Posting comments and tweets like this is part of why this is such an insidious problem. You're giving people a platform to attract new followers. Sure, you likely meant it for driving outrage, but often the half-outrage behavior is what helps publicize the less terrible comments and people.
.
I'm really conflicted about this topic.
On one hand, I think that
hate breeds hate. On the other hand, if you do not bring attention to someone receiving death threats and harrasment, then... that is terrible. It's not a all-or-nothing, or this-or-that. It's probably one of those things that have to be judged on a case by case basis. And sometimes the two things intertwine.
I'm in the camp that believes that sometimes putting attention to trolls, you're magnifying their relevance and making things worse.
I was not going to see Passion of the Christ, but everyone being so upset- Well, I just had to go see it, and in doing so, the protesters and haters of the film did the antisemitic director a favor. That's not an argument against protesters, or protesting, or speaking up. Not at all, but there is an element of a catch 22. A self-feeding loop. It's a difficult proposition to tackle. Hench why there is so much discussion about how to engage.
I do wonder if Milo would have even been a thing anyone gave a shit about, let alone have this base, had there not been this base full of condemnation. If you're a troll you feed off the negative energy, and you cannot really be beat. He will find another conduit, or other platforms.
It's not progressive to sling your condemnation at random assholes. What is interesting about that? What is intelligent about that? Isn't the true that Milos followers are just really intimidated and hurt by progressive values, and that is what takes them that far? I've always maintained that a better way to deal with them is not to try and go to "war" with them, but to try side them with arguments.
Some of these people will never get through that membrane because they are emotionally childish and angry, and then they won't listen to reason. So a progressive yelling something snarky (and true) is going to fall on deaf ears, just because the sender is condescending. I don't think that's the case for all of them- Obviously.
I think it takes incredible little, and I think many young men are immature, petty and angry. I don't think it's a new thing. I hear from older people of the older generations who were into all sorts of similar "angry at the mainstream" when they were young. I think it's very possible that males sometimes have a tendency to not be able to work through it.
Honestly I think many progressives underestimate how much of these discussions become so much worse because people cannot address each other properly. And the response I most often see on GAF and elsewhere is that; They don't have the time or the patience to worry about some edgey shitlords feelings when minorities are being mistreated.
I see this direct handwavering and lack of self critical thinking as being just as close minded as the opposition. Because being right or wrong is irrelevant to the concept of changing someones views. It's for certain that if you are not prepared to have a modicum of understanding towards your opponents views and why they have these views, it stands to reason that they will not either. A
nd then, what is the fucking point? It's akin to not wanting to understand a disease to try and cure it, but just attacking it forcefully with random shit as you condemn it. It'll either grow or be ineffective, and you'll do nothing to address the core of problem.
People on the opposite won't even try to want to be open to another possibility or argument or information if they are angry at who is talking right off the bat. We all know this to be true, but I think the lack of putting emphasis on how something is perceived in the written form over the internet, turns someone who is already a bit angry, a bit juvenille, a bit immature, but not a bad person, into someone who becomes irrationally angry and slowly but surely starts mingling with the wrong crowd, and then it feels good/funny to see someone who takes small jabs at these SJWs and progressives, and then you're already heading for full right-wing trap. Yes, many people are really that shallow, in need of affection and in pads on the head that their political leaning goes off the spectrum by whom they engage with it.
I think ultimately, many of these people don't know what the fuck they are talking about and are really just angry. They are no different from people in gangs, or insane clown posse, or fucking whatever other group you want to throw your lot in with, because its a place of likeminded individuals. That has more to do with human nature. GAF itself is not a very welcoming place to people who are conservative. And it's not because they get banned, it's just that GAF is not that different from elsewhere. Ideas that counter to our own belief system are not desired, and most of us- left or right, progressive or bigot are looking for confirmation of the things we already know to be true.
I think it takes a special person to seek out wanting to be challenged on the things they know to be 100% true. Even if it is just to understand the viewpoint. My uncle always told me that the reason for doing something is often much more interesting than the act itself. Milo being a right-wing troll is not very interesting. Why is he a right wing troll (as another poster mentioned) might be a more interesting question? Not because it is supposed to make people go easy on him, but if being progressive is about progress, and not hate and condemnation, it stands to reason that it is worth spending time to examine and figuring out how the hell people become so angry.
Someone posted a tweet of Milo after the Orlando shooting with a machine gun and a purse advocating/implying violence against muslims. That is not a normal or a rational response! What the fuck is that, and how did it got so bad? Where does this hate against women come from?
