-
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
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Thanks for those. Definitely very good, bite-sized bits of reason that hopefully people coming in will look at for a sec before getting back to beating the drum for making sure people who do racist things don't get "unfairly" called out for it.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Yes, if we push it underground it won't fester at all. Best off actively suppressing it since we can't trust our fellow citizens to make use of free speech to fully explore any issue. The word of the law is never abused, thus the stronger the speech codes the better.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
America really does have this notion that our specific version of democratic freedom is the best possible version of it that could exist anywhere.
Maybe it's not. Maybe there are examples of it in other free first world countries that we would do well to examine without automatically rejecting the notion for reasons not much deeper than "USA USA"
Maybe it's not. Maybe there are examples of it in other free first world countries that we would do well to examine without automatically rejecting the notion for reasons not much deeper than "USA USA"
It did already fester. People died because of it. And again:
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.
Your "We have to give Nazis as many plattforms as possible, its the only way to defeat them" is rather silly
MechanicalWall
Banned
I love when white Americans act like the pinnacle of polite civility and rational discussion is them getting to debate whether or not I, as part of a Muslim family who's lived here for decades, even deserve to be in this country.
Milo represents the resurgence of the alt right and the angry youth that voted for Trump. It makes a lot of sense to have that voice on a show like Real Time since they've never had anyone that close to the alt right. Now while I too believe tha Milo is human garbage I am generally interested to see how he handles Bill and vice versa. I understand why Milo shouldn't have a public voice on most shows but I think this one is an exception. But I guess we'll see tonight.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Free speech is not a net good, it is directly responsible for death, people must cede it for the safety of society. We will humanize our fellow citizens by only allowing the right people a platform. The truths that are true are the ones that align with progressive left values, not the ones that pass a gauntlet of criticism engendered by free speech. Determining what people can hear and say is not grandstanding at all.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Is this a Wong alt?
Dude Abides
Banned
Do Jews eat Christian babies on Passover?
We must fully explore this issue.
We must fully explore this issue.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Quite right, not only will speech codes enable us to deal the big issues properly it will also stop time being wasted on trivialities and absurdities.
Let me use an example which makes it easier to understand for you.
When 911 happened, you would have rushed to give Osama a plattform.
Not the police men and women, firefighters, survivors, families of the victims.
Because you are a true patriot, fighting against the illiberal left, who are inches away from turning the Land of the Free into a authoritan regime.
10 EST, same as always.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
It was a good day when discourse on blowback was deemed unpatriotic, it might have gave the evil doers a platform by proxy. With all of that discourse I might have forgotten about all of the victims. Please be patient with me for I am slow, I require examples that others might deem patronizing to understand my role in the universal society.
What day?
Friday, so tonight.
I have little faith that Milo will be taken to task.
We're conditioned to believe the ability to say hateful things and to buy a gun is what true freedom is. As such those things have become more valued than almost anything, even voting. I know my family always rants about gun rights and freedom of speech, but they don't own guns or talk hate speech. Yet, if they didn't have it they would not be free in their minds. Scary as fuck when you think about it. Freedom to them is nazis being able to speak and other people buying guns.
I'm expecting Bill Maher to agree with him on political correctness going too far or whatever. What I wonder is if Bill actually understands to what degree Milo takes his "opposition" to political correctness? I'm hoping he actually does his homework, but I have a feeling he won't and will come out having supported a racist homophobe bigot. And even if he does so accidentally, out of ignorance, it won't excuse it.
might not be a good conversation piece since Milo is Jewish
Oppo
Member
Hey, I'd like to drop a little video on this thread.
Specifically – Phil Donahue interviewing David Duke, in the early 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5fhhTfSrI
This is just a little personal history that colours my view of this debate. I remember watching this on TV in (erp) high school. Donahue was very left-leaning, for those who don't know.
And I remember being really impressed by Donahue at the time. Because even when his audience clearly wanted to eviscerate his guests, he always tried to calm the situation and basically reason through, or at least starkly expose, in a non-votriolic way, what was being said by these people.
It really had an effect on me at the time. My memory of it was that Donahue made Duke look really fucking stupid. This thread reminded me of that, and I wondered what had shifted. So I quickly googled for the youtube and sure enough, there it is.
I'm actually going to go watch the whole thing again now, to see what I think with current eyes. Donahue's approach was a "don't throw a towel over racism, hold it up to the light" sort of approach. I used to agree with this, but I don't think I do now. In fact I'm quite certain I don't. BUT... the way he handled these interviews, it did have an effect on me at the time, and informed my view of debate, even with odious people.
I would be quite curious to know what some of you make of this approach, and the interview, particularly if you strongly disagree with Milo being on Real Time (a very different show than Donahue's obviously). I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or do a gotcha. I'm actually sort of wrestling with this on one level. I want to think that maybe this once was something that could be productive, but no longer is. Political climate. If that means anything. This is very un-formed, sorry. But I wanted to post the link.
Specifically – Phil Donahue interviewing David Duke, in the early 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5fhhTfSrI
This is just a little personal history that colours my view of this debate. I remember watching this on TV in (erp) high school. Donahue was very left-leaning, for those who don't know.
And I remember being really impressed by Donahue at the time. Because even when his audience clearly wanted to eviscerate his guests, he always tried to calm the situation and basically reason through, or at least starkly expose, in a non-votriolic way, what was being said by these people.
It really had an effect on me at the time. My memory of it was that Donahue made Duke look really fucking stupid. This thread reminded me of that, and I wondered what had shifted. So I quickly googled for the youtube and sure enough, there it is.
I'm actually going to go watch the whole thing again now, to see what I think with current eyes. Donahue's approach was a "don't throw a towel over racism, hold it up to the light" sort of approach. I used to agree with this, but I don't think I do now. In fact I'm quite certain I don't. BUT... the way he handled these interviews, it did have an effect on me at the time, and informed my view of debate, even with odious people.
I would be quite curious to know what some of you make of this approach, and the interview, particularly if you strongly disagree with Milo being on Real Time (a very different show than Donahue's obviously). I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or do a gotcha. I'm actually sort of wrestling with this on one level. I want to think that maybe this once was something that could be productive, but no longer is. Political climate. If that means anything. This is very un-formed, sorry. But I wanted to post the link.
MechanicalWall
Banned
As if he has any qualms about throwing members of his own community under the bus for a nickel.
So its free speech. Its Mahers show, and he wants milo on. Whats the problem. Its his platform.
Never watched a Maher show outside of some clips here and there, but this hype is making me tune in. Thanks guys.
I feel the same, and I blame this on many factors.
- The time limit of the show itself; Milo is probably quick to unravel over a longer period of time. If he's in the opening segment, he has about 10 minutes. If the main panel, he has about 30 minutes. If the panel guest, like the opening segment, this is about 10 minutes. Milo would more likely be challenged much better on a show with the time allotted like the Joe Rogan Experience, where his kooky Christian views were exposed.
- This clusterfuck of a White House administration is more than enough to handle that the battle of Political Correctness and the cesspit Milo has with it are quite easy to overlook.
- Maher is totally going to talk for most of the show about the Russian connection. He called it a "coup" back in November/December. This issue will likely be central to the show tonight.
Those fucking YouTube comments man.
Anyway, Duke is using the same dogshitwhistles that I heard Richard Spencer use recently when arguing against Roland Martin. I expect the same shit from Milo tonight.
Oppo
Member
yeah, sorry. I noticed that after the fact. i think this was probably posted by a Duke boosting asshole. it doesn't seem monetized, didn't see many other good sources.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying Milo doesnt have a right to be on Mahers tv show cause in your opinion he is a bigot, and whatever else you want to call him?
The right is reserved for the runner of the show.
It's fine, my own fault for reading them. I should know better by now.
LouisaFerre
Member
Dude, that doesn't mean that Maher is somehow immune from criticism or people choosing not to support him because they don't like his actions or how he uses his platform.
The idea that Maher and Milo shouldn't be legally prohibited from this doesn't mean that they should somehow be protected from the social consequences of such actions. Can you tell me what free speech actually means to you because I'm really not getting it.
Muffin1611
Banned
So you really have no clue what you're talking about. Or what free speech is. People wanting Maher to decide otherwise and not let a hateful bigot on the show is not a damn free speech issue. Stop using the term when you don't know how and when to use it.
If Maher decides he gets to be on the show, sure, it's Mahers right. Still doesn't protect him from people calling him out for giving a prominent racist a platform. And no, it's not our opinion that he's a bigot, it's a damn fact. How else should I call you if you're a prominent part of a movement that entertains the idea of black genocide or "peaceful ethnic cleansing"?
And before you start with "but it's protected by American law!!", yeah, it is. American law isn't the absolute moral guideline. Plenty of rather progressive countries get by just fine while making the shit Milo says illegal.
I didnt say any of that. Im saying its free speech. If you want to criticize it and protest it, thats fine, its free speech also.
But people are saying he doesnt have a right? He has every right, if he didnt he will be in jail. Its quite simple.
Muffin1611
Banned
LouisaFerre
Member
Saying someone doesn't have a right to something doesn't mean that someone isn't allowed to do that thing. For example, I don't necessarily have the right to healthcare in the US, but that doesn't mean i can't get it. All it means is that I'm not entitled to it. Milo not having a right to go on the show only means that he's not entitled to be offered an appearance. It was brought up as a response to people conflating the idea of free speech with Milo being given these platforms. Milo is only entitled to not being thrown in jail for saying what he says. His right to free speech does not entitle him to a platform. Maher's right might entitle him to offer a platform, but he doesn't have to, and it doesn't challenge that right for him or Milo to think that Maher shouldn't be doing this.
Exactly. This gets straight to the point of what I have an issue with. The free speech thing isn't only being brought up in arguments about hate speech laws, it was also thrown at people who just said that they were against Maher's decision, which makes no sense.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I don't have a problem with this. Fuck people like Milo and anyone who thinks the way he does. I don't fear these kinds of people so much to the point that I don't want to see them on TV, especially when there's a very good chance people will have the opportunity to see assholes like this really exposed for who and what they truly are on a show like Bill Maher's.
Bill Maher's show isn't exactly one of those places people go to spew lies without getting challenged or absolutely shit on for their fucked up beliefs. If it ends up being a show where Bill Maher and potentially other guests absolutely shit on this clown for minutes at a time for his statements and behavior, I'm all for it.
Bill Maher's show isn't exactly one of those places people go to spew lies without getting challenged or absolutely shit on for their fucked up beliefs. If it ends up being a show where Bill Maher and potentially other guests absolutely shit on this clown for minutes at a time for his statements and behavior, I'm all for it.
SubScorpianZero
Member
He's a better debater than Maher.
Maher thinks he'll come with these prepared notes, and sweep over this guys ridiculous views. Won't happen, everything Maher will have prepared to say to him, is not something someone else hasn't brought up against him before. He's gonna be ready to blurt out his nonsense in a very logical sounding manner, that will just end up giving him a few new fans.
Raven117
Gold Member
I really do find this thread interesting. The points of view are excellent with both sides compelling.
Does Bill have every right to have this Milo guy on his show? Yes.
Does Milo have every right to spew bullshit? Yes.
Do we have every right to criticize Bill for his choice? Yes.
Do we think that this will actually add anything to the national "debate." Probably not.
More controversial topics.
Does the alt-right have a right to the basic tools of communication in the 21st century(ala facebook, twitter, different webpages?) The true rub. I dont know. I can see both points of view. In the end, humanity is still coming to grips with the communicative power of the internet. And while we can try to analogize with past forms of communication to the internet, it just isn't possible. (Like underground newspapers, pamplets, etc).
Is the internet a right or a privilege? Actually...ya know...that's kind of THE question from a legal standpoint. Because isn't that really what we are saying? We all know Free Speech (as defined in the First Amendment) means the government can't pass a law limiting free speech...
Is the internet a conglomeration of private companies that may operate their fiefedom however they see fit? Or is it more like healthcare (now), where we have said its a "right."
Sorry...stream of consciousness. But until we have the answers to these questions...we are going to keep going around and around about "platforms."
Does Bill have every right to have this Milo guy on his show? Yes.
Does Milo have every right to spew bullshit? Yes.
Do we have every right to criticize Bill for his choice? Yes.
Do we think that this will actually add anything to the national "debate." Probably not.
More controversial topics.
Does the alt-right have a right to the basic tools of communication in the 21st century(ala facebook, twitter, different webpages?) The true rub. I dont know. I can see both points of view. In the end, humanity is still coming to grips with the communicative power of the internet. And while we can try to analogize with past forms of communication to the internet, it just isn't possible. (Like underground newspapers, pamplets, etc).
Is the internet a right or a privilege? Actually...ya know...that's kind of THE question from a legal standpoint. Because isn't that really what we are saying? We all know Free Speech (as defined in the First Amendment) means the government can't pass a law limiting free speech...
Is the internet a conglomeration of private companies that may operate their fiefedom however they see fit? Or is it more like healthcare (now), where we have said its a "right."
Sorry...stream of consciousness. But until we have the answers to these questions...we are going to keep going around and around about "platforms."
Herr Schwarz
Banned
Hey what time is this on / how do us gangsters in europe tune in?
#ItsAServiceProblem
#ItsAServiceProblem
excelsiorlef
Member
Of course Chait would say something like that... god that man is a useful idiot for the Alt-Right, Gamergate crowd.
MechanicalWall
Banned
After browsing Reddit, Twitter, and even this site, I've come to the conclusion that the most pressing civil rights issue of our time is making sure racists don't get their feelings hurt.
The crux of that issue is that regarding Facebook, Twitter, etc. no one has an explicit right to use their platforms. Especially in the case of Twitter, a private company, with full control their product that allows them to kick anyone off that they wish. Now, we could get into ideological debates about why they should (they should) or shouldn't; but at the end of the day no one has the right to use Twitter. We are allowed to use it because it is advantageous to the platform and the company to have people on it.
The greater Internet at large however? That's an entirely different debate.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a logical disconnect in the way the argument is presented. It's presented in that he should be denied, not because he has shitty ideas, but because he is dangerous. Okay. So it foregoes logical reasoning that the people who are 1000x times as dangerous convincing hundreds of thousands of people (or not?) that vaccines give you autism, that muslims are out to make halal of your children and that your infant baby will be better off protecting itself with assault rifles.
I don't disagree with the idea, but "we" don't collectively give scrutiny to many people who air their harmful ideas every day 24/7. I am not defending Milo, I am simply saying that it doesn't hold up in court that this fixation on Milo is over how dangerous he is. That is what I am arguing.
If I believed that removing Milo from public discourse I'd be for it. My experience with Trolls is that they do it for luls and attention and the more you give to them the more power you have.
Did you participate a lot in the discourse around the time of that episode as well as many of the stand up specials about the usage of the word? What came from that discoussion (was it 7 years ago?) was that peoples defense and what the kids in south park believed was that saying faggot wasn't an insult to gay people. Then others said that it was. Then the other side pointed to its historical meaning of being a term for "bundle of sticks". Then the discussion turned into the fluidity and changing language and that words don't mean anything. And in the end we sort of collectively ended up "well, I don't like it and it makes me feel bad. So regardless of you mean or your intent it hurts me. Can you please use other words to refer to people as ninconpoops?"
The usage of the word faggot has dropped from pop culture AFAIK. I've not seen it in any stand ups, I've not seen it in shows like always sunny and south park and family guy. Everywhere there was aggressive offensive humor it was removed from.
And why is this? Why did people stop using the word? It's because somehow the debate about that word got through this weird membrane of the people who wanted to defend free speech and who initially saw the removal of the word as an impeachment of themselves.
It's a messy situation, like with the confederate flag discussion- It's like with children. It's explaining to them OVER and OVER and OVER again. And it's tiring and it sucks. But it's highly possible that if you'd gone back to the time that south park episode aired and you had said: boycot south park, they are giving dangerous platforms to violence against gay people. they are nazi sympathizers, you'd might have a situation where the usage of the word faggot would have been even more loaded and powerful today. Because it'd still be up for debate.
Where you and I converge on this is that I don't give Milo two pots of piss in. His currency is his outrage. His free marketing is us, right now talking about him and inflating his ego. Alt-righters are probably jerking off to this very thread and gives them a loaded sense of power.
I promise you that a major major left counter-insurgency comes up from many many people in the general populous who are now politically disengaged, but we're not there yet. Even with Trump as president life is still to good for the average white American. I believe that, like with south park airing that episode, that letting Milo on is productive. I see Americans inability to give a shit about anything as a major problem and a major of source of the current predicament.
As I said in my previous post, I am not against not letting Milo on. What I am arguing is that the semantic argument that being fixtured in Milo increases his appeal and power. Like the Twitter Ban proved, and which many posters here are ignoring. Did removing Milo from Twitter help fight against him? No, it emboldened him and gave him marketing that rippled in thousands of news sources all over the world. It was a complete disaster. Yes, not having someone in your house is not a ban, but it will seem like a Ban to them (who perceive the left to be extremists who've taken over the college campuses) and that plays in his favor.
My philosophical stance is that we need to let this play out, because like with the faggot example, you need engagement to work through some understanding. You won't see it this way if everyone who voted for the Orange turd is a nazi who is out to get you. It's a fearmongering assumption that everyone becomes a Nazi if Milo is on that show. People are impressionable, but there might as well be an anger and counter-insurgency going on in the other direction- Not on Mahers show, but from the discussion and public discourse that goes on in the following days.
You believe you can minimize the right-wing insurgent by sweeping it under the rug and hoping nobody notices it. I believe Milo is a false flag who deviates attention after the real issue; general Americans apathy and lack of political engagement and focusing on a character like Milo and Trump removes focus from all the root causes of right-wing ideaology.
My fear is that the left will spend the next 4 years being outraged and complain about these pointless pointless people and not the issues from behind. And focusing on the people, not the causes logically foregoes that removing said people, removes the problem which is a dangerous way of thinking about it.
Culture itself is oppression. Never forget that. You cannot have a civilized society without oppression and groupings. We've never had that, and we never will until we transcend into something else. As a result it is unavoidable that dangerous shitty ideas are a part of the spectrum. Milo and Maher not coming to anything productive is not the end of this exchange. There is a ripple effect, and ultimately it's 300+ million people who needs to partake in the process. Turnouts for demonstrations are low, engagement is low. This is not the work of the alt-right but policies that have been simmering for 40+ years.
And sometimes it has to get worse before people start to give a shit. I acknowledge fully (as I said before) that I am open to the idea that giving Milo a platform could be dangerous. But I also think it could have a positive effect that incentives others. It's not a really good argument to splain' away "people are impressionable" while not having to really think deeper about the possible different outcomes. That is what I take issue with. This could go more than one way, and it could prove to give opportunities for the left.
That's easy for me to say, as I stand from across the pond. Maybe you guys are not thinking too rationally about this because you're in the eye of the storm. You see it as a half-glass and because at this point in time things are really shitty, so the logical conclusion is that it will keep being shitty until forever after.
I propose that there is a real chance Milo could be pacified by bringing him out. He has nothing, and if he could make a lot more people on popular TV very angry, he could create a ripple effect that turns many new people into activists and Political engaged participants.
We disagree not on the outcome, but on the method on how to reach that outcome I think?
It's Always Sunny used it to effect two weeks ago.
Dude Abides
Banned
Why should we give a platform to single out and insult trans students to the point they have to leave their school because of the harassment? Why should we give him a platform for his racist ideals, his anti-gay ideals, or his anti-muslim ideals? Why should we give him a platform for hate speech?
You say we should let it ride out, but when he is directly harming groups of people, why should we allow him to say those things without fear that we'll make his base bigger by pointing out how hateful his speech is?
SaniOYOYOY
Member
definitely intrigue and will tune in.
I just discovered this milo guy because of the buzz around...
I have to say he seems like what trump could be if trump's brain is actually working.
I just discovered this milo guy because of the buzz around...
I have to say he seems like what trump could be if trump's brain is actually working.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Really? That surprises me. Was it in a deeper context of defending the word or?
I guess I am saying that there is a possibility (that I believe is plausible) that positive outrage, enragement and engagement from the left will be born in the discussions after he has been on Mahers show.
Perhaps the aftermath of Milo being on a show like Maher is part of what it takes to actually get cyber harassment taken seriously.
I am weary when I / We want something because we have the pretense of imposing what is right and wrong as fixture on addressing the entirety of society. I don't think that gets us anywhere. I think action does. But nothing can change if so few people not motivated or angry enough at the system or the state of things.
When he is directly harming people and not paying the consequences for it, that displays the lack of laws, and the need for proper protection against cyber bullying. But we're not really having that conversation in a limelight that matters because engagement is low. And because internet trolls are not often on talk shows.
The right and left flanks impact each other. When one side does something that pisses the other off, a more aggressive counter-response is made by other side.
As I am reading this thread I am trying to think of how it will play out. I won't bet or pressume to know what will happen as a fallout from this- I guess we will see over the following months and years, how it will affect the discourse of the right-wing insurgency in the western world.
no, but they used it. just pointing that out
Vigilant Walrus
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked