Support NeoGAF

[Oersted]

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.

More aggressive counter-response? What kind of more aggressive response did the left do?

You believe you can minimize the right-wing insurgent by sweeping it under the rug

No fucking one suggests that. Start reading.

 

[Obliterator]

This will be pretty interesting to see, because despite all of the fucked up things Milo believes, he's a damn good debater. He's actually pretty intelligent. Hopefully Bill and crew are prepared because Milo won't be easy to just bulldoze over

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

More aggressive counter-response? What kind of more aggressive response did the left do?

They didn't. That's the point. The left is passive and ineffective. No more bubbles. No more safe spaces. Now political activism hits it.

No fucking one suggests that. Start reading.

The argument I am responding to is that Milo should not be allowed on because his platform is dangerous. It foregoes rationally that the idea then is that you help the problem by not having him on. You say that others say it's about exposing. I say it's neither of those things. It's about making more people horrified, incentive about the true under belly.

I say it's sweeping under the rug because current fixation "we" have on Milo is insignificant and pointless.

 

[Foffy]

This will be pretty interesting to see, because despite all of the fucked up things Milo believes, he's a damn good debater. He's actually pretty intelligent. Hopefully Bill and crew are prepared because Milo won't be easy to just bulldoze over

Worse still, I imagine he will curtail his language for the audience.

It's one thing to attack the "snowflakes" when you are on the same panel with Stephen Crowder, but another when he may be the only conservative on the panel.

Oh wait, Jack Kingston is on the panel. He might say stupider things than Milo...

fuck.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Worse still, I imagine he will curtail his language for the audience.

It's one thing to attack the "snowflakes" when you are on the same panel with Stephen Crowder, but another when he may be the only conservative on the panel.

Oh wait, Jack Kingston is on the panel. He might say stupider things than Milo...

fuck.

Is Milo on the panel? I thought he be the opening interview.

 

[Foffy]

Is Milo on the panel? I thought he be the opening interview.

I believe he's actually on the panel.

Leah Remini will likely be the opening interview. She was scheduled the week Sam Harris appeared; he filled in for her last minute.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

I believe he's actually on the panel.

Leah Remini will likely be the opening interview. She was scheduled the week Sam Harris appeared; he filled in for her last minute.

Then Larry must be the mid way guest. This will be an interesting night indeed.

Exciting.

 

[The Kree]

It's really depressing to watch people argue all day on behalf of white supremacist sociopaths.

 

[Arkage]

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.

I mean what higher price could there be than the situation we're already in, with Trump as President?

There is no "price to pay" for aggressive engagement of widespread bad ideas. Milo and Brietbart are not some tiny corner of the internet that can be ignored. Framing Maher's choice as kowtowing is to ignore that large swaths of the population are reading Milo's shit regardless of Maher's choice. There needs to be concentrated rebuttal beyond "wow, such racist nazis" *block* The guardian piece you quote (as well as others in this thread) is basically saying "oh, it's so annoying and tiring to have to aggressively dismantle bad arguments. people are born irrationally racist and never change their minds. just give up and ignore them." I feel like this point of view is largely a product of people primarily debating over Twitter, which is literally the worst platform to try to communicate over. Arguing over twitter is exhausting and pointless, yes, but that certainly shouldn't be a condemnation of "argument" in general.

Social media has ruined discussion to the point where everybody joins their tribe and rationalize everything as a zero-sum game due to the constant surface-level talking points. And as is fully demonstrated here, any defense of Maher, or defense of aggressive debate against Milo, is being viewed by leftist tribalists as aiding and abetting the enemy.

I'll repeat what I said previously. In the end, platform deniers need to show that non-engagement is more pragmatic than aggressive pushback in this age of social media bubbles. I view this election largely as a result of non-engagement to begin with, with Republicans viewing Trump as a joke until it was too late for the primary, and Democrats viewing him as a joke until election results came in, and most voters refusing to engage in any depth with people in the opposite party. How many angry twitter ranters went door to door to talk to people to convince them of ideas face to face? Not nearly enough. Non-engagement isn't a credible path forward in defeating ideas, even the ideas of Milo.

 

[Bowler]

It's really depressing to watch people argue all day on behalf of white supremacist sociopaths.

Actually I disagree. This topic has some really thought out posts from all sides. None of which really are in support of milo. More about how he is viewed and talked about as you said a white supremacist and nazi. Which I believe still really isn't the case. Furthermore the discussion on platforms in society on hate speech, spotlights on even giving him the time of day etc. has been a great read with great point on all sides.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I'll repeat what I said previously. In the end, platform deniers need to show that non-engagement is more pragmatic than aggressive pushback .

You can aggressively pushback without engaging. It's what's been said multiple times. Clearly.

There is nothing that says you need to entertain, engage with, or allow a widespread platform to a fascist in order to aggressively push back against that fascist. Nothing. You can muffle that fascist, yell over that fascist, and provide a megaphone to the victims of that fascists harrassment so that people's empathies are directed to their proper place. This seems much more pragmatic a course of action than "let the fascist speak freely!"

This doesn't seem to be considered any sort of valid option, I guess, because it just keeps bouncing off of people, before they proceed straight back to the wrong idea that people are arguing for fascists being "ignored" or "swept under the rug."

 

[excelsiorlef]

I believe he's actually on the panel.

Leah Remini will likely be the opening interview. She was scheduled the week Sam Harris appeared; he filled in for her last minute.

The article in the OP literally says he's the top of the show interview.

 

[Arkage]

You can aggressively pushback without engaging. It's what's been said multiple times. Clearly.

There is nothing that says you need to entertain, engage with, or allow a widespread platform to a fascist in order to aggressively push back against that fascist. Nothing. You can muffle that fascist, yell over that fascist, and provide a megaphone to the victims of that fascists harrassment so that people's empathies are directed to their proper place. This seems much more pragmatic a course of action than "let the fascist speak freely!"

This doesn't seem to be considered any sort of valid option, I guess, because it just keeps bouncing off of people, before they proceed straight back to the wrong idea that people are arguing for fascists being "ignored" or "swept under the rug."

Debate isn't freely speaking, it's critically testing the rationality of claims. It's irritating me how nonplatformers keeping framing Maher as an open mic for Milo, which he isn't, and proplatformers keep framing Maher as a free speech issue, which it isn't. It's talking past each other.

What is yelling, muffling accomplishing, pragmatically? To convert voters to your side, or get nonvoters to vote? That's what I'm talking about, and I don't see muffling or yelling as valid, especially when the muffling and yelling is being advertised as hallmarks of the left's irrationality by Milo - a message that is reaching the ears of moderates. Giving megaphones to victims is certainly a valid tactic, but that should be included as part of a rational argument against racism. Simply stating there are victims of bigotry doesn't then delineate what we should do about it (is-ought problem). Argument, and convincing, are needed to make policy and law in a democracy.

 

[Rootbeer]

5 minutes from now for those choosing to watch the shitshow.

Actually I disagree. This topic has some really thought out posts from all sides. None of which really are in support of milo. More about how he is viewed and talked about as you said a white supremacist and nazi. Which I believe still really isn't the case. Furthermore the discussion on platforms in society on hate speech, spotlights on even giving him the time of day etc. has been a great read with great point on all sides.

Exactly. Nobody here supports him or even likes him, there is only disagreement on how he should be dealt with. Too bad some people are very combative about how they feel it should be done. Doesn't matter... it's happening live in a few mins

 

[Cyframe]

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.

Please don't frame an argument like this. As I said multiple times in this thread, especially a thread specifically talking about Milo, people have the ability to focus on more than one thing. On those who try to link vaccines with autism and a person who attempts to hide behind the veil of freedom of speech while harassing and endangering individuals.

If I have a headache, should I not complain because someone else has a migraine? Should a person with a migraine, not complain because someone else has cancer? Should someone with cancer not complain because others are dead? With the type of attitude you're presenting, it's like there are greater needs of focus, while ignoring interpersonal struggles that people deal with. The trans student who was directly targeted by Milo and forced to leave school matters, even though someone like Paul Ryan wants to privatize medicare.

In my opinion, the lackadaisical attitude people have regarding trolls (bullies and harassers) have emboldened them. People say it's just trolling while people get harassed or worse. The reason why it's an issue, is not due to victims raising concerns but by people who do the harassing and those who think, incorrectly that ignoring harassers works.

Ask any kid, ask me, if ignoring bullying worked. It doesn't. You know what they do? They escalate. That's on the bully not the victim and the sooner we get rid of this "ignore them and it'll stop thinking" we can actually come to grips with the real problem of harassment.

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?"

Well, I was called a faggot at HS, so I didn't really have a choice but to participate, unwillingly. The word has evolved from it's historial usage and it's a gay slur. A slur that, if I or other members of the LGBTQ community don't pay attention to, we can get killed or worse. It isn't just a word. I was targeted everyday by that word.

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.

Sarah Silverman (who I don't care for) stopped using the word in her stand up because she eventually learned through interactions with the LGBTQ community that the word wasn't funny. That she was doing damage and ostracizing people. The word is still used, as a gay man, I would know.

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.

Let's not do this. Using a word over and over again doesn't diminish the power of it. I think that's what you're implying here. It's not just that the word sucks, it's that South Park normalized a gay slur and people were targeted as a result of that. It ruined kids, and some due to homophobia have killed themselves. If I was older back then, my opinion would still be the same. Usage of the word was unacceptable. And some have given a tired argument that South Park is rated M, so kids shouldn't be watching it. But guess what, kids like animation, so they wanted it and internalized the dialogue used.

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.

It's not productive to platform him, I and others have given examples as to why that is. I, who happen to share demographics of being black and gay, don't find this "tolerable abuse" angle to be a convincing one.

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.

Twitter should have banned him and a lot of other users way before that. Tell me how Leslie Jones deserved to be continually harassed and her private nude photos leaked. The reason why he and others like him are emboldened is due to the fact that we don't take harassment seriously and instead call it trolling which undercuts the severity of it.

Ignoring bullies doesn't work, full stop.

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.

Homophobia shouldn't be allowed to play out. And at this point I almost have to ask if you're Black or gay. Do you know what it's like to be targeted so personally? Do you know what it's like, to be like that trans student who was singled out and forced to leave her education behind?

Honestly, I don't feel like you understand the thread or have read what Milo has done even though you just have to click a few pages back. Milo's actions break the law. Peteining ICE to arrest undocumented students is not something that should "play out".

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.

Okay, you don't know what you're talking about. No one things that you can sweep right-wing insurgency under the rug. And you think Milo is a false flag even though we have verifiable evience of what he has done? WOW, who are you having a conversation with, really?

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.

You don't get 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.

So people should just have to grin and bare it? And thanks for reminding me that as a Black gay person, my life will continue to suck. I know that. But it would be nice if people recgonized harassment for what it is. And rather than believe in a false idealize look at the reality of people who have to deal with bigots and white nationalists being emboldened.

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.

Sigh.

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 don't think your being rational here. I'm someone who is from an effective demographic and I'm fearful of racist attacks that have amped up over this election cycle. If anyone has the more rational thought process, it's those who are directly effected by bigots like Milo.

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?

I think you need to talk to those who were harassed by Milo. And I don't really take anything of value from what you've said here. You think that letting trolls run rampant and eventually people will come around, they won't. It'll get worse, and I think and I hate to say that, that some people won't start taking it serously until more people of my demographic end up dead. And in 10 years you'll say, Oh, I guess we should have addressed the radicialization factor, rather than ignore it. And to that, I say that's a damn shame.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

What is yelling, muffling, and letting victims accomplishing, pragmatically? To convert voters to your side, or get nonvoters to vote?

To prevent the easy spread of fasicistic, hateful, homophobic, racist speech?

Impeding the ease by which these views are spread is the goal. To expand on the analogy from earlier in the thread: You wouldn't suggest people taste test coke, pepsi, and drain cleaner. You'd make sure drain cleaner was not on the same table, and definitely not drinkable.

You wouldn't store your drain cleaner in the refrigerator, right?

There's a basic refusal to acknowledge fascism isn't a viable stance in a free, democratic society, here. The idea is an inherently bad one. It's destructive to the very nature of freedom. This isn't a debatable tenet you're advocating get its time in the spotlight. It's a poison.

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that if Milo gets to say "I won because you did this" that he actually won because... what? Because he said so? I asked earlier why people are so inclined to set the bar for winning so unfathomably low and cheap?

You seem to be occupying the stance here:

Giving megaphones to victims is certainly a valid tactic, but that should be included as part of a rational argument against racism.

That muffling racist/fascist voices is, in fact, irrational.

HOW. How is that irrational? What is not rational about that course of action?

What possible frame of reference are you using in which "Lets discuss the positive tenets of my fascist, racist, white supremacist viewpoint" is the fair and rational way towards a better future? Why does Milo, of all people, get to freely, and without any significant challenge, get to set the believable terms of rationality in response to leftist pushback to his abhorrent views? Who cedes that power to him, and what good is it to do so?

 

[Xyrmellon]

How soon from air does this take to show up on HBO now?

 

[theCalamity]

Why is Bill saying that we've been distracted from Pruitt and Flynn? Those are huge stories right now.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

He's not even on the panel.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Wow, the audience clearly loves Milo. What the fuck.

How soon from air does this take to show up on HBO now?

Sometimes a day.. it will be on Youtube first, from experience.

 

[~Kinggi~]

holy shit

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

He's not even on the panel.

He's not a part of the panel, he's doing a 1-on-1 interview with Bill.

 

[Zabka]

So this guy is just some dude doing a character

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Aren't you guys watching? It's on.
2 minutes and all they're doing is quaint banter, nothing but normalizing this fucker's crazy beliefs.

 

[~Kinggi~]

i didnt realize how fucking crazy this guy is.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

This is such a bad idea. Jesus, the audience...

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

Can't unsee Bruno

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Is Milo on drugs? He keeps moving and its getting me sick.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Haha, he is talking about building bridges and connecting.. <audience claps, Bill doesn't interrupt>

 

[Jombie]

Haha, he is talking about building bridges and connecting.. <audience claps, Bill doesn't interrupt>

It's how people get lulled into his bullshit.

 

[Sianos]

I wonder if Milo will be discouraged from doxxing random individuals quietly living their lives with no platform to defend their humanity this time?

 

[Icolin]

That Bruno joke lmao

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Mean words on the internet don't hurt anyone folks.. you heard it on HBO!

Either Bill Maher isn't qualified for doing hardball interviews, or he agrees with Milo.

 

[Officerrob]

Stop overreacting about a few people in the audience clapping

 

[~Kinggi~]

The guy that said Bill wasnt prepared for this was totally right. Dude even has plants in teh audience.

 

[Zabka]

It's funny that Bill leads off by saying "Liberals keep taking the bait" but Milo is leading him around like a dog on a leash

 

[excelsiorlef]

Figured as much, Milo is evil not stupid and Bill Maher is not a journalist.

 

[kingocfs]

I thought Milo came off looking small there.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Wow, I am shaking in my boots that was so scary.

Onto the rest of the show.

 

[theCalamity]

It's funny that Bill leads off by saying "Liberals keep taking the bait" but Milo is leading him around like a dog on a leash

Milo is totally commanding him.

 

[BADMAN]

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

What the fuck? It's over... there was no argument, it was just a twenty minute platform for Milo.

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

Except... everything he said? I hope you are joking. Or do you believe people can't get hurt through the internet? BLM is a hate group?
Jesus fuck, what else? The earth is flat?

 

[Zabka]

Milo is totally commanding him.

Yup, basically ate up time by kissing his ass on free speech and humor.

 

[Loudninja]

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

Oh please.

Like many others said before this would him.

 

[Muffin1611]

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

Are you for real? Jesus.

 

[Magus1234]

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

Talk about missing the point.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

Yup, basically ate up time by kissing his ass on free speech and humor.

But then that's the only thing people take away from it.

 

[Jombie]

I think I'm kinda done with Bill Maher.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So he's a troll, a self proclaimed one at that. The backlash was blown way out of proportion. He even had some good points on liberal hissy fits. Surprisingly there was nothing wrong with him being on.

I actually appreciate this post as it is the perfect summation of why putting him on was stupid...


He can harass a black celeb and get banned from twitter, publicly target a trans woman and harass her in a speech, can call for trans folk to be ridiculed and humiliated as a public good, but because he goes on Bill Maher and doesn't say that then, well golly he's not that bad.

 

[theCalamity]

Yup, basically ate up time by kissing his ass on free speech and humor.

Like the above user said, it was basically a commercial for Milo.

And Maher is back on this distraction thing. Who is being distracted from the Flynn scandal? Only Trump supporters.