-
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
But still the media gave Trump a pass for the longest time and when the actually did start reacting to his crap it even helped him more to support his "they just have a liberal agenda" rhetoric. And also this was not the first time Trump run and the last time he had no chance. So there are several factors, also that Hillary was a weak candidate and her team made so many mistakes did not help.
And neither he nor Trump actually have the power to change peoples mind. Hitler made a lot of people think, maybe he is right. Trump did not gain a lot more voters compared to Romney, but Clinton lost a lot more. Milo has not the arsenal to recruit within the liberal audience. He actually makes people feel sorry for his victims, so does Trump. He was never able to dehumanize Mexicans or Muslims.
Tevious
Member
This. Worth a try, at least?
Someone should make a video with the same title, but use clips that aren't edited to favor Milo. These people aren't interested in hearing both sides. They're certainly not going to click on a video title that says "Bill Maher schools Milo Yiannopoulos".
Dude Abides
Banned
Trump wasn't swept under the rug. It was the opposite, actually.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Because rational debates sure helped expose Trump as an incompetent racist buffoon, right?
I think there's a difference because he's hosting a straight up troll. Those other right wing people probably believe what they're saying, not just spouting it for attention. But maybe I'm wrong on that (maybe he's hosted trolls in the past). Either way, this sort of behavior should not be encouraged.
"don't feed the troll", in person.
Milo being a troll is actually all the more reason not to have him on to "debate" shit.
How does that saying goes? "Don't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience".
There is literally nothing to be gained from this.
He isn't interested in genuine exchange of ideas, and about 0% of the people drinking his Kool Aid will change their mind because Bill Maher "owned him" on TV.
How does that saying goes? "Don't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience".
There is literally nothing to be gained from this.
He isn't interested in genuine exchange of ideas, and about 0% of the people drinking his Kool Aid will change their mind because Bill Maher "owned him" on TV.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Honestly I expect Maher and Milo to circle jerk each other about liberals censoring free speech on college, because Maher was dropped from colleges for his anti-Muslim comments. I don't expect any genuine debate or exchange of ideas.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Half the people he's had on are only in it for the exposure and money.
The difference between Coulter and Milo is that Milo actively tries to ruin peoples lives. Coulter sells books, Milo is actually dangerous.
I don't watch his show. But the bolded should never be encouraged. I think it's even worse in this case because of the context (current state of our country).
Box of Kittens
Banned
No one is arguing this. You don't have to give someone a platform to oppose them.
Dudes in here thinking they about see some big moment or shit between maher and milo. It's going to be them making jokes the entire time and maybe one argument lol. They already have the "against liberal college" connection.
Gentleman Jack
Member
At this point I give up on the idea that you're discussing anything in good faith. I mean, you even quoted me when I told you
And you're still coming back with the 'harmless trolls nothing to be afraid of' angle.
Fine, I'm done with this pointless attempt at getting you to see what Milo has done to people for the last three years. You quote but you don't comprehend, or are deliberately obfuscating and whitewashing because reasons...
Conkersbadfurday
Member
Quite torn on this. I'm a fan of Bill Maher's show, and in general, I hate it when he gets too many liberals on at a time because it turns into a circle jerk with nothing of real value gained.
But then he'll bring on the REALLY crazy conservatives and they'll speak nonsense for more liberal circle jerks, and nothing of real value is gained. But at least it's funny.
Milo though. I mean, you don't feed the trolls :\
But then he'll bring on the REALLY crazy conservatives and they'll speak nonsense for more liberal circle jerks, and nothing of real value is gained. But at least it's funny.
Milo though. I mean, you don't feed the trolls :\
Very much agree with this. His whole shtick is being a provocateur, and playing up to the hate-filled fan base he's created for himself. More publicity, the usual quote-mining/strawman routine for the minions, and have more people buy his stuff. "Cheers Bill!" Legitimizing this crap, and classing it as "worthy of debate" is nonsense, and nothing good will come of it.
This seems to outweigh everything else, heavily.
samoscratch
Member
This is a mistake....
Don't give these damn people a platform...
Don't give these damn people a platform...
IrishNinja
Member
you know what does that even moreso? giving him a platform
wish this was in the OP, might've had a shorter thread
eot
Banned
He used to call himself Milo Wagner.
Yeah I've seen that picture enough times already thanks.
It doesn't make him a nazi for reasons already given by other posters, and if for no other reason that the guy is nothing but a provocateur (even though that symbol isn't even provocative). I mean really, that picture is your argument? Like what the fuck? Is someone gonna call Leigh Alexander a nazi for her "sexy SS uniform" rant now too?
If you're gonna tear this guy down at least do it with good arguments instead of mindlessly repeating "nazi! nazi!"
Muffdraul
Member
Yeah, just like Maher did with Trump. Oh, wait...
A lot of people casually referring to him as a white nationalist. Googling 'Milo white nationalist' doesn't turn up any quotes in evidence of this, just people either asserting he is one or people asserting that there is no evidence, as well as a couple of news outlets that retracted their accusation of white nationalism. What is there out there that strongly suggests he's a white nationalist?
There's a lot to dislike about Milo - even apart from his often wrongheaded or outright insane views, he's a bully and a troll. But claims that appear to be without basis won't help. And people worse than bullies and trolls are invited onto talking heads programmes all the time.
There's a lot to dislike about Milo - even apart from his often wrongheaded or outright insane views, he's a bully and a troll. But claims that appear to be without basis won't help. And people worse than bullies and trolls are invited onto talking heads programmes all the time.
cartographer
Member
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Real rap, Maher saw Milo's book sales on Amazon climb after one of his followers shot a dude, saw self-proclaimed liberals cry passionately about the value of giving Milo a platform after he went to a school to harass a trans student, and saw dollar signs and ratings dance in front of his eyes.
Das it mane
Das it mane
Everyone seems to forget "it's showbiz baby!"
Did any of those assholes deliberately out people and direct violence at tangible real - life targets?
Zoë Quinn, the original target of the gamergate harassment campaign that skyrocketed Milo to infamy, has this to say:
Twitter thread starts here: https://twitter.com/UnburntWitch/status/832233987514916865
No disagreements.
Can people just let go of the notion that giving hate a platform "exposes" it? You can't shame someone who is proud to be shit.
I've been saying this for years now and it's frustrating to see shitbags ascend in the attention economy bc people keep making this mistake. If you want to "expose" anything, why not talk to the people that have been targeted and hurt by the Monster of the Week. Humanize them. Show the actual damage and pain they cause instead of thinking that debating someone who isn't here to be logically correct anyway helps. You can't expose someone who is openly a scumbag to begin with by giving them MORE of a platform - you're just giving them free ad space.
Think of how much good media centering the people that are directly fucked up by the Alt-Reich or Twitler's policies could do for empathy.
Show people the actual impact and consequences instead of focusing on the theoretical. Show how bad shit actually is. Put faces on it.
You want to fight against normalization? That's how. Move it out of the realms of the theoretical, stop signal boosting lies and hatred. And *support those currently suffering and in danger* more than you support the careers of those participating in endangering them. You'll find resilience and wisdom and hope in the people who've already been fighting this shit because they've had no other choice, too.
You'll be able to help heal damage already done by letting people whose voices get squashed use your platform to tell their truths. You expose the bullshit, raise squashed voices, and get humanized first hand info. That's so much better than "more free press to shitheads." Plus no one has to look at the myriad shitty haircuts of these garbage people so it's an aesthetic win too...
Besides think of how pissy these grandstanding shits would be if the people who got to speak about them were people they wanted gone. If you can't do this shit because it's more empathetic and tactically sound, do it to annoy the shit out of a bigoted pissbaby.
My arguments are backed up by peer-reviewed cognitive science btw. https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
Note: not interested in discussing Maher in particular, I'm interested in the faulty wiring behind the logic in his statement bc it's common
I've been saying this for years now and it's frustrating to see shitbags ascend in the attention economy bc people keep making this mistake. If you want to "expose" anything, why not talk to the people that have been targeted and hurt by the Monster of the Week. Humanize them. Show the actual damage and pain they cause instead of thinking that debating someone who isn't here to be logically correct anyway helps. You can't expose someone who is openly a scumbag to begin with by giving them MORE of a platform - you're just giving them free ad space.
Think of how much good media centering the people that are directly fucked up by the Alt-Reich or Twitler's policies could do for empathy.
Show people the actual impact and consequences instead of focusing on the theoretical. Show how bad shit actually is. Put faces on it.
You want to fight against normalization? That's how. Move it out of the realms of the theoretical, stop signal boosting lies and hatred. And *support those currently suffering and in danger* more than you support the careers of those participating in endangering them. You'll find resilience and wisdom and hope in the people who've already been fighting this shit because they've had no other choice, too.
You'll be able to help heal damage already done by letting people whose voices get squashed use your platform to tell their truths. You expose the bullshit, raise squashed voices, and get humanized first hand info. That's so much better than "more free press to shitheads." Plus no one has to look at the myriad shitty haircuts of these garbage people so it's an aesthetic win too...
Besides think of how pissy these grandstanding shits would be if the people who got to speak about them were people they wanted gone. If you can't do this shit because it's more empathetic and tactically sound, do it to annoy the shit out of a bigoted pissbaby.
My arguments are backed up by peer-reviewed cognitive science btw. https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
Note: not interested in discussing Maher in particular, I'm interested in the faulty wiring behind the logic in his statement bc it's common
No disagreements.
Messofanego
Banned
WrenchNinja
Member
You're living in an alternate reality if you think talking to him is going to be productive
Couldn't agree with Oprah more.
Yeah, I think this has at least some significance.
Again the iron cross exists already since 1813 and still is in use. While it is bad taste for civilian to wear it, it is neither forbidden nor actually really only used by a certain group. Heavy metal and bikers also use the symbol as well. So there are better symbols to make a point.
eot
Banned
Okay, not "nothing but", however he's mainly a provocateur and the point is that he likes to provoke people at every turn.
I haven't seen his anti-semitic statements, but I'm sure you have them handy for me. And no, it's not a Nazi icon. It's still the logo of the luftwaffe for crying out loud.
Look, I don't like this guy one bit, but I think calling him a nazi is inane and counter productive.
radios shipping overview
Member
It's funny how so many people have been scrambling not to be labeled as a white nationalist ever since Richard Spencer decided to go full Nazi in DC. That created a real rift in the alt-right community. But it's hard to escape the stench, when you spend your time endorsing at least half of the same ideals and policies.
But very few better symbols to make the point he was trying to make.
Come on. Are you this dense or just trolling?
GAF A60-Rim A
Banned
While this makes some sense, it also makes sense that an interviewer can also psychologically break down a guest if given long enough and enough cognitive dissonance.
If Maher dedicated a whole hour to ripping this guy apart with well prepared and confronting reasoning, I don't see why it can't be productive.
That's only if the person is dealing in logic. Guys like Milo don't deal in logic, they deal in fantasy. You won't get a Frost/Nixon out of someone like him.
radios shipping overview
Member
If he did grill Milo for a whole hour, I think it could be productive. He never would, though. He'd lose ratings/viewership. So he'll do a typical, short, cable news/talk show-style interview and maybe have some spicy exchanges, but no deeper insight will be gained, nobody will learn anything new, and each side will get to feel like their guy "won". Meanwhile, Milo's silver tongue and attitude gain him new fans.
https://twitter.com/thoneycombs/status/832280185818996736
"But that would just doing what he wants!"
Don't give a shit, fuck Bill and fuck Milo
"But that would just doing what he wants!"
Don't give a shit, fuck Bill and fuck Milo
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
Milo and Maher are probably more alike than not.
Arkage
Banned
It seems obvious there is deep division in how the left is approaching the topic of speech. There are two camps: the illiberal left and liberal left. I don't mean illiberal in a fundamentally negative way. I would define the groups as follows: liberals want all ideas freely expressed, as well as freely criticized. Illiberals want to censor certain ideas, and deny criticism of certain ideas. It's an argument over control.
The first time this division was really illustrated for me was the Charlie Hebdo murders. The loudest leftists voices were divided between "cartoonists should be free to draw whatever they like"(liberal) vs "Islamophobic cartoonists should know better than to antagonize Muslims, and shouldn't have drawn it"(illiberal). These are two deeply divided views of free expression. I tend to side with liberals, but because of that I also respect those who argue that Milo and others should be deplatformed. I also acknowledge that private entities have every right to moderate speech however they choose. My argument concerns the question of "Is this the right path?", rather than "Is this a path that can be taken?"
For context, leftist groups at colleges have been slowly building up a strategy of deplatforming for a while now, long before Trump or Milo entered the scene.
It's hard for me to parse whether Milo and Trump's rise were direct reactions to the illiberal left, or whether they are the last gasps of white, racist America. It's probably a mixture of the two. To be clear, Trump has damaged conversational norms much further. He has completely obfuscated the rational claim that a false argument is a bad argument. He has lied consistently, and constantly, throughout most of his time in politics. And worse than that, his voters don't care that he lies. This gives many on the left an even greater perception that conversation is no longer manageable or worth their time.
But as Sam Harris points out, there are two options in resolving differences of opinion. There is conversation and there is violence. As evidenced by the cheering around Spencer's face punch and the fiasco at Berkeley, violence is being viewed more widely by the left as the correct approach.
I am very wary of this general desire to deplatform individuals and commit violent acts. For as much as Nazi Germany has been brought up in this thread, Hitler often killed and silenced his political opposition when rising to power. Using silencing and violence is a tactic, but one that can be used by either side of the political spectrum. Do you know who passionately endorses gun ownership, concealed carry rights, who always gets endorsed by police organizations, and who currently holds all branches of government? Hint: it's not the left. Violence really isn't a practical option, let alone the ethical concerns.
In addition: let's assume banning or deplatforming certain ideas does serve the public good, and that the ultimate goal is to deplatform bad ideas via government intervention: facebook, youtube, twitter, college campus, tv, etc clamp down on what is deemed bad or destructive ideas. OK, fine. Well, I think anti-climate change rhetoric is much more harmful to the world than the garbage coming out of Milo's mouth, so anti-climate change claims should get highest priority. Do you agree with me? Doubtful. So how will agreement be determined?
And which parts of climate change? That the planet is warming too quickly? Or that the damage is irreversible? Or that the damage will destroy coastal cities in 50 years? Or 500? I mean, this is a scientific topic with hard evidence, and there would still be tremendous disagreement over which claims are "too" damaging for society to believe in. Now imagine applying this to an alt-right test. How many altright positions must a person adopt before they are considered too dangerous? Support for the ban? Support for white nationalism? Support for Trump? Support for negative racial stereotypes? Support for airport profiling? Support for segregation? Who is going to draw the deplatforming lines, and where will they be drawn? And when political power shifts, do the lines change?
In relation to Maher in particular, very few people seem to distinguish the difference between a neutral platform and a debate platform. CNN was given crap for giving Trump a platform, but to be clear they weren't actively debating or debunking Trump's remarks, they just let it play on and on and on without much comment other than "you're joking, right?" This deserved criticism. Maher's program is a very different beast. The few things they're likely to agree on, like the belief that there's too much political correctness and concerns about radical Islam, are moderate political beliefs, not neo-nazi altright beliefs. The things they disagree on will likely be, well, everything else that Milo spouts.
The main claim is that giving a platform to idea X gives it credibility, but this simply isn't the case anymore now that gatekeepers are nonexistent for huge swaths of the population. This is an age of internet, social media and ideological bubbles. Everyone creates their own platform, and people swarm and subscribe to the flavor of their own choosing. Ignoring a platform with bad ideas does nothing to diminish the real-world pull it has on people who are susceptible to bad ideas. Engaging ideas aggressively and showing them to false or corrupt or irrational still has merit. The platform holder has complete control over the message and direction a debate takes or doesn't take.
In the end, platform deniers need to show that non-engagement is more pragmatic than aggressive pushback. Considering how I view this election largely as a result of non-engagement to begin with, via Republicans viewing Trump as a joke until it was too late for the primary, and Democrats viewing him as a joke until it was too late, and meanwhile everyone else stayed in their social media bubbles and hunkered down. I don't see this as a credible path forward.
The first time this division was really illustrated for me was the Charlie Hebdo murders. The loudest leftists voices were divided between "cartoonists should be free to draw whatever they like"(liberal) vs "Islamophobic cartoonists should know better than to antagonize Muslims, and shouldn't have drawn it"(illiberal). These are two deeply divided views of free expression. I tend to side with liberals, but because of that I also respect those who argue that Milo and others should be deplatformed. I also acknowledge that private entities have every right to moderate speech however they choose. My argument concerns the question of "Is this the right path?", rather than "Is this a path that can be taken?"
For context, leftist groups at colleges have been slowly building up a strategy of deplatforming for a while now, long before Trump or Milo entered the scene.
It's hard for me to parse whether Milo and Trump's rise were direct reactions to the illiberal left, or whether they are the last gasps of white, racist America. It's probably a mixture of the two. To be clear, Trump has damaged conversational norms much further. He has completely obfuscated the rational claim that a false argument is a bad argument. He has lied consistently, and constantly, throughout most of his time in politics. And worse than that, his voters don't care that he lies. This gives many on the left an even greater perception that conversation is no longer manageable or worth their time.
But as Sam Harris points out, there are two options in resolving differences of opinion. There is conversation and there is violence. As evidenced by the cheering around Spencer's face punch and the fiasco at Berkeley, violence is being viewed more widely by the left as the correct approach.
I am very wary of this general desire to deplatform individuals and commit violent acts. For as much as Nazi Germany has been brought up in this thread, Hitler often killed and silenced his political opposition when rising to power. Using silencing and violence is a tactic, but one that can be used by either side of the political spectrum. Do you know who passionately endorses gun ownership, concealed carry rights, who always gets endorsed by police organizations, and who currently holds all branches of government? Hint: it's not the left. Violence really isn't a practical option, let alone the ethical concerns.
In addition: let's assume banning or deplatforming certain ideas does serve the public good, and that the ultimate goal is to deplatform bad ideas via government intervention: facebook, youtube, twitter, college campus, tv, etc clamp down on what is deemed bad or destructive ideas. OK, fine. Well, I think anti-climate change rhetoric is much more harmful to the world than the garbage coming out of Milo's mouth, so anti-climate change claims should get highest priority. Do you agree with me? Doubtful. So how will agreement be determined?
And which parts of climate change? That the planet is warming too quickly? Or that the damage is irreversible? Or that the damage will destroy coastal cities in 50 years? Or 500? I mean, this is a scientific topic with hard evidence, and there would still be tremendous disagreement over which claims are "too" damaging for society to believe in. Now imagine applying this to an alt-right test. How many altright positions must a person adopt before they are considered too dangerous? Support for the ban? Support for white nationalism? Support for Trump? Support for negative racial stereotypes? Support for airport profiling? Support for segregation? Who is going to draw the deplatforming lines, and where will they be drawn? And when political power shifts, do the lines change?
In relation to Maher in particular, very few people seem to distinguish the difference between a neutral platform and a debate platform. CNN was given crap for giving Trump a platform, but to be clear they weren't actively debating or debunking Trump's remarks, they just let it play on and on and on without much comment other than "you're joking, right?" This deserved criticism. Maher's program is a very different beast. The few things they're likely to agree on, like the belief that there's too much political correctness and concerns about radical Islam, are moderate political beliefs, not neo-nazi altright beliefs. The things they disagree on will likely be, well, everything else that Milo spouts.
The main claim is that giving a platform to idea X gives it credibility, but this simply isn't the case anymore now that gatekeepers are nonexistent for huge swaths of the population. This is an age of internet, social media and ideological bubbles. Everyone creates their own platform, and people swarm and subscribe to the flavor of their own choosing. Ignoring a platform with bad ideas does nothing to diminish the real-world pull it has on people who are susceptible to bad ideas. Engaging ideas aggressively and showing them to false or corrupt or irrational still has merit. The platform holder has complete control over the message and direction a debate takes or doesn't take.
In the end, platform deniers need to show that non-engagement is more pragmatic than aggressive pushback. Considering how I view this election largely as a result of non-engagement to begin with, via Republicans viewing Trump as a joke until it was too late for the primary, and Democrats viewing him as a joke until it was too late, and meanwhile everyone else stayed in their social media bubbles and hunkered down. I don't see this as a credible path forward.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
His online handle was Nazi themed. He wears Nazi memorabilia. He hangs out with Nazis. His rhetoric is straight up Nazi.
But no, he's not a Nazi because he says so.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Maher's doing this show for cash and laughs, he's not ripping Milo apart. At the end of the hour they'll go their separate ways checking their bank accounts and it'll be up to the peanut gallery again to argue over whether people who are in favor of genocide and harassment should be heard or.not.
The reaction from The Daily Stormer about PewDiePie's anti-Semitic scandal is a great perspective on issues like this...
NY Times article
Drip by drip, millimeter by millimeter, fascists and white-nationalists are getting exactly what they want.
They're also getting what they want from both sides of the argument. Not only is fascism crawling it's way to normalcy, now attempting to silence media-savvy neo-fascists is slowly but surely becoming looked down upon.
NY Times article
Drip by drip, millimeter by millimeter, fascists and white-nationalists are getting exactly what they want.
They're also getting what they want from both sides of the argument. Not only is fascism crawling it's way to normalcy, now attempting to silence media-savvy neo-fascists is slowly but surely becoming looked down upon.
I'm hoping you are aware that non-Berkeley students were the ones that escalated that situation, right?
Do we even know the ideology of the people that invaded that peaceful protest?
You honestly don't understand what's being argued or the things at stake at all.
Shadowhelper
Banned
Man, Bill Maher has said a few too many ugly racist things about Arabs and Muslims, but I'll still watch it. Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you are in every single aspect, like it is with most people. You can still be racist.
I don't actually think he's even that clever, certainly not funny, but the show seems to be getting good panels due to the current events.
I don't actually think he's even that clever, certainly not funny, but the show seems to be getting good panels due to the current events.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked