PZ Myers has some interesting things to say on the affair:
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.
Weirdly, 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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*
May it, though? Be, that is, by some sort of objective standards?
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.
The 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
Probably 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?