabled women to play more part in workforce and be valued and to assert themselves. Life is evil in many ways and hard for both sexes but historically women have not had it good and women have often been treated as bearers of men.
Long details This might give you some idea of the reasons why … only about 16 lectures but 1&2 and 12-14 the most relevant
http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/mcdb-150
First of all, I am strongly against all the ridicule displayed by the regressive left, just do a search of my name in combination with WEIT and anyone will see that I think they’re stupid, and should grow up and learn that life is all about being offended.
Yet, I am curious what gamersgate was actually about if it wasn’t sexism.
I’m a gamer so I followed the story closely and it actually did start with a woman’s ex boyfriend claiming that she had been cheating on him. After that, everyone was all up in arms about game journalism, but they only seemed to attack feminists, never game journalists. I have no clue why game journalism is such a vital area to protest against anyway.
Not to mention the tragic hypocrisy displayed by many gamergaters that were complaining about free speech, and then sent rape and death threats to get people to shut up. How is that any better than what these immature students are doing?
When it comes to Milo he’s actually a ridiculous hypocrit. He was against video games before and actually wrote articles in breitbart supporting those that think video games are responsible for crime.
He’s even against his own sexuality, I just feel sorry for the guy. It must be horrible to hate yourself which is probably why he throws his hate around.
A lot of right wing gamergaters are actually advocating censorship. I read game fora quite often and there is no end to crazy gamergaters wanting to boycott games that have black or women main characters. And yet they claim the feminists are the snowflakes? Don’t make me laugh.
I am a gamer too. Have been for years.
Brianna Wu has been caught red-handed faking rape and death threats to herself. She goofed and sent a threat her way using her *main* account.
Also, current evidence suggests that Zoe Quinn (the woman whose boyfriend said she cheated on him) was also behind a lot of the harassment she received – see the recent fiasco with Candace Owens.
http://degree180.com/8686-2/
Feminism, more accurately SJW Feminism was attacked here because the whole thing really *was* about ethics in game journalism, but the professional victims had to turn it into a “war on women” – and I say this as a person who regards herself as a feminist, just not the attention wh*re, professional victim SJW kind who considers everything to be misogynist.
I still don’t get where ethics in game journalism came into the picture. All I can remember where MRAs taking about feminists. No one seemed to be talking about game journalism. It doesn’t matter whatever stupid stuff Quinn or Wu did. What did they have to do with game journalism? Most game journalists are men so why were they constantly targeting women?
And I seriously don’t give a damn about ethics in game journalism. Most gamers I know of had no clue what ethics in game journalism even means.
Gamers were angry because they actually care about their pass time and invest a lot of cash in it. The issue erupted because the Zoe Quinn business brought to light the incestuous and dishonest way that games were being reviewed and promoted. The media tried to crush criticism by colluding, and that is demonstrable, to portray gamers as misogynistic. Female and non-white gamergaters were routinely brushed aside as if they didn’t exist. You essentially had a niche press caught being grossly unethical and they responded by attacking their target demographic. I’ve heard this criticism that gamergaters only wanted to talk about Zoe Quinn and attack women, but if you ask prominent gamergaters they’ll tell you that they kept trying to talk about the gaming media but their opponents kept bringing the ‘discourse’ back to Zoe Quinn.
Many of the gamergater boards were very proactive in policing threads to root out trolls and those making threats, only to be repeatedly dismissed because of the inevitable existence of such people in other locations. If anything, their opponents were more guilty of threatening and harassing behaviour than they were, but as with every niche that the loons have invaded they’ve been given a free pass by the press because ‘women as victim’ always sells. Randi Harper, fer gawdsake, one of the most spiteful and abusive individuals around got herself a gig as one of Twitters Anti-Abuse associates.
You may not care a about the issues, but if you had even the mainstream media parroting lies and accusing you and your friends of being troglodytes, you might be a tad pissed too.
Gamergate was largely kicked off by Zoë Quinn (an indie game developer) cheating on her boyfriend to sleep with a game journalist who gave her rather bad game positive reviews, and with several other people, leading to charges of quid-pro-quo in games journalism. But IIRC, he gave her positive coverage before she began sleeping with him, and it’s harder to make the case that he wrote a positive review in hopes of getting sex later.
Really I think the (initial) outrage was mostly about her cheating and sleeping around and being callous, and it was just wrapped up in talk of “ethics in game journalism” to make it sound more serious than the tabloid fare it was.
The rave reviews of bad games has more to do with game critics being seduced by art games, which tend to make a social observation but not be any fun, partly because critics always do that (c.f. movie critics) and partly because game critics want to prove that games are an art form. They also try to counter the perception that gaming is male-dominated by overpromoting female-related stuff in gaming. While I think they would do gamers a better service by focusing on game quality rather than trying to push these other agendas, I don’t think it’s actually unethical, just biased.
There is unethical quid-pro-quo in games journalism, but usually it involves money, such as when GameSpot pressured reviewers to give positive reviews, eventually firing Jeff Gerstmann for giving a bad game a deservedly negative review, after the publishers threatened to pull their advertising money. Essentially, ratings for money. And that’s a real problem but Gamergate was mostly not about that.
In my experience Gamergate has similar problems to modern feminism. It’s members cover a large range of (often contradictory) viewpoints and concerns.
The ones I tend to encounter tend to throw the same sort of hissy fits online at anyone who “dares” to give (popular game X) a bad review – especially if said review discusses anything beyond the game’s graphics, sound, and control schemes. Any talk of themes, plot, or political slants get them enraged. I remember one reviewer saying that they found a game very fun but warned potential players that it had some very authoritarian/fascist politics – you can bet there were a contingent of GGers ready to go after him.
Even some of the biggest consumer advocate reviewers (like Jim Sterling) have been slammed by members of GG. Even though his content should, theoretically, be completely in line with their goals.
As someone who was, initially, intrigued about a movement ostensibly based around ethics in game journalism I ended up being very disappointed at its, often, cult-like behavior.
Here is a good article on the subject:
http://observer.com/2015/10/blame-gamergates-bad-rep-on-smears-and-shoddy-journalism/
GGers also received death threats and were subject to harassment.
It originally started as outrage over Zoe Quinn sleeping with reviewers to (allegedly) get positive reviews and then it blew up into an all out culture war.
I mentioned the fact that Quinn and Wu faked some of the rape and death threats against them to point out that claiming to be a victim of oppression is good for business. As long as there is drama, donations and TV interviews roll in.
My problem with ‘feminists in gaming’, as a woman, is that the SJW feminists will tend to classify anything they don’t like as misogynistic. I like chain mail bikinis. I like large breasts on my characters. I like all that fun, fashiony stuff. This makes me a misogynist, apparently. I don’t care if the baddies in the game are male or female – I only care about defeating them, but according to the SJW feminists, shooting women in a game = misogyny. But, if developers do not include women in the game (to avoid shooting them) then it’s misogyny. It’s also misogyny if women are given roles that do not involve them getting shot (because then they are not equal to men). And over and over and over. They will nitpick literally everything, as SJWs do.
And I have been gaming since 1995. I started with Wolfenstein and Everquest 1. I had a friend who regularly played Unreal Tournament. He would talk to me prior to a gaming session with his friends and we would go over insults – since insulting the opposing team is part of the fun. Not just insults, but hyperbolic insults. Women got into gaming, they were not familiar with this aspect of the culture, and they started complaining that they were being targeted by misogynists.
Not to say that there not assholes and misogynists in gaming – of course there are. And not all feminists are SJWs. But for the most part, gamers are pretty cool, and I say this as someone who has been gaming since 1995 and rarely had a problem as a woman. In fact, as a woman, guys tend to be more likely to help me out, fancy that.
I regret having not taken a picture of this, but a few weeks ago there appeared overnight on our central campus area a number of chalk signs that were pro-Trump. They were big and vibrant, and I must say rather well thought out. What followed was not a march by protestors to the administrators offices, and demands of prohibition of free speech, but instead there several days of anti-Trump slogans scribbled on the sidewalks nearby. These gradually obscured the originals rather nicely. All gone and forgotten by the next heavy rains.
http://i.imgur.com/0PGd9SP.jpg
Very funny. But what is sad also is that I see this picture, and similar ones, on right winged web sites. So dammit, once again we find find ourselves joining with the righties to mock the regressive lefties.
Well if anything, dealing with regressive leftists has made me less rigid in my views. I am more accepting of alternate viewpoints and less likely to have a knee-jerk liberal response.
Like Milo, I believe in social and cultural libertarianism (within reason). Not sure about Milo’s stance on the economy, but I am for regulated capitalism.
Basically, I have become more moderate. A little bit from the right, a little bit from the left.
Which is a good thing to understand. This behaviour is outside the ideology. I suspect it has a lot to do with fear and fear is there because these people haven’t been exposed to the right things early on in life.
So sad that coddling (which we think is just being affectionate and protective) seems to lead to all this. It would make a really good study in evolutionary psychology as it seems we can have the good life but not too much of it and the good life doesn’t necessarily make us happy or adjusted.
Well, I don’t really feel like I’m joining the right on this subject.
The right are after all the ones that truly demand to be coddled.
They want to ban gay marriage and abortion because it offends their sensibilities. The left wing nuts wants safe spaces in campus. The right wing nuts wants the world to be their safe space.
And yes, they may not call their opponents Hitler,but that’s only because they call them feminazis and communists instead. I really don’t see the difference.
That is because they are both SJWs Linn. Both extremes are authoritarian, cult-like and impervious to reason.
Both want to force the rest of the world to live according to their version of utopia.
I have now spent just as much time debating pro lifers as I have SJWs. “Listen and believe” is their motto. And if you disagree, they seek to shame you and sometimes outright ban you. If I state that I don’t think embryos are people, I am a “baby killer”. If I state that we should be more careful regarding which Muslims get accepted as refugees, I am a ” racist” and “islamophobe”.
Both sides are blindly intolerant, obsessed with policing thought and speech, and intent on constantly signalling their moral superiority.
It was only by chance that SJWs ended up on the left. I strongly suspect that if some of these fools had been born into a fundie family that they would be pushing creationism and pro life!
Oh, and they debate the same. Same style of logic-free debate with a hefty dose of ” appeal to emotion”
“Inevitably, some of them either freak out or burst into tears, because college students are college students.”
This is my worst fear – college students have turned into conservatives!
Ah, the good old days in the 1970s when a former head of the CIA came to the lefty University of Pennsylvania campus and was civilly protested and civilly challenged at the Q&A discussion, as happened when Dinesh D’Souza spoke at Kent State in the 1990s. (I was a student at said college in both cases.) IN both cases, this was followed by thoughtful editorials on both sides in the student newspapers.
My mother was embarrassed to have Spiro Agnew as a commencement speaker when she- at age 40- got her Library Science degree, but would never have dreamed anything like this would come to pass.
Sub
I don’t like Yiannopolis but at least he was making a case for free speech. But he was overwhelmed with childish ratbaggery. Someone in the crowd I mean audience mentioned “5 year olds” and thats right. The dangerous thing here is
1) the equation of free speech with violence literally being made in the clip and therefore the presumption that free speech on a vast range of topics and arguments should be preemptively shut down
2) the equation of genuine concerns in feminism with regressive leftism and fantasising about returning to a dark age womb like safe space away from modern influences. The actual aims of the two couldn’t be more different and it plays into the arguments of chauvinists of all political stripes.
Indeed, I wanted to hear what he had to say. Maybe some of it was stupid, but maybe some of it wasn’t. We can’t be expected to agree with someone about everything but we should expect to hear what they are saying so we can actually decide if we agree or not. Also, it would have been nice to have the opportunity to engage with him and maybe, just maybe change his mind or at least allow him to consider a different point of view.
I really really hate it when I’m denied the opportunity to engage with someone. I say this a lot at work, to the conflict adverse, “Conflict is a good thing if you are respectful. How else are you going to move forward?”
Those that yell and scream instead of listen and respond are letting their emotions overcome their reason. It’s sad and it’s dangerous.
All that plus the screaming, and yelling, and no-platforming convinces some, and reinforces the opinion of others that his position is so strong that it’s feared. Others who might otherwise not given him the time of day, or even heard of him (like myself) are at least listening to figure out what people are so frightened of. So what the protestors are trying to do is having the opposite effect.
“Inevitably, *some of* them either freak out or burst into tears, because college students are college students.”
I have to agree there (and disagree with Prof CC). Given several hundred young adults, there’s almost always a few who will go over the top and embarrass everybody – especially since this seems to be trendy.
Where do I get the impression that Yiannopoulos and the regressive left deserve each other?
cr
That’s not to contradict PCC’s point that they should behave better. Just that I wouldn’t bet on it.
cr
Well stated, Jerry. You are not alone with the impression that the two sides seem to play off each other. It has been observed by many people over the years, but here are two examples.
1. This Video Will Make You Angry, CGP Grey
2. Toxoplasma of Rage, Star Slate Codex
Both of them approach it from the meme-theory, evolutionary direction. I don’t agree with every observation in these two approaches, but they are good approximations and starting points.
Aneris. They are hardly playing off each other. Milo may be opportunistic and having a bit of fun goading the hysterics, but the regressives are totally seeerious and quite malicious. Milo is being a bit of a puppetmaster here and making some capital out of it. His commentariat, on the other hand are your traditional AGW denying style wingnuts, not all there but not quite as nutty as the regressives.
And evolution is not consistent with Discordianism.
There are differences, but the role of the provocateur on the other side was played for years by Rebecca Watson. She would also assume a stage and make outragous claims, and on YouTube too (typically involving serious smears and allegations), which predictably would make some people froth at the mouth, conjure trolls and more, which was then farmed by her side as proof (either cynically, or through confirmation bias and selective perception).
I have a lot of contempt for the Regressives, and I view them as indeed ‘special’ in many other ways. For example, some (thought) provocation is warranted or even necessary, whereas others isn’t (e.g. smearing and slinging baseless accusations). But that aspect of provocation and then waiting for the response which is then milked can be found on either side, and you see everywhere a strong dose of social-media-induced confirmation bias: through algorithm (similar stories you viewed in the past), or through social networking that tends to be clustered around views and political tribes.
Evolution is consistent with everything.
He also stated that nobody should believe anything fully, not even your own B.S. (Belief System), which is one core tenet of Discordianism. It’s a permission to cherrypick, a permission to make up outrageous nonsense and relying on people to simply dismiss it when they don’t like it, and at once a request to think critically.