I feel you're not getting what I am saying. I see a lot of pathos, and emotional anecdote and deconstruction quote wars you've taken out of context. I can only tell you that you don't get what I am saying at all.
I don't think it gives much to a discussion by you arguing through this lens. Many millions of people are being bulled and face cyber harassment every day. It goes without saying that advocating not taking troll bait is not the same thing as ignoring harrasment. That you're insinuating that gives me pause. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you'do something like this, but your entire post reads like an attempt to use emotional anecdotes as a leg to stand on.
It's a completely separate issue. You keep repeating that you can focus on two things at once, and I, and others have agreed. What I argued was that there is a semantic disconnect when Milos influence is so miniscule and insignicant compared to the many people whose danger is 1000x the output and who doesn't face any scrutiny. It betrays the levy of the way the argument is being presented. There is a leap of logic there.
I am not opposed to Milo being opposed simply because he is a small fry, I am opposed to the way the argument is being represented because it is flawed and no abstract logical construction justifies the level of outrage of Milo versus no outrage for the many many many people who exceed him. A better reasoning for not having him on would simply have been; "Milo should not be on because he is a smug cunt". That would have been more intellectually honest.
Of course I agree with a lot of the idealistic things you say. "Homophobia shouldn't be allowed". That is self evident, but we as humans are tribal and as long as we have these grouping structures other groups gains will be seen as their own groups loss. the glass is half full and others will encrouge on their own group. As a result I think it does a disservice if we talk about the morale and ethics of laws we need, but passed through down on a symbol. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail. Milo is not the cause of that. But focusing on Milo getting away with harramsent says more about a society that is inherently okay with harrasment. If you put it on Milo, you're by definition taking away from the overarching theme of harramsent and his crimes are a puddle. Think about how deep this problem go through all of society. It truly bothers me that people believe things will get better if you remove Milo.
