Disclaimer: due to an immense work load, I may not frequent this thread very often, but I will respond to constructive replies where a response is called for. Every fucking time I think it's going to be quiet, shit just... Explodes. I really ought to stop using the Q-word.
Apparently, the self-proclaimed Most Fabulous Supervillain on the Internet has finally crossed one line too many and is sort-of paying for it.
For those of you who do not know about him, Milo Yiannopoulos is a British journalist and professional provocateur, often described as an Alt-Right or Far-Right Conservative. I say "Often described" because personally, I do not necessarily subscribe to the methods of labelling the guy - in my political environment, he would not be easy to pin to one side of the political spectrum. In any case, Milo is known for his anti-Feminist, anti-Muslim, Free-Speech "fundamentalist" views, his support of Trump and... Basically, for unapologetically hurting the tiny little fragile feelings of some "modern left-wingers." Do a video search and you will find out why in seconds. I recommend it, especially for those who find it easy to take offence at something someone says.
Rambling introductions aside, Milo is currently facing some backlash because of a podcast where he commented on paedophilia in a way, which could be interpreted as an endorsement of it. Now, his book deal and some speaking arrangements have been killed off, and he resigned from his editorial position with Breitbart (http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html)
Personally, I am happy enough to buy his side of the story, if for very little other reason than that I don't give a shit. Then again, a "universally" agreed upon line was crossed and stuff like that does have a price in terms of PR backlash. And if it was PR alone, I would probably not even be making this thread right now as it would not have presented me with an opportune entrée...
...And this is what I was hoping to spark a discussion about; it seems to me like the Western society has become so thin-skinned and so addicted to politically correct platitude-driven bullshit, that a statement, which could have been addressed with a well-deserved "Oh, for fuck's sake, dude!" has in stead sparked enough of a shit storm that for what I think is the first time ever, the Norwegian mainstream media are featuring this guy front and centre. How the fuck did we get to this point, where somehow people assume the right never to be offended while implicitly denying others the right to just be plain wrong? A better question; how do we get out of it? Should we?
I think my views on the subject are pretty well-established, and in the case of Milo, sure, I disagree with many of his opinions, but I would not dream of "going after him" for expressing them. Disagreement is healthy. Ridicule is a useful tool, when used properly, in communicating your message. Diversity does extend to diversity of opinion, no matter how distasteful such an opinion may be to any given individual or group. I think it has also been established that my general attitude towards people who use hurt feelings as an argument is "Grow the fuck up." It has not been proven wrong yet, and every attempt thus far has been based on winged wishes and peace-on-earth bullshit.
You know, this is highly entangled with homogeny vs. diversity issue I've been pondering of late and how the more vocal proponents of cultural, ethnic, employment-related, what-have-you diversity seem to actually advocate homogeny, but enough about that, unless someone is willing to bite on this point.
So here we are... Are feelings more important than facts in the public sphere? How far should we as a society go to safeguard someone from getting offended? Is free speech only free if you are on the popular side of the issue?
PZ Myers has some interesting things to say on the affair:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
There is the ever present danger that people like this attract a following - and then an attitude becomes a movement. Trump took advantage of that as did so many less than savoury leaders in history. When it gets out of hand physically society may suffer in a real way.
Humans in groups seem to be far easier to incite into active, mindless, violence rather than active, platonic, love and it often takes a single person to plant the seed.
Not being PC but I see no point in deliberately provoking anger in others unless you actually want a fight. Those who do so and then complain they are bring threatened are some kind of hypocrite, or fool. Though I abhor that kind of violence I did not feel any great surprise or sorrow over Charlie Hebdo. They provoked a response that was predictable and thus, willfully, placed themselves in actual danger of death. Might be viewed as being self-inflicted.
That another group or culture annoys us seems, to me, no grounds for "slagging them off" in public but, if one wishes to, one cannot really complain that the morals/ethics of the other group/culture allow for a disproportionate response according to your value system. Even if that response confirms some of what you say.
One day, hopefully, humanity will grow up and start acting like a race of responsible adults.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2017, 09:38:03 AM
So here we are... Are feelings more important than facts in the public sphere?
Sometimes, maybe.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2017, 09:38:03 AM
How far should we as a society go to safeguard someone from getting offended?
A reasonable distance.
Those Americans trying to bury their dead having to suffer the Westboro fucks, that's what mounted police are for. If not why bother feeding the horses?
The different riding the bus should be afforded some protection.
Probably the offensive should have their fora but words make mad bus guys.
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 10:28:28 AM
There is the ever present danger that people like this attract a following - and then an attitude becomes a movement.
But if you deny them air they'll fester and produce orange pustules.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2017, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 10:28:28 AM
There is the ever present danger that people like this attract a following - and then an attitude becomes a movement.
But if you deny them air they'll fester and produce orange pustules.
That is a good point but perhaps there needs to be agreed public limits as to how far even free expression should go.
It's OK for the right (leftist) thinkers to call someone a red neck, to designate regions red neck.
Ye, it's OK they're too stupid to realise we're portraying them as sub human, so I say just do it.
Quote from: hermes2015 on February 22, 2017, 10:21:01 AM
PZ Myers has some interesting things to say on the affair:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
It's been a long, long time since I've agreed with PZ and "his" crowd on pretty much anything new... And this time is no exception. Sort-of interesting this may be, and yes, I subscribe to the idea of ignoring people like Milo not being the best way of dealing with them. However, it sort of goes down the self-righteousness hill from there.
QuoteWeirdly, this guy is delivering his archaic and useless advice at a time when we're finally getting through to demolish Yiannopoulos's authority. He lost his book deal, he has just resigned from Breitbart, and none of this was accomplished by ignoring him. It was by keeping up the pressure, exposing him for what he is, and letting his own words turn him into a pariah
Authority? The points on which
I agree with Milo, I do so
in spite of him acting like what many perceive to be a "massive douche." Superficially, we agree on an issue or two, mostly Feminist and Social Justice crowd related stuff, so an example in exercising authority it is not. Yes, perhaps he can incite haters to hate more or some such, and yes, he more or less admits to getting off on conflict, and what precisely did you "pressure builders" do to "expose him for what he is?" Which is what, by the way? That feral dog thing? Well, so fucking what? Or, let me put it another way; why should I give a fuck? I don't care if he's the fucking love child of a cactus and Eva Braun - if he has a point, he does. If not, not, and I do care immensely for his right to have and express those points, be they real or otherwise.
Basically, my beef is this; If someone voices a point with which I agree to a large audience, I'm content as a cucumber with that. The trade-off is that I have to accept the right of someone else to voice an opinion directly opposite to the one I hold. Personally, I am not prepared to condemn someone for expressing an unpopular opinion. In this instance, and in my not-particularly-humble opinion, he did no more than that.
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 10:28:28 AM
There is the ever present danger that people like this attract a following - and then an attitude becomes a movement. Trump took advantage of that as did so many less than savoury leaders in history. When it gets out of hand physically society may suffer in a real way.
Humans in groups seem to be far easier to incite into active, mindless, violence rather than active, platonic, love and it often takes a single person to plant the seed.
I agree. However, I am not willing to pay the price I'm being implicitly asked to pay to prevent that from happening. You don't need to shut up the fringes in order to push your centrist agenda (And yes, I'm simplifying the shades here)
QuoteNot being PC but I see no point in deliberately provoking anger in others unless you actually want a fight. Those who do so and then complain they are bring threatened are some kind of hypocrite, or fool. Though I abhor that kind of violence I did not feel any great surprise or sorrow over Charlie Hebdo. They provoked a response that was predictable and thus, willfully, placed themselves in actual danger of death. Might be viewed as being self-inflicted.
By all means. You accept the risks by playing the game. My questions tend toward the more hypothetical; by what rules would you prefer that the game was played? To his credit, Milo has not whined about being treated badly by terrible, terrible people the way many prominent public agenda pushers, largely including Charlie Hebdo, would have.
QuoteThat another group or culture annoys us seems, to me, no grounds for "slagging them off" in public but, if one wishes to, one cannot really complain that the morals/ethics of the other group/culture allow for a disproportionate response according to your value system. Even if that response confirms some of what you say.
Another culture within one's own society? Fair game within the applicable laws. No different than oneself. Cultures, ideas, ideologies... I don't see circumstances under which it is "wrong" to challenge them.
But yes, I absolutely agree with you that whining over something you've been asking for is silly, not to mention hypocritical. If you are willing to be an ass, be prepared to take it in the ass. *drumroll*
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Sometimes, maybe.
May it, though? Be, that is, by some sort of objective standards?
Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2017, 09:38:03 AM
A reasonable distance.
Those Americans trying to bury their dead having to suffer the Westboro fucks, that's what mounted police are for. If not why bother feeding the horses?
Horses make good glue, they say.
I find those picketers distasteful, but I see the answer more in bikers with flags blocking them from view than in police - be they mounted or otherwise. "God hates fags..." Hate speech? I don't know... "God hates fags and you have a responsibility to God before your fellow man" sounds hate-inciting-ish. The former version... does not.
QuoteThe different riding the bus should be afforded some protection.
From collision with a drunk garbage truck? Yes. From being called a dumb fuck..? Possibly, but not necessarily. Kids and the mentally challenged follow a different set of rules. You avoid provoking them
with the trade-off of them not being taken seriously on the larger sort of issues.
QuoteProbably the offensive should have their fora but words make mad bus guys.
Is it a good idea to segregate the politically incorrect from the thin-skinned though? Is it worth the price?
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 10:28:28 AMI did not feel any great surprise or sorrow over Charlie Hebdo. They provoked a response that was predictable and thus, willfully, placed themselves in actual danger of death.
So you have to change your behaviour to placate the violent.
And if you don't you've just got it coming.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2017, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 10:28:28 AMI did not feel any great surprise or sorrow over Charlie Hebdo. They provoked a response that was predictable and thus, willfully, placed themselves in actual danger of death.
So you have to change your behaviour to placate the violent.
And if you don't you've just got it coming.
Nope, you go into it with open eyes, with knowledge of the nature of your target and the expectation of the nature of "repraisals" consistent with the culture of that target. If the target is not of your culture, is of a culture known for its violence towards perceived insult, then do not be surprised if those reprisals are more than you might expect.
"Know your enemy", Sun Tzu (b.544BCE) "The Art of War."
"Plan for the worst", me, just now.
I don't see a problem. The guy said something that crossed the line of what even Breitbart was uncomfortable with... that line is pretty far into bullshit town. The publisher of the book backed out, well within their rights.
I watched the guy on Bill Maher. He was offensive. He wasn't "politically correct." He was rude to fellow guests and behaved like a toddler. All of those are fine in themselves but only if the people allowing him onto their show, into their places are OK with it.
It seems like some people are trying to say that because he is intentionally offensive then we can't do anything about it because that is discrimination. I say, fuck that. Don't let bias get in the way. Just like no one has the right to not be offended, no one has the right to offend. Free speech sure, but no one is making him shut up, they're practicing their own rights of not supporting him. I don't think people should get special treatment just because they are offensive.
It seems like the natural conclusion to a person who intentionally tries to offend everyone, they end up with no one supporting them.
If Milo was just one idiot spouting off racist, xenophobic crap, I wouldn't really care. Sure, people can be far too sensitive these days. But like Gloucester said, people are easily incited. Milo's trolling of Leslie Jones, for example, likely emboldened the assholes who hacked her website and posted her private information and nude pics for everyone to see. That's beyond being an asshole, now you're being a bully and humiliating someone just because you want to provoke a reaction,trying to shame them into silence. So this is not just about being PC, in my opinion.
Along those same lines, viewing what happened at Charlie Hebdo as "self-inflicted" seems misplaced. If the argument is that people should "grow the fuck up", why not include the militant Islamists who get riled up when someone dares to make fun of their damn prophet? Seeks like a double standard. At least sensitive college students aren't murdering people.
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:03:20 PM
"Know your enemy", Sun Tzu (b.544BCE) "The Art of War."
Why did we allow our enemy amongst us?
I running for office I hope I your vote.
I'm running for office I hope I have your vote.
Lately things I type haven't been registering.
I've replaced my keyboard batteries, I hope it's only that.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2017, 02:15:17 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:03:20 PM
"Know your enemy", Sun Tzu (b.544BCE) "The Art of War."
Why did we allow our enemy amongst us?
That is a whole other can of snakes.
Sun Tzu also said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" but I don't think he meant terrorists, rather political enemies.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2017, 02:15:17 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:03:20 PM
"Know your enemy", Sun Tzu (b.544BCE) "The Art of War."
Why did we allow our enemy amongst us?
I running for office I hope I your vote.
How fast can you run?
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
How fast can you run?
Of course a gentleman wouldn't ask
But if asked...moderately brisk.
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:19:04 PM
Sun Tzu also said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" but I don't think he meant terrorists, rather political enemies.
Isn't that from the Godfather Part II? I don't think Sun Tzu ever said that, at least it isn't in his
The Art Of War.
Quote from: Davin on February 22, 2017, 02:04:06 PM
I don't see a problem. The guy said something that crossed the line of what even Breitbart was uncomfortable with... that line is pretty far into bullshit town. The publisher of the book backed out, well within their rights.
Of course they are within their full rights to drop his stuff. In my book, however, that is a mark against them, seeing how the stuff they dropped had little to do with their provided reason for dropping it.
QuoteI watched the guy on Bill Maher. He was offensive. He wasn't "politically correct." He was rude to fellow guests and behaved like a toddler. All of those are fine in themselves but only if the people allowing him onto their show, into their places are OK with it.
On Real Time? I've just watched that interview and could not for the life of me find anything offensive in it. Or are we even talking about the same show?
This is actually interesting. It was not my intention to create a thread about Milo per se, but do let us explore this a little bit. I'm familiar with a fair amount of his stuff, and time and time again he "went after" groups I identify with - even strongly so. Atheists, for example. Yes, he thinks we are a thin-skinned, whiny sort of bunch... But I'm not. I can't relate to the atheist he describes. Thus, he does not have a point with regard to me. Why would I be offended? Yes, he says we all spout the same quotes by one Horseman or another, but I barely know any quotes by the Horsemen, so again, not a point with regard to me. Why would I be offended? And what if he did have a point? Truth may not always be pelasant, but being offended by it..? I think it takes a special lack of self-reflection, although perhaps it's only special to a person who is happy enough to identify his own insecurities through being ridiculed by others.
Another interesting point... Actually, I'll take the longer route; I'm
not offended. Why is it that you
are?
QuoteIt seems like some people are trying to say that because he is intentionally offensive then we can't do anything about it because that is discrimination. I say, fuck that. Don't let bias get in the way. Just like no one has the right to not be offended, no one has the right to offend. Free speech sure, but no one is making him shut up, they're practicing their own rights of not supporting him. I don't think people should get special treatment just because they are offensive.
Oh, I sure hope he does not shut up! I find him very entertaining - even when he expresses opinions I disagree with.
Quote
It seems like the natural conclusion to a person who intentionally tries to offend everyone, they end up with no one supporting them.
I neither agree nor disagree with that; it hinges mostly on the use of the words "everyone" and "no-one."
...Care to bite on my political correctness and arguments from hurt feelings theme?
Quote from: Firebird on February 22, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
If Milo was just one idiot spouting off racist, xenophobic crap, I wouldn't really care. Sure, people can be far too sensitive these days. But like Gloucester said, people are easily incited. Milo's trolling of Leslie Jones, for example, likely emboldened the assholes who hacked her website and posted her private information and nude pics for everyone to see. That's beyond being an asshole, now you're being a bully and humiliating someone just because you want to provoke a reaction,trying to shame them into silence. So this is not just about being PC, in my opinion.
Along those same lines, viewing what happened at Charlie Hebdo as "self-inflicted" seems misplaced. If the argument is that people should "grow the fuck up", why not include the militant Islamists who get riled up when someone dares to make fun of their damn prophet? Seeks like a double standard. At least sensitive college students aren't murdering people.
Militant Islamists (And other religious fanatics, but mostly the Islamists), if any of you are reading this;
Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
Happy? If you were talking about Milo, by the way, although he is the type to say exactly that, "grow the fuck up" was
my line in this context. Yes, I do think Islamists should grow the fuck up. Trouble is, I'm unlikely to get through to that "sensible person trying to get out" inside an Islamic fundie because there usually is none there.
I don't see how Milo is trying to shame any one into silence. He's more than capable of dealing with whatever comes out of their mouth, it seems. Shelling someone's ideas is not shaming them into silence. Yes, the ad-hominems are silly and, in my opinion, uncalled for, but in returning to my subtle point-to-be-made, I am not offended. Why are you?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 22, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 22, 2017, 02:19:04 PM
Sun Tzu also said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" but I don't think he meant terrorists, rather political enemies.
Isn't that from the Godfather Part II? I don't think Sun Tzu ever said that, at least it isn't in his The Art Of War.
You could well be right, I misremembered - long time since I looked into "The Art of War"! Though it is on my Kindle, beside me.
Yup, after checking seems it has been attributed to Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Petrarch - but Corleone's use is the first recorded in print. Shouldn't rely on my memory alone for such things these days :redface:
I've never heard of this Milo guy, nor do I care to investigate him further, but my first reaction was that the same thing happened with the YouTuber Pewdiepie. The media took some things he said out of context and ran a slander campaign against him. However the point I'm seeing in this thread is that he was always trying to provoke people or just generally be an annoyance. If that's the case then I don't care how right wing you are, if someone were to do stuff like that to you then you wouldn't like this guy either.
On the other hand there was this documentary a black guy in the UK did whose name escapes me that gave out numbers about how Jews have richer households. Now I don't know if he's using an average or a mean or even where he got those statistics from but I think there is a parallel between what his point was and some things I see in the US:
When it comes to race, white people don't get a college scholarship for being white, they get the same opportunity everyone else gets minus the ones that are specific to specific races. Well some say, well they don't need it because they have more money. There are still poor white people who could use the money. I understand that they have some available to them but it just seems that they don't have the same volume of opportunity as everyone else in this regard. And I understand that the scholarships that cater to minorities are put in place so they can have opportunities in the first place which I'm ok with. I'm just advocating for equality, or trying.
QuoteYou know, this is highly entangled with homogeny vs. diversity issue I've been pondering of late and how the more vocal proponents of cultural, ethnic, employment-related, what-have-you diversity seem to actually advocate homogeny, but enough about that, unless someone is willing to bite on this point.
I think that is true but I would take it one step further and say they advocate for equality of diversity. That we still have diversity but we all have equal opportunities, demographics, ect.
Quote from: Asmodean Prime on February 22, 2017, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 22, 2017, 02:04:06 PM
I don't see a problem. The guy said something that crossed the line of what even Breitbart was uncomfortable with... that line is pretty far into bullshit town. The publisher of the book backed out, well within their rights.
Of course they are within their full rights to drop his stuff. In my book, however, that is a mark against them, seeing how the stuff they dropped had little to do with their provided reason for dropping it.
That doesn't matter to me. I mean not much more than that is how normal humans behave. I also see no reason for a company to stand up for someone who's sole intention is to offend people and get off on the outrage. People should stand up for what they believe in, if you think it's a mark against someone for not standing up against something they don't believe in... well there isn't much to discuss on that.
I suppose you could try to put down to standing up for freedom of speech, but I would not find that convincing.
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteI watched the guy on Bill Maher. He was offensive. He wasn't "politically correct." He was rude to fellow guests and behaved like a toddler. All of those are fine in themselves but only if the people allowing him onto their show, into their places are OK with it.
Another interesting point... Actually, I'll take the longer route; I'm not offended. Why is it that you are?
Am I offended? No, I'm not, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize when a person is trying to be offensive or when other people are offended.
Quote from: AsmodeanQuoteIt seems like some people are trying to say that because he is intentionally offensive then we can't do anything about it because that is discrimination. I say, fuck that. Don't let bias get in the way. Just like no one has the right to not be offended, no one has the right to offend. Free speech sure, but no one is making him shut up, they're practicing their own rights of not supporting him. I don't think people should get special treatment just because they are offensive.
Oh, I sure hope he does not shut up! I find him very entertaining - even when he expresses opinions I disagree with.
What bothers me is that it appears very childish and almost everything he said was bullshit. He Gish Gallops it, which is one of the dishonest argument tactics that I like the least. So while I don't care if he keeps going on, I don't care to listen to him any more than I care to listen to a toddler in a shopping center crying for being denied an ice cream.
Quote from: AsmodeanQuote
It seems like the natural conclusion to a person who intentionally tries to offend everyone, they end up with no one supporting them.
I neither agree nor disagree with that; it hinges mostly on the use of the words "everyone" and "no-one."
Colloquial so as to not have to be excessively verbose and pedantic.
Quote from: Asmodean...Care to bite on my political correctness and arguments from hurt feelings theme?
I don't give a shit about being politically correct nor do I care much about other people's feelings.
Edit: Clarification: I don't care much about other people's feelings where the truth is concerned. I have no desire to hurt other people's feelings, but that just means I don't try to, but I'm not going to go too far out of my way to avoid hurting others.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cryhavok.org%2Fd%2F18028-1%2FI%2Bam%2BMonitoring%2Bthis%2BThread.jpg&hash=e8c6314a6bcb91b768cd2f6a14855f11a40734dc)
I think I saw Milo 3 times on the Internet. All I know is that he is troll, who went a bit too far. Don't know all the details though and don't care so much about that either. His interviews with Bill Maher and Dave Rubin were pretty decent entertainment. I can understand why liberals don't like him (and call him names), but that is not my problem.
Well I think alot of what the right complains about is they see people not working so they assume it's laziness. You get a disability check? Laziness. You live in a box? Laziness. And what liberals say is that these people are legitimately unable to work. Nobody is going to hire someone who smells like they live in a dumpster and nobody wants to hire someone when they're out of work for 3 years because they had a mental breakdown.
I think it's a little bit of both. There is this psychological concept called learned helplessness. It basically states that people when people go through adversities that they can't stop or escape from then they will react later on as if they can't do something when they absolutely can. So do the right see people as able bodied to work and is it legitimate? In some cases yes. And do some liberals see people wanting to work but are otherwise disadvantaged? I think in the correct light of seeing experience and circumstance in case by case, then yes.
Why this concerns me is the rise of the alt right. They reject all notions of humanism, unless of course it shows them pity or a superior notion of their value. It bothers me because of people like Milo and Trump are getting public stages to spout their rhetoric that people don't think critically about. They reject the system by joining another one. And what David said about Gish Galloping concerns me as well because it seems to be a favorite of the alt right and nobody seems to call them out on their bullshit.
I am going to have to admit that what I have read about this bloke just confirms that my policy of not bothering with that kind of bothersome people is the right one for me.
If they enjoy making targets of themselves by ranting, spreading dissent, insulting others publicly etc. that is their business, they earn all they get.
Mr. Y is a dishonest hack, despite his claim that he "gets his facts right." There are pieces that examine his assertions in detail, but I'm not going to waste anybody's time with them. Just one striking example of his mendacity from his recent appearance on Maher's show will suffice.
Quote"You can always find an extreme person that becomes the object of your attack to assign that to everybody," [Larry Wilmore] said. "So if you say, well that person is weird, or they want to commit sexual assault, then everybody thinks all transgender people want to do is commit sexual assault."
That's when Yiannopoulos said transgender people are disproportionately involved in sexual assault, and that that was "not a controversial statistic."
He's right — it's not controversial at all to say trans people are "disproportionately involved" in sex crimes.
Except that they're only "involved" in the same way people who are robbed are "involved" in robberies.
[source (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/milo-yiannopoulos-fact-check-trans-people-disproportionately-involved-071037564.html)]
I think the only way to deal with these people is to get just as loud and nasty as they do, except actually be right.
Ok back to monitor mode.
Quote from: Arturo on February 23, 2017, 02:12:00 AM
I think the only way to deal with these people is to get just as loud and nasty as they do, except actually be right.
Ok back to monitor mode.
Mr. Y might be described as nasty, but he is mostly snide rather than loud. In fact the "loud and nasty" approach taken by some of his opponents works well for him because he gets to portray himself as being victimized by the intolerant "regressive left." An overwrought woman got in his face at one event and he posted a video of it, claiming (dishonestly) that she "took a swing" at him. That is exactly the sort of reaction he's hoping to elicit.
An entertaining and mildly informative piece by a reporter who travelled with the "Dangerous Faggot" tour: "On the Milo Bus With the Lost Boys of America's New Right" |
Pacific Standard (https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new-right-629a77e87986#.qa2qq1jp6)
QuoteYiannopoulos followed the path of least resistance until, suddenly, it resisted. Now he knows just what it is to have the Internet turn on you and take away your control of the narrative. Now the entire alt-right is realizing, in full view of a few million popcorn-munching online leftists, that they were never the new punk. They were never the suave and seductive blackshirts of the new American authoritarianism. They are, at best, the brownshirts, and they are becoming less useful to their benefactors by the day. Where they were once "underground," they are now are an ankle-biting embarrassment to the movement they made mainstream — and they have no clue what to do next.
[. . .]
These young men seem to have no conception of the consequences of allying yourself publicly with the far right, even before their hero gets accused of endorsing pedophilia in public. Yiannopoulos has been good to them. They're having a great time. Over the course of a few hours, I find myself playing an awkward Wendy to these lackluster lost boys as I watch them wrestle with the moral challenge of actually goddamn growing up.
I enjoy most respectful conversation, and these boys are scrupulously polite to me. They were polite to me a month earlier when I slept on their tour bus — right until a door closed between me and them, and they immediately started talking loudly, to each other, about the crass and anatomically implausible things they wanted to do to me. Intellectually, they must have known that I could hear them, but these kids grew up on the Internet, the world's locker room, where if you can't see a woman, she doesn't really exist. The one grown man on the bus started yelling at them to go the hell to sleep — "there's a girl back there!"—and they yelled back that they'd let me sleep if I let them "suck my titties." It's no surprise to hear that they're still yearning for the teat, but these babies had best be careful where they go slobbering for the milk of human kindness. I'm just about dried up.
[. . .]
I don't believe that Yiannopoulos endorses pedophilia. I do believe that he exploits vulnerable young men. Not in a sexual way. Not in an illegal way. Yiannopoulos exploits vulnerable young men in the same way that every wing-nut right-wing shock-jock from the president down has been exploiting them for years: by whipping up the fear and frustration of angry young men and boys who would rather burn down the world than learn to live in it like adults, by directing that affectless rage in service to their own fame and power. This is the sort of exploitation the entire conservative sphere is entirely comfortable with. What happens to these kids now that the game has changed?
[Continues . . . (https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new-right-629a77e87986#.qa2qq1jp6)]
I heard that Milo's father abused him in his youth. That could have seriously damaged him mentally.