Support NeoGAF

[Box of Kittens]

This laughable over importance of cyberbullying is incredible. What if you turn of your computer, what is happening after that.? Unlike people like Michele Bachmann people like Milo are pretty much powerless in reality. They can not shape a community to hate you. Even suggesting that Milo could make the students in Berkley hate someone without the chance of getting help is mind blowing.

If you're actually concerned about people being silenced, why are you downplaying cyberbullying with the argument that you can just turn off your computer (i.e., silence yourself)? This is a much more real silencing than, say, not being invited onto Bill Maher's show, and make no mistake, one of the goals of cyberbullying is to silence the victims in exactly that manner.

 

[Crossing Eden]

If you're actually concerned about people being silenced, why are you downplaying cyberbullying with the argument that you can just turn off your computer (i.e., silence yourself)? This is a much more real silencing than, say, not being invited onto Bill Maher's show, and make no mistake, one of the goals of cyberbullying is to silence the victims in exactly that manner.

Because he cares more about making sure good ol Milo isn't called a nazi by the meanies on the left.

 

[kame-sennin]

 

[Sianos]

Milo used his university school visit to literally harass a student at the school who had to transfer out and then doubled down on that later saying women should thank him for it. Milo's a grade A piece of shit.

And we need to make sure this man has a platform so that he can continue to... explicitly and openly harass individual people in a format where they cannot speak back. What a sterling example of rational debate!

Milo is an awful, awful hill to die on for this principle because he has demonstrated that he is in fact not there to engage in a rational debate at all. He's there to focus a stream of harassment onto specific people who do not want to be involved, and by format have no way to defend themselves and the validity of their existence, which kind of undermines the whole debate defense. We know this because it is something that he has in fact done in a physical sense: it is not an extrapolation of his character, but rather a notation of actions undergone by this very man.

Rational debate with people one disagrees with is important! But if people continue to try and justify egregious one-sided harassment under the guise of rational debate, they're going to start poisoning the well more than it already is.

 

[Crossing Eden]

And we need to make sure this man has a platform so that he can continue to... explicitly and openly harass individual people in a format where they cannot speak back. What a sterling example of rational debate!

Milo is an awful, awful hill to die on for this principle because he has demonstrated that he is in fact not there to engage in a rational debate at all. He's there to focus a stream of harassment onto specific people who do not want to be involved, and by format have no way to defend themselves and the validity of their existence, which kind of undermines the whole debate defense. We know this because it is something that he has in fact done in a physical sense: it is not an extrapolation of his character, but rather a notation of actions undergone by this very man.

Rational debate with people one disagrees with is important! But if people continue to try and justify egregious one-sided harassment under the guise of rational debate, they're going to start poisoning the well more than it already is.

nowsthetimetobereasonable.jpg

 

[cackhyena]

His newest book is a number one best seller now. Wonder how that happened. Funny how I hear jack shit about this guy until opposition throws a fit. So since protesting obviously doesn't stop him...what's next?

I've been in a defeatist funk ever since Trump won and I can't seem to shake it. So much wrong with the state of things.

 

[Trokil]

If you're actually concerned about people being silenced, why are you downplaying cyberbullying with the argument that you can just turn off your computer (i.e., silence yourself)? This is a much more real silencing than, say, not being invited onto Bill Maher's show, and make no mistake, one of the goals of cyberbullying is to silence the victims in exactly that manner.

Ok, I see where this coming from. And honestly I have no idea what even to answer to that. But I understand now, why Milo is such a huge problem for you and people like Bachmann or all the other conservatives still can have their platforms.

 

[Cyframe]

And we need to make sure this man has a platform so that he can continue to... explicitly and openly harass individual people in a format where they cannot speak back. What a sterling example of rational debate!

Milo is an awful, awful hill to die on for this principle because he has demonstrated that he is in fact not there to engage in a rational debate at all. He's there to focus a stream of harassment onto specific people who do not want to be involved, and by format have no way to defend themselves and the validity of their existence, which kind of undermines the whole debate defense. We know this because it is something that he has in fact done in a physical sense: it is not an extrapolation of his character, but rather a notation of actions undergone by this very man.

Rational debate with people one disagrees with is important! But if people continue to try and justify egregious one-sided harassment under the guise of rational debate, they're going to start poisoning the well more than it already is.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand for people.

 

[Iksenpets]

Maher is just about the last "liberal" I would trust to properly handle Milo. They seem like they would actually agree on a lot, and then gives Milo the imprimatur of "even the liberal Bill Maher agrees with him!"

 

[Steve.1981]

I don't see any benefit in publicly debating people like this.

Semi-related mini-rant incoming.

In the UK we have a snake in the grass by the name of Nigel Farage. His bullshit has been given far too much attention, to the detriment of our countries collective futures. He's been openly debated and challenged and lights have been shone on his various lies and deceits. It never did us any good and he's fucking winning. He's achieving his goals. People ignorantly believe the shit he poisons our discourse with.

And today Tony Blair gave a speech about trying to win people over and getting them to understand how potentially damaging it could be if we do actually leave the EU, and of course the BBC report on this speech had to end with them asking Farage what he thought of it. Of fucking course it did, because giving people like him the oxygen of publicity is such a great idea and hasn't in any way contributed to us finding ourselves in this fucking situation in the first place.

 

[Dude Abides]

Ok, I see where this coming from. And honestly I have no idea what even to answer to that. But I understand now, why Milo is such a huge problem for you and people like Bachmann or all the other conservatives still can have their platforms.

Why do you keep bringing up Bachmann? She hasn't been in government for two years.

Who else do you think Maher should have on his show? Richard Spencer? David Duke? Randall Terry?

 

[Oersted]

His newest book is a number one best seller now. Wonder how that happened. Funny how I hear jack shit about this guy until opposition throws a fit. So since protesting obviously doesn't stop him...what's next?

I've been in a defeatist funk ever since Trump won and I can't seem to shake it. So much wrong with the state of things.

His followers heard about him. And bought his book. And abused people for him.

You are not his demographic.

You are a defeatist.

 

[Lime]

His newest book is a number one best seller now. Wonder how that happened. Funny how I hear jack shit about this guy until opposition throws a fit. So since protesting obviously doesn't stop him...what's next?

I've been in a defeatist funk ever since Trump won and I can't seem to shake it. So much wrong with the state of things.

Yeah I'm sure that it's those pesky protesters' and leftists who are at fault for people buying his book and supporting a neo-nazi, and not the people already doing this.

If anything, blame college republicans (aka young fascists), universities who agree to host a neo nazi, and media platforms like bill maher for giving home the time of day at all

 

[Oersted]

Yes I'm lying...it's not like there's videos of the riots or anything. I was just trying to figure out if your blabber was due to a language barrier or if you're just plain inconsistent with your logic, reasoning and morals.

The you are lying was in response to "I'm trying to understand". That is why thanked you for your pretense.

I did not downplay the violence at Berkeley, which is not topic of this thread.

You used the violence at Berkeley to downplay the violence by Milo because you neither care about his victims nor the ones at Berkeley.

 

[cackhyena]

Yeah I'm sure that it's those pesky protesters' and leftists who are at fault for people buying his book and supporting a neo-nazi, and not the people already doing this.

If anything, blame college republicans (aka young fascists), universities who agree to host a neo nazi, and media platforms like bill maher for giving home the time of day at all

He gets more attention than not when it makes the news that shit is burning at a college. People take notice. People like me who want nothing to do with him or his ideas, and people who fall right in line with his type of thinking. Protestors don't buy, people who notice this thing, that might have come and gone without much fanfare, and agree with his views buy his shit.

People can continue to say just ignore him and he'll continue to (for whatever reason) get gigs spewing hatred. At least with someone like Maher, you're getting real time confrontation. Although I'm not sure Maher is even close to the person who's fit to do it for the left. All you have is dialogue or violence at the end of the day.

 

[kame-sennin]

Why do you keep bringing up Bachmann?

Because Trokil is trolling.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

People can continue to say just ignore him

Nobody's really saying this.

 

[cackhyena]

Nobody's really saying this.

So I'm curious where you pull this from?

"Which gets back to the weird cancerous growth sprouting out of the erroneous assumption that all ideas have intrinsic value that should be given equal worth"

Are you assuming I or people like me advocating dialogue over violence think someone like Milo's ideas are of equal value to my own? Or that the majority of people who would think like I would, do as well? It's about combating bad ideas. Confronting them doesn't automatically say they are valid views. If I choose that route, I am ignoring them. And I don't mean to say that I'd ever change a person like Milo's mind. But I'd have to have hope that some followers of his would maybe see the light of day. I mean, former Klan members didn't get the bad ideas beat or protested out of them for the most part, I would assume.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So I'm curious where you pull this from?

From the thread you're in.

 

[cackhyena]

From the thread you're in.

Oh okay

 

[Lord Frieza]

Lawd

 

[eot]

You are giving a white supremacist using Nazi imagery the benefit of doubt.

Are you always that funny?

Whether or not I disagree with or dislike him doesn't matter, why should it? The other week someone made a thread calling Ann Coulter a Nazi because she tweeted the number 14 or some shit. That's the kind of thing I don't like and which I find counter productive, because there are actual things to attack these people with. Could you construe the images in this thread to make him look like a Nazi? Sure, but it takes a lot more than simply not giving him the benefit of the doubt, it takes your hatred of him clouding your thought process.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Whether or not I disagree with or dislike him doesn't matter, why should it? The other week someone made a thread calling Ann Coulter a Nazi because she tweeted the number 14 or some shit. That's the kind of thing I don't like and which I find counter productive, because there are actual things to attack these people with. Could you construe the images in this thread to make him look like a Nazi? Sure, but it takes a lot more than simply not giving him the benefit of the doubt, it takes your hatred of him clouding your thought process.

No, it really just takes paying attention to what he does and says.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Whether or not I disagree with or dislike him doesn't matter, why should it?

Why shouldn't it?

Of course it matters.

it takes your hatred of him clouding your thought process.

This is like the 300th example in this thread of "the real problem is..."

The real problem is that what concerns you more than Milo's behavior (or Ann Coulter's) is the idea that someone might be unfairly called a Nazi.

The spectre of a person being potentially mislabeled as a full-blown racist is what gets your hackles up the most, it appears. Not the racism/sexism/homophobia/fascism/xenophobia/harassment being pushed—the notion that someone, somewhere, might have to deal with the trauma of knowing someone thought their actions were racist and maybe described them unfairly for it. This seems to be where your priorities lie - in preventing that sort of accusation from being leveled in the future.

Also, it doesn't really take much more to look at those images and consider him at least sympathetic to white supremacy. Certainly doesn't take "cloudy hatred" or whatever.

 

[Crossing Eden]

No, it really just takes paying attention to what he does and says.

That's requires moderates to not blindly debate the semantics of whether or not a dude who literally makes a living off of the suffering of others and works with nazis on a daily basis a nazi tho. :O

 

[Oppo]

I am really, really not a fan of the left's recent habit of for de-platforming shit they find uncomfortable to confront.

BUT. Milo is obviously not "arguing" in good faith, so I don't think Maher should have him on. It IS hate speech. There's no actual position to debate, there. And same goes for Coulter.

 

[Real Hero]

I am really, really not a fan of the left's recent habit of for de-platforming shit they find uncomfortable to confront.

BUT. Milo is obviously not "arguing" in good faith, so I don't think Maher should have him on. It IS hate speech. There's no actual position to debate, there. And same goes for Coulter.

so you agree with 'the left's' recent habit?????

 

[Stasis]

Man, after years of my friend trying to get me into Maher I finally started tuning in just recently, and loved the Jefferies/Morgan shenanigans. I'm not watching this.

I really do support free speech, but there's a fucking limit. That's mine. I do not wanna hear this dude and I don't think anyone reasonable should give him a platform ever. My opinion.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The real problem is that what concerns you more than Milo's behavior (or Ann Coulter's) is the idea that someone might be unfairly called a Nazi.

The spectre of a person being potentially mislabeled as a full-blown racist is what gets your hackles up the most, it appears. Not the racism/sexism/homophobia/fascism/xenophobia/harassment being pushed—the notion that someone, somewhere, might have to deal with the trauma of knowing someone thought their actions were racist and maybe described them unfairly for it. This seems to be where your priorities lie - in preventing that sort of accusation from being leveled in the future.

I wish people wouldn't spend so much time making sure the door is left open for them to be just a little racist or bigoted now and then without facing any repercussions.

Here's a hint, guys: if you find yourself being unexpectedly bigoted, own up to it, apologize, recognize that it's an ongoing process to not be an asshole, and improve yourself.

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

Trashing cities is fine because it was for a noble cause and the destroyed property was of no value. Policing platforms of speech is fine because hate speech is not free speech. Political opponents are all fascists.

Just keep doubling down and eventually you will win the people over...

 

[Camp Freddie]

When they came for the Nazis I said nothing*...

ImOkayWithThis.gif

*

Spoiler

since coming for the Nazis is equal to infringing their "right" to speak on stage/TV and who cares about the right of people to not be victimised by hate speech? How fragile are these fuckers anyway? Why is no-one defending my right to appear on TV?

 

[Oxn]

Man, after years of my friend trying to get me into Maher I finally started tuning in just recently, and loved the Jefferies/Morgan shenanigans. I'm not watching this.

I really do support free speech, but there's a fucking limit. That's mine. I do not wanna hear this dude and I don't think anyone reasonable should give him a platform ever. My opinion.

So you really don't support free speech.

 

[Messofanego]

So you really don't support free speech.

One day, Americans will realise hate speech shouldn't be the same as free speech and be considered a crime like how it is here. Until then, keep on allowing platforms for hate speech and see where it gets you.

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

You are right, I am too impressionable and unable to think for myself to ever reject their message. Better have someone else filter what reaches me.

thanksdad.bmp

 

[Abelard]

One day, Americans will realise hate speech shouldn't be the same as free speech and be considered a crime like how it is here. Until then, keep on allowing platforms for hate speech and see where it gets you.

That's a dangerous precedent to set. Who decides what is "hate speech"? The government? What if they decide one day that making fun of conservatives is hate speech? There is so many ways that this can go wrong.

I would rather have free speech in its entirety and all of its faults than inching closer to a totalitarian regime.

It is baffling to see liberals turn their backs on free speech just because they have power, when for so long they championed free speech and relied on it in order to have their opinions heard.

 

[Dude Abides]

So you really don't support free speech.

Yes, free speech means everyone has a right to be on a TV talk show.

 

[Oppo]

so you agree with 'the left's' recent habit?????

...no?

There's disagreeing parties, then there are useless spewers of vitriol. Milo is the latter and no, not worth engaging with. He doesn't have positions, he just trolls.

This stands in contrast to say, people trying to shout down Jordan Peterson. Who drives a lot of people crazy but at least has consistent positions and arguments.

That's a dangerous precedent to set. Who decides what is "hate speech"? The government? What if they decide one day that making fun of conservatives is hate speech? There is so many ways that this can go wrong

Yet Canada, Germany, and many others somehow managed so far.

edit - the Guardian has a good piece on this specifically

Milo Yiannopoulis peddles hate. It's not censorship to refuse to publish it.

 

[cackhyena]

...no?

There's disagreeing parties, then there are useless spewers of vitriol. Milo is the latter and no, not worth engaging with. He doesn't have positions, he just trolls.

This stands in contrast to say, people trying to shout down Jordan Peterson. Who drives a lot of people crazy but at least has consistent positions and arguments.

His concept of truth drives me nuts, tho.

 

[MUnited83]

So you really don't support free speech.

Sure he does. Free Speech means the government won't jail you for the shitty opinions you peddle to others.
Free Speech doesn't entitle you to be accepted into any platform you wish to share your disgusting hate speech.

 

[B-Dubs]

So you really don't support free speech.

I don't think you understand the concept of free speech at all. This isn't a free speech issue, no matter how much you want it to be one. This is Maher giving a platform to a bigot and a troll.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It is baffling to see liberals turn their backs on free speech just because they have power,

How is this an accurate representation of the world in which we live right now? When the press is working harder than it's worked in a long time for the benefit of the public? When the public itself is taking to the streets and calling their representatives more than they have in decades? When they're massing at town halls, donating en masse to organizations like the ACLU and buying subscriptions to the Times & the Post... when free speech itself is the tool by which the democracy is fighting back against its nationalistic autocratic would-be leaders, how can you take the example of people arguing against a fascist-for-cash troll's appearance on a highly-visible television show as proof "liberals are turning their backs on free speech?"

In the face of all the embracing of free speech currently happening on the daily, why is it the suggestion that maybe Milo Yiannopoulous doesn't deserve a television show as a platform is now proof that "liberals have turned their back on free speech?"

How the fuck does that work?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

So I'm curious where you pull this from?

"Which gets back to the weird cancerous growth sprouting out of the erroneous assumption that all ideas have intrinsic value that should be given equal worth"

Are you assuming I or people like me advocating dialogue over violence think someone like Milo's ideas are of equal value to my own? Or that the majority of people who would think like I would, do as well? It's about combating bad ideas. Confronting them doesn't automatically say they are valid views. If I choose that route, I am ignoring them. And I don't mean to say that I'd ever change a person like Milo's mind. But I'd have to have hope that some followers of his would maybe see the light of day. I mean, former Klan members didn't get the bad ideas beat or protested out of them for the most part, I would assume.

It's honestly a textbook definition of putting those ideas on the same level. It's what we do when we debate tax rates with people; we disagree about stuff, but fundamentally we're saying that each view holds the same ground with the others. That's what Nazis count on. The idea that you'll give them a spot at the table.

Here's the deal: ideologies are like food at a buffet. We can debate the idea that fish or chicken should get a spot near the front all we want, but you don't even entertain the idea that drain cleaner should be placed out.

 

[Oppo]

His concept of truth drives me nuts, tho.

me too. I listened to that.

to Bobbys point above, I'll quote some of that Guardian piece. it really nails it IMO:

Hate speech is not compatible with reasoned debate. You can't talk to it. When you try, it talks over you and ignores you and calls you a fat ugly whore and publishes your address online. If you're not scared out of engaging with it for fear of reprisal, chances are you'll die of exhaustion. How many times do you have to explain to people that ”racism is bad" or ”women are not worse than men" before you give up because it's not worth the bother? These are not discussions worth having. They shouldn't even be discussions.

Bill Maher has every right to have this clown on his show but I certainly don't have to like it or support it. He's kow-towing to a ratings bonanza, but we will pay a price long term, which is the sort of shit the news media fucked with in the run up to the US election.

 

[Oersted]

That's a dangerous precedent to set. Who decides what is "hate speech"? The government? What if they decide one day that making fun of conservatives is hate speech? There is so many ways that this can go wrong.

I would rather have free speech in its entirety and all of its faults than inching closer to a totalitarian regime.

It is baffling to see liberals turn their backs on free speech just because they have power, when for so long they championed free speech and relied on it in order to have their opinions heard.

Yes, Germany is inches away from a totalitarian regime.

 

[Abelard]

...no?

There's disagreeing parties, then there are useless spewers of vitriol. Milo is the latter and no, not worth engaging with. He doesn't have positions, he just trolls.

This stands in contrast to say, people trying to shout down Jordan Peterson. Who drives a lot of people crazy but at least has consistent positions and arguments.


Yet Canada, Germany, and many others somehow managed so far.

edit - the Guardian has a good piece on this specifically

Milo Yiannopoulis peddles hate. It's not censorship to refuse to publish it.

Its funny you mention Canada, because as someone who is living here ATM this is honestly one of the very few things I prefer about America. Just think about for example that new piece of legislation on Islamophobia, does that mean people like Harris and Maher will be silenced? That sounds scary to me.

 

[Plywood]

I am really, really not a fan of the left's recent habit of for de-platforming shit they find uncomfortable to confront.

BUT. Milo is obviously not "arguing" in good faith, so I don't think Maher should have him on. It IS hate speech. There's no actual position to debate, there. And same goes for Coulter.

Yeah the left is the problem here, the nerve of them not wanting to give hateful bigotry, racism & prejudice a platform. The fucking nerve.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's honestly a textbook definition of putting those ideas on the same level. It's what we do when we debate tax rates with people; we disagree about stuff, but fundamentally we're saying that each view holds the same ground with the others. That's what Nazis count on. The idea that you'll give them a spot at the table.

Here's the deal: ideologies are like food at a buffet. We can debate the idea that fish or chicken should get a spot near the front all we want, but you don't even entertain the idea that drain cleaner should be placed out.

This is a good way to put it.

Also that Guardian quote is exactly why Oprah decided it's not worth giving these people a platform after trying to have a discussion with white supremacists once. They aren't looking to debate, they'll ignore any point you make if you try and just spew their hate speech to try and reach as many people as possible. You can't find a consensus with nazis or white supremacists because they're not looking for one.

 

[Oppo]

Yeah the left is the problem here, the nerve of them not wanting to give hateful bigotry, racism & prejudice a platform. The fucking nerve.

read my other posts above, please.

Its funny you mention Canada, because as someone who is living here ATM this is honestly one of the very few things I prefer about America. Just think about for example that new piece of legislation on Islamophobia, does that mean people like Harris and Maher will be silenced? That sounds scary to me.

Well I won't get too into that but it's a motion, right? nothing has been made illegal. Frankly there's a lot of hand-wringing from the right over that motion that is unwarranted. That said, I personally think "Islamophobia" is a crap term.

 

[Oersted]

Its funny you mention Canada, because as someone who is living here ATM this is honestly one of the very few things I prefer about America. Just think about for example that new piece of legislation on Islamophobia, does that mean people like Harris and Maher will be silenced? That sounds scary to me.

Hate speech which causes people to murder worries me. Which happened.

But hey lets make an assumption the issue.

 

[Plywood]

read my other posts above, please.

👌