This woman billing herself as the "feminist that gave MRAs a fair shake" is disingenuous. Her "Red Pill" documentary was funded by some of the most vile MRAs like Paul Elam and Mike Cernovich, she portrayed them sullen figures put upon by everyone while completely ignoring things like outright advocating rape / violence against women, and immediately adopted their talking points at the end and since the documentary.

"Feminist converted by MRAs" was a marketing shtick.

Yeah, I said that because she is taking a real concept, implicit bias everyone deals with and our socialization having biased viewpoints ingrained in it, and playing it up to excessive shock values. It's a stupid way to teach anyone about those things.

And I don't read her statement as literally as say, a KKK member saying black people are subhuman, but more as purposefully exaggerated statements like "men are trash".

She said some stupid shit, but somehow an unemployed 26 year old saying stupid shit doesn't particularly worry me, seeing as she has such little power to effect anyone's life. She shouldn't be teaching this shit to people, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about her saying stupid shit, like millions of people do day to day but you aren't privy to because they're not being filmed.

Didn't call for censorship. I just find little benefit in singling out an individual with a very tiny platform for saying something dumb. The idea that her being singled out online to be inundated with death threats and vitriol for her and her family (her and her family were doxxed over this) seems to far outweigh the benefit of "stopping this woman going around the country"... seeing as how she's one woman with basically no following and little influence. I doubt she's done many of these talks at all or will do more. (Looked it up. This talk was the only one she'd given all year. Only one on a different subject the year before. Both locally in her area.)

Spreading videos like this after someone has already been doxxed and threatened only seem to help compound the injury. And it's not ideological to me. Justine Sacco said something stupid online and got a crazy amount of blowback and lost her job for it- I don't agree with that either.

If you want to call out what you view as racism, going after the little guys for saying something a little off isn't the way. Go after people with influence. Hell, a police chief in Oklahoma was just caught running a white supremacist website and record label. That guy has direct impact on the rest of people's lives and even if they get to keep their lives in some situations.

Ashleigh is an unemployed recent college grad. The most influence she has are the 15 or 20 people who were all adults that signed up for this particular seminar. I imagine they either agreed with or are old enough to make up their own mind on what was said.

Well, fair enough on the source. I just always viewed the sift as more left leaning and the brand of "lets point and laugh at some random young person" video beneath the general user base. Maybe I've got rose tinted glasses.

And Twitchy is a right wing website known for directing massive amounts of users at individuals online. This article covers it. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a45085/twitchy-harassment/

This random lady said something silly, ends up on a bunch of right wing websites, then gets run off the internet by threats and harassment... now the clip from those sites ends up here? Is videosift turning into Twitchy or something?

No assumption made. I looked at your past comments.

But, this comment only solidifies why there is no point in engaging with you.

I never claimed to or would say I speak for all of any group. Congrats on assuming.

I fail to see how fighting against equal protection for trans people under hate crime laws isn't transphobic. And his flimsy defense of "it will force me to call someone something i dont want to" isn't true of the bill in the slightest if you read the thing and mostly a smoke screen for his distaste for trans acceptance. The place where Peterson works adopted almost identical protection for trans individuals in 2014. But he hasn't noticed or been effected... because it doesn't do what he thinks.

And your analogy is stupid and reductive. Someone being upset they can't call people "faggot" anymore because of PC nonsense doesn't put you on the same level of marginalized groups fighting for basic rights anymore than his refusal to accept that trans people get to self identify / get equal protection puts him anywhere close to the trans and gay people fighting at Stonewall for the right to exist.

Regardless of all of that, I wasn't talking to you and I was offering someone who seemed genuinely interested in the other side some view of that side. I'm not interested in the vitriol from some rando on the internet who has made being "anti-sjw/anti-feminist" an identity.

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.

Surprised Harris isn't a bigger fan, seeing as they both view Islam in such a simplistic and myopic way and both have said largely dangerous things about Muslims.

Oh hey, Milo defends pedophilia. Wonderful guy to have on your show. Worst bit starts at 2:30.

Man, fuck Maher after that. Calling trans women using the bathroom "weirdos peeing", backing Milo's attack and misgendering of that trans student, and Maher lavishing in the praise of his hatred of Islam from a white nationalist troll.

Maher just planted a massive flag in the "smarmy bigot of the left"ground.

Wilmore was great, at least.

"SJWs" and then the MRAs in the end there.

I've been in figure drawing classes for years and never had any stereotypical SJW encounter but have had the end of this sketch happen multiple times. Even had a model sexually harass women in the class to the point of having to leave and force the model out.

He's 100% been actively supporting Trump. His twitter is filled with anti-hillary/dem stuff, pro-trump stuff, and he has stated he endorsed and voted fro trump.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

This is so heavy handed and silly.. I imagine Oren from Parks and Rec came up with the concept.

He did. He posted the yelp page and told them to leave messages.

And the "1:1" example was referencing the above video.. the one you're commenting under. The one titled "The New Wave of YouTube 'Skeptics", not the article. Which is why I said as such.

And I don't think one person calling up Mason's work is a good thing nor should it be condoned, but I also don't consider it on par with doxxing someone and sending your 400,000 followers after them. Which, doxxing someone isn't just "amusement". If you actually cared about harassment, like you want to claim with calling this woman's actions harassment, maybe you wouldn't equivocate on that.

And the reason I'm willing to draw a link to trolls and MRA-wackjobs and Mason is because: Those are his fans. Those are the people he pointed at this woman's yelp page. Those are the people that followed his target de-jour and doxxed them.

The reason I'm not willing to do that for Sarkeesian is because: I don't really care about Sarkeesian, she didn't post where Mason worked/his works contact info/told people to comment directly to him. AFAIK, there is basically no connection between Sarkeesian and this woman other than "well I guess they're both left-ish on the political spectrum".

But hey, I think it's pretty obvious which side your bread is buttered on and this isn't so much a dispute about the original topic (Poor examples of youtube "skeptics") any more, so my interest is waning.