Great point, and one that should be learned well by the Dems. Labelling him "Dangerous Donald" and uncoupling him from the Republicans to hopefully gain R support didn't help one bit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Milo Yiannopoulos is Going on Real Time with Bill Maher
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
Great point, and one that should be learned well by the Dems. Labelling him "Dangerous Donald" and uncoupling him from the Republicans to hopefully gain R support didn't help one bit.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
This idea that fascism can't be stopped from spreading by action and argument is nonsense. Censorship only gets you so far, you need to present a compelling alternative.
What are you on about?
Dude Abides
Banned
Uh, by force?
Not by debating leading Nazis so the "moderates" could calmly ponder the merits of the two sides and conclude the Nazis were misguided.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
That didn't make it go away though. What actually made it go away was credible politics, economic opportunity and the courage to see it through.
Censorship was the beginning of denazification, but the actual erosion of it as an ideology came about through presenting a compelling alternative.
Yea, it got taken down by action. Specifically through force, a little something called World War Two. And after that the Germans literally made everything about it illegal.
No, World War Two made it go away. From there they made sure that shit never took root again.
Some real bizarro alternative history here
Messofanego
Banned
I can predict Maher isn't going to be above mainstream media, by sticking to one point. I'll be impressed if he becomes more like a Jeremy Paxman in constantly hoarding Milo on the one point instead of moving on to the next topic "in the interest of time".
Milo uses the classic politician tactics of finding the keywords and deflecting into non-sequitirs that captures the interviewer into their web to get engaged with the tangents than the original point.
I'll be very impressed and pleased if Maher steps up his debating game, though.
I think I could respect the 'debate them' platform if people actually stood up for minorities, en masse. That doesn't happen currently. The marginalized are told to endure and tolerate for freedom of speech, while we suffer abuse and lifelong consequences of people who don't understand the power or rhetoric.
If debate and a reasonable conversation were all it took, we wouldn't have racism, we'd have real police reform and we wouldn't have human scum like Milo making a profit off of an intent to injure and harm others. People aren't standing up for the most vulnerable if what Milo talks about is framed as a mere debate.
Life isn't a debate. I can't debate with a racist on how to see value in my life. And I shouldn't be expected to endure that abuse until a so-called reasonable debater says that's enough. I have to wonder, with all respects, how many of these debate types have dealt with racial or lgbtq abuse, or thought deportation was a fun jest.
A person may believe with all their heart that eventually can be changed or convinced but that doesn't happen. I've reached a conclusion that some people, while mostly good, I suppose, don't have the level of life experience necessary to understand that some people shouldn't be given a voice. And it's....like, they'd rather listen or entertain giving Milo a platform than actually harmed individuals. That doesn't sit well with me.
It's not us, drawing a line in the stand and a want or desire to label people alt right. It's based on evidence of fact. We know that his rhetoric leads to violence. And someone literally got shot at one of his rallies, but the main concern was liberals stifling free speech even though the campus was invaded by a group who weren't students.
I'm becoming despondent. People say debate them while a trans student literally gets singled out and fears for her life and leaves school. Someone, please tell me how she should have debated that?
I'm not a big fan of Bill, I won't label him as alt-right after hosting Milo, but my opinion of him is even lower now.
If debate and a reasonable conversation were all it took, we wouldn't have racism, we'd have real police reform and we wouldn't have human scum like Milo making a profit off of an intent to injure and harm others. People aren't standing up for the most vulnerable if what Milo talks about is framed as a mere debate.
Life isn't a debate. I can't debate with a racist on how to see value in my life. And I shouldn't be expected to endure that abuse until a so-called reasonable debater says that's enough. I have to wonder, with all respects, how many of these debate types have dealt with racial or lgbtq abuse, or thought deportation was a fun jest.
A person may believe with all their heart that eventually can be changed or convinced but that doesn't happen. I've reached a conclusion that some people, while mostly good, I suppose, don't have the level of life experience necessary to understand that some people shouldn't be given a voice. And it's....like, they'd rather listen or entertain giving Milo a platform than actually harmed individuals. That doesn't sit well with me.
It's not us, drawing a line in the stand and a want or desire to label people alt right. It's based on evidence of fact. We know that his rhetoric leads to violence. And someone literally got shot at one of his rallies, but the main concern was liberals stifling free speech even though the campus was invaded by a group who weren't students.
I'm becoming despondent. People say debate them while a trans student literally gets singled out and fears for her life and leaves school. Someone, please tell me how she should have debated that?
I'm not a big fan of Bill, I won't label him as alt-right after hosting Milo, but my opinion of him is even lower now.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I mean we live in a country that had debates on the merits of slavery. Like, there were people that got up in public and articulated why it was a good thing to have. And folks have to listen then offer a counterpoint to why it was horrible.
And there was still a fucking war over it where people died.
So I don't see having Milo on as a horrible thing but I keep in mind that's not where bigots and evil mofos get dealt with.
And there was still a fucking war over it where people died.
So I don't see having Milo on as a horrible thing but I keep in mind that's not where bigots and evil mofos get dealt with.
Alternative facts are all the rage lately.
ScatheZombie
Member
I would say that the election does a illustrate one of the points I was trying to make.
Trump was very often not directly confronted with most of the bullshit he said. Because when he said it, he was largely surrounded by the alt-right, conservatives, and his base - even well into the general election. He intentionally avoided, as many conservatives do, engaging directly with people who staunchly disagree with them in a neutral, or left-leaning forum. They play only on their turf because they know, they all know, that making an ass of yourself is infinitely more damaging than the other side calling you an ass.
Their playbook has been to say whatever-the-fuck they want and when we attempt to call them out on it after the fact, they play the victim. They claim we made it up, they didn't say that, we edited it, we're twisting what they said, taking them out of context, and any other number of excuses. And, for the most part, it tends to work because it's all happening after the fact with second and third hand accounts.
What tends to work just as well, for us, is confronting them directly and letting them make an ass of themselves in front of people, specifically people who aren't already drinking their Koolaid by the damn gallon. When the media and Hillary actually did this to Trump, he either dropped in numbers or he bailed the fuck out of the interview as fast as he damn well could.
That's really the only difference I see being argued in the thread. Some people think it's better to, inasmuch as you can, dissuade the dissemination of shit ideas lest they spread further while calling out shit ideas from a second or third person account. And some people think direct confrontation, even if we give shit ideas the opportunity to potentially spread, is a more effective tool in the overall battle of ideologies.
Given the pace of the thread so far, I doubt we'll come to terms on these two actions.
Let me tell you about how we handled post-WW1 Germany...because you may be surprised to find this example actually works heavily against you.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
There's nothing alternative about it.
Banning something doesn't end it. What did end it was the occupation of western territories by the british focusing on providing an economic alternative, in the east it was replacing it with socialism.
What the hell is a cute quotable?
What extinguisher is Maher holding? (His anti-Islam rant) is still fresh in my memory.
My concern is less for the audience and more for the millions of people watching at home, let's not forget Trump had his ass handed to him in the debates too, he's not the President.
In the words of Nafai1123
Give a racist a word and they'll take your dignity.
Give a misogynist a smile and they'll grab your pussy.
Give a anti-Semite your history and they'll reject the truth.
Give a bigot a voice and they'll suffocate yours.
platitudes are fun
You're pretty clearly ignoring the fact that they made it illegal. You'd go to jail for that shit in the West and god help you in the East.
RedAssedApe
Banned
not unexpected. i mean isn't he bffs with ann coulter?
SkeptiMism
Member
I think the biggest problem with trying to discuss with people like Milo and that way show to the others that they're wrong, is that it's practically impossible to counter every lie and misinformation in real time.
Think about it. If I make up lies to you and you wanna show to the others that I'm in the wrong, what do you think about how much effort you need to put into proving that my lies are wrong? I can tell you that even for the most simple lie, you need to spend multiplied amount of time compared to the time I just spent making the lie to you. For some lies, you might not even be able to prove it wrong at all, because logically looking the burden of proof might be on me, but go on, try to tell the public about how I'm being ridiculous while you're right, all the while I keep coming up with more talking points that seemingly make sense to a lot of people despite not having any proof for them.
It's nice to think that we could talk through every problem and show lies and misinformation for what they are, but it's not always so easy. If you wanna argue about it further, that's fine, but you might wanna take this into account.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
Edit: Oops, meant to post in the Trump press conference thread.
and history is educational
It's why I expect nothing from this. Like Ann Coulter, the most generous and favourable description of Milo is a con artist. He's not interested in debating with substantive arguments.
Dude Abides
Banned
Nah, clearly if there had been 200 more Lincoln-Douglas debates where Lincoln described an economic alternative, slaveowners and their allies would have seen the light of sweet reason and abandoned the peculiar institution willingly and peacefully.
Huh, it seems like maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm ok and maybe even happy with this. I'm all but certain Milo will be made to look foolish (not because Maher's exceptionally smart himself; he's just excellent at making his opponents look stupid and usually has 2-3 guests and an audience to help) by this appearance, which will at least vindicate it for me personally. Though that may just have more to do with my personal vitriol towards Milo than any rational basis.
What the fuck does this even mean? you are spouting nonsense
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Pretty amazing that people continue to fail to realize this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Here is what will happen:
Milo will be on his most "charming" behaviour
He and Bill will have a coming of the minds about how important free speech is and how they've both been victims of the snowflake left or whatever
Then they'll argue somethings, probably agree on Islam
And Maher will conclude I don't agree with everything he says but he should be allowed to say it at Universities without impediment...
There are far too many avenues for these two to agree even slightly on for me to believe this is going to be an evisceration....
And I doubt Maher even brings up his transphobia or racist harassment of Leslie Jones...
I'm hoping to be proven wrong but I don't trust Maher one on one with Milo, in the panel maybe he'd be more in trouble as there'd be others who'd be more likely to got full court press but this is the top of the show interview, Milo will probably even get to plug his book.
Milo will be on his most "charming" behaviour
He and Bill will have a coming of the minds about how important free speech is and how they've both been victims of the snowflake left or whatever
Then they'll argue somethings, probably agree on Islam
And Maher will conclude I don't agree with everything he says but he should be allowed to say it at Universities without impediment...
There are far too many avenues for these two to agree even slightly on for me to believe this is going to be an evisceration....
And I doubt Maher even brings up his transphobia or racist harassment of Leslie Jones...
I'm hoping to be proven wrong but I don't trust Maher one on one with Milo, in the panel maybe he'd be more in trouble as there'd be others who'd be more likely to got full court press but this is the top of the show interview, Milo will probably even get to plug his book.
Messofanego
Banned
Can we set up an avatar betting club on what happens with this interview? If Milo is eviscerated, we hold a piece of Maher in our avatar for a week. If Milo is left untouched and Milo and Maher actually agree on quite a few things (Islam, regressive left, free speech, "you bring up some valid points"), then a bit of Milo on our avatar for a week.
What part of that don't you understand?
You can't see the correlation or connection between unfettered racist hate-speech and the denial of dignity to other humans who are of a different creed?
oh boy....
Herr Schwarz
Banned
Last show I saw, they had stats and graphs on there looking over the nitty gritty so I'm sure it'll be a lot more hostile.
I assume these guys do their research and will probably float and extremely incendiary piece that Milo has said, and ask him to defend it.
Metalingus5150
Member
Even if they do debate him and embarrass him like some people hold, it's still giving him the platform.
The best thing to do would be to not even have him on there.
Can't believe people think having him on there is a good thing.
The best thing to do would be to not even have him on there.
Can't believe people think having him on there is a good thing.
Yes this is sadly what is most likely to happen
My morality (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it, it's just an empty phrase devoid of any meaning that you think sounds good but is just nonsense
kame-sennin
Member
Box of Kittens
Banned
I'm not sure what's more naive: the notion that the way to defeat Neo-Nazis is to give them a platform for "civilized debate" or that Bill Maher's "zingers" will somehow do the trick.
Thanks to whoever posted that medium post about Milo at the Republican convention (can't find the post to quote it). Brilliant article. I cannot believe people actually organize protests against the shithead and want to stop him from speaking publicly.
I cannot understand this world anymore. It fucking seems like we're in the DC universe: superman is dead, batman is the wrold's dumbest detective, and the bad guys all want to be Heath Ledger's joker. We desperately need a reboot.
I cannot understand this world anymore. It fucking seems like we're in the DC universe: superman is dead, batman is the wrold's dumbest detective, and the bad guys all want to be Heath Ledger's joker. We desperately need a reboot.
It's all very well saying that if you attack his arguments on TV people will see that it's all bullshit, but I think that's the gaf liberal bubble speaking again. It's ignoring the fact that a lot of people aren't all that bright and could be swayed, and a whole other bunch of people want to believe that shit and it will entrench their views. Remember when we all thought Hillary destroyed Trump in those debates? The general public disagreed.
kame-sennin
Member
I'm waiting for an answer to this too.
You're making an argument for why neoliberal policies should be abandoned and sane economic practices established. That's fine, but first you have to get rid of the Nazis.
This is an analogy I have made as well. The lack of an effective response to white nationalist terrorists has cost the lives of countless black people.
Mr. Blonde
Member
Should be an interesting episode. Excited about Larry WIlmore being on, I thought he was funny at the correspondents dinner last year.
I don't think the debates really changed anyone's mind. Both candidates' backers seemed pleased with the debates, and trump supporters in particular liked the first thirty minutes of the second debate (Hillary spent a lot of time scoffing/laughing instead of refuting what trump claimed, which is dishonest debate tactic #23 http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-r...t-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics [note:both candidates used a lot of these tactics]).
I don't think the debates really changed anyone's mind. Both candidates' backers seemed pleased with the debates, and trump supporters in particular liked the first thirty minutes of the second debate (Hillary spent a lot of time scoffing/laughing instead of refuting what trump claimed, which is dishonest debate tactic #23 http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-r...t-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics [note:both candidates used a lot of these tactics]).
The general public agreed, they just didn't care. There's a difference.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
Honestly I don't se any point is debating him since there aint no way in hell he will do so in good faith.
I think lines are being drawn and people better decide what side they are gonna be on.
I think lines are being drawn and people better decide what side they are gonna be on.
The Lamonster
Member
This is not a healthy mentality at all.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I hope Maher does some homework about the things he says and gives him shit, because otherwise fuck him for giving him a platform.
I think the line between being a white supremacist and not being a white supremacist is a good one to draw.
Are you fantasizing about a civil war?
he has plataforms to reach miliions already.
those plataforms serve mainly for peoplle that already agree with him, it serves for them to reinforce their beliefs.
His reach wont broaden by being in the show. Are you afraid that someone will watch bill maher and suddenly agree with him?
Bill can combat his views by pointing out the flaws in his reasoning in a forum that can be accessed later for reference. Whenever anyone gets subjected to his hateful beliefs in the real life, the have this interview to prepare on how to combat that .
Also,, I am an atheist. What if a group of people does not let me go to a talk aout atheism in a college campus? People can say communist leaders were atheists and atheism caused major pain in the world, so no atheist deserves to be heard. If I am against any type of speech based on my beliefs, how can I complain if mine are squashed later?
Look, the guy is an extremist. People that agree with him will continue to believe him. But with opportunities like this, we can help move the needle.
Dont think Mhaer will succeed, but its a start.
We will make them care!
And their servants!
You went full psycho huh
kame-sennin
Member
It's more than that. The last time Milo spoke at a college, a trans girl was harassed out of school. His plan for the Berkley speech was to out undocumented students (antifa stopped him).
When Milo talks in front of an audience, vulnerable people get hurt. There is a direct cause and effect at play.
How do liberals justify this? How is it ok to let a klansmen onstage when you know he's going to grab the mic and scream "kill all the n*****s!", and that people will do it?
I think people watching today's press conference and thought Trump did well sort of dismisses the notion that you can expose and discredit someone today. People see what they want to see. Confirmation bias and the Backfire Effect make it impossible for people to be reasonable, even when it comes to fascists.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked