Yes, absolutely, some Youtubers signed those troubling contracts. But, by my read, the point of the Salon and Forbes articles was that, if gamergate really cared about ethics, they should be protesting against the companies involved, like Warner Bros. Interactive, but instead the “scandal came and went.” TotalBiscuit, who Forbes credited with breaking the scandal, says that’s wrong and that no one is protesting Warner Bros. or the PR firm because, in response to the bad publicity, the PR firm WB used has revised the contracts, resolving this specific issue. I haven't seen anything to show he's wrong.
As for Milo, I only had a chance to skim over his Breitbart articles for the first page and a half (I’ll try to find time to read more later), so I think the only article I came across that you reference is one you said “suggest[ed] that blacks probably commit crime more due to a crime gene.” The Milo story I found is reporting on an article from the (respected, liberal British paper) the Economist on a recent Swedish study and several others that apparently suggest there are “genes which predispose to criminal behavior.” From what I see, Milo didn’t mention blacks at any point in his article and the person pictured is white. He even concludes the article by describing it as “unsettling” that these studies suggest racists may in the future be able to claim that “science is backing up their crude prejudices about people with different skin colour.” The article covers a sensitive topic certainly, but it didn’t strike me as bigoted.
Like I said, I didn’t get around to exploring his writing much more, so that’s my fault. And so I’m certainly not going to take the position of defending him more broadly. But can we at least agree that, if Milo is sexist because he apparently said that men and women perform better or worse in some fields, Anita is sexist for, among other things, writing several tweets blaming violence in society (immediately following the killing at that Washington school) on “toxic masculinity” and “manhood”?
Andddddddddd due to all of this Gamergate stuff Anita Sarkeesian is on Colbert tonight.
The greatest irony of the Anita haters, and I don't mean everyone who disagrees with her but the mass of truly vile ones who instantly started harassing her from day one, participated in the threats and attacks, etc. is they have basically turned her into a national figure now.
This time a billion. How far would Anita have gone just by making a few youtube videos about video games? No, it was her haters that propelled her career into orbit.
They accuse her of using her victimization to gain publicity. This is absolutely true. But why shouldn't she? Why not take those lemons and make lemonade? Maybe if they don't like it they should stop harassing her.
So today I got to hear about how this one very prominent gamergater who says a lot of racist shit against the Jewish people is actually some brilliant secret satirist troll who like... is satirizing racists by totally seriously saying the same exact stupid stuff they would and um... thus trolling everyone who thinks he is serious? This individual has never claimed to be a satirist and/or troll, but a lot of random gamergaters are now defending him as one.
I've also seen a literal barrage of them attacking a Twitter friend of mine for days on end because they searched through his history and found out that he once said a friend of his told him that she was raped but she didn't want him to go to the authorities so he didn't and um... now they are running all over the place saying he supports rape / rapists. What this has to do with "ethics in journalism" is beyond me since he is not a journalist nor would it have anything to do with it if he were, but... it's pretty atrocious.
Oh and many are now defending Stormfront's members joining up with gamergate because like... freedom of speech / diversity. Yes, actual Stormfront members are being accepted into gamergate, as long as they like... keep the Stormfront stuff off of the official tag and such.
I dunno. Even if there were some shred of a point hidden deep within gamergate, pretty much every prominent gamergate "leader" is just utterly horrible and so are a whole lot of the masses who follow them.
@EagleC83 I honestly don't know how you read that article and didn't get that he was inferring this about Blacks. When you're talking about how race and poverty, you can't pretend it isn't about Blacks.
that, perhaps, genetic predispositions toward crime are what make areas poor, and not the other way around
In other words, Blacks are disproportionately poor because they are genetically more prone to crime.
there might be genetic reasons why crime is persistently high in poor areas.
Poor areas IE mostly Black neighborhoods. Because of their crime gene.
And lest we think he was just speaking about this crime gene in non-racial terms (like I dunno, an eye color gene):
Where is all of this leading us? Well. If these behaviours are indeed genetic, it stands to reason that there will be identifiable differences between different communities, countries, and, yes, even races. ...
But liberals face a miserable future, in which racists can claim the science is backing up their crude prejudices about people with different skin colour. As unsettling as that seems to many of us, it is where the latest research is pointing.
Implying that the research is is heading in a direction where "crude prejudices" by racists (IE all the shitty things we think about non-whites) will be backed up is essentially saying that the terrible things we think about Blacks will be backed up by science.
Taken alone this might be seen as a random oddity, but when you read more of his stuff well... he has practically every form of hard right wing bigotry down pat. Except homophobia, since he is gay. Except actually a little bit of it anyway, for instance he apparently fights against legalization of gay marriage (I haven't seen with my own eyes so it might be incorrect?)
And no, I won't take the position that "if Milo is sexist so is Anita". Anita isn't saying men are worse than women at X, Y or Z, she is saying toxic masculinity IE a warped idea of how men should act (most problematic in the cultures surrounding MRA / PUA sites, but actually pretty widespread in our culture as a whole) is a problem. And I 100% agree with that.
Saying that a culture that shames men for asking for help instead of facing adversity alone and in silence "like a real man would" is toxic and probably partially to blame for a lot of shitty things suffering men do is the opposite of being "sexist against men". It shows clarity and empathy, IMO.
From what I'm reading in this thread the guy is full of shit. He was crashing in his girlfriend's place, was asked to leave by her roommate, and refused to. But sure, he was assaulted by anti-gg people. Although he specifically mentions they weren't anti-gg.
"The @OccupyWallSt account—stolen last February from a group of social activists on Twitter by a Google employee named Justine Tunney—called on its followers to speak out against what it called “anti-geek hate.”"
Hard to say this is an alliance between gamergate and Occupy when the person involved isn't really an Occupy person at all.
I'd hesitate to call Occupy a debacle, though they clearly lost control of their message after the first few weeks and became a depressing hippie circus. Truthfully, I think they were a bunch of angry middle-class college kids who were taking on big money that was backed by big media. Of course they were made to look like clowns in the media. I do believe they failed their agenda, but I don't think Fox News got the final word on them. I don't call that a debacle.
Besides, you and I both know there's no alliance between Occupy and gamergate just by using common sense.
Of course I can't say that Gamergate is being linked to Occupy as a whole. Because, as you said, they lost control of their message. Too many people, pulling all different directions. And now one of those people is aligning with Gamergate.
As for Occupy itself, when you describe it as a ‘depressing hippie circus’, that ‘failed their agenda’ (agendas?), I don’t think characterising that as a ‘debacle’ is really that unfair .