Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

the point shouldn't be to shelter people from hate speech. all hate speech does is delegitimize the people using it

there was an opportunity to show the viewers how abhorrent milo/bannon/breitbart are, and even a mediocre debater could have taken advantage of that

You can attack their ideas and their words without ever having them on the show, without ever giving them the platform. Colbert does that shit 5 days a week, Sam Bee does it weekly. You can attack their ideas and words without having them on, we see people do it all the time. The second you invite them on you've lost.

Also, as much as we'd like to think using hate speech delegitimizes those using it, it doesn't. It just doesn't. I wish it did, society would be better for it, but that's not how it works. If you want to make hate speech taboo you can't go around giving those who spew it a platform, you can't elevate the level of their hate to that of your ideals by engaging in debate.

You can't debate hate because it's irrational. It's not based in reality.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Didn't really seem like a debate so much as Milo scurrying at every seemingly chance of rebuttal to something they could agree on. I've never seen him look so nervous -- it felt like navigation. Maher ate up the mutual ground pretty readily. I was hoping he wouldn't.

When Milo was on the panel, I was glad he got chewed out by all three. He looked like a fucking novice.

All three? Maher didn't chew him out for shit on the pannel other than maybe when he called Nance and Wimore idiots

 

[Mutant]

the point shouldn't be to shelter people from hate speech. all hate speech does is delegitimize the people using it

...Did you just come out of a two year coma?

 

[dlauv]

All three? Maher didn't chew him out for shit on the pannel other than maybe when he called Nance and Wimore idiots

He told him to shut the fuck up three times and told him to respect the people who were on with the reasoning that the person on the far left has done things to allow Milo to basically exist. So yes, the latter, with added "shut the fuck up.

 

[Brakke]

lol8 at this whole dumb fiasco

Maher is a clown.

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

How would you come together with Milo? Real question.

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

 

[AnathemicOne]

He told him to shut the fuck up three times and told him to respect the people who were on.

And Milo pretty much turned it into a comedy baiting for everyone on the panel to give him a "fuck you", ridiculous, Maher is an idiot not worth defending here.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

I still can't comprehend how easily people are willing to throw human dignity under the bus just so free (hate) speech stays absolutely pure.

(Probably because they are never on the receiving side of it)

 

[Monocle]

If a movement can't win a debate with someone like Milo, it deserves to lose.

If a man can't win a debate with his overflowing toilet, he deserves to drown in sewage.

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

Don't blame protesters for Maher chasing a payday. You see anyone else giving Milo a platform? Colbert? Fallon? Kimmel? It's on Maher and no one else, don't excuse his shit.

I'm not blaming him for chasing money at all. Hell, from a business standpoint it was a smart move, controversy generates profits in TV. I'm just saying how milo became the talk of the week.

 

[dlauv]

And Milo pretty much turned it into a comedy baiting for everyone on the panel to give him a "fuck you", ridiculous, Maher is an idiot not worth defending here.

???

I just think that Milo looked arrogant and out of his depth. I mean, it's fine and also sad if you think that Milo diffused all criticism with comedy, because that means other people did too. The time format doesn't really allow people to pry into his views like they should be able to.

That's not taking him to task that's decorum advice...

I didn't say Maher took him to task. The argument was clearly between one of the gentlemen and Milo. Milo attempted to discredit the persons on panel and Maher refuted it with mutual credulity. I don't think Milo deserved more than that for his comments.

 

[AnathemicOne]

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

This here is an issue that people have in understanding free speech. The right to free speech guarantees you won't be jailed by the government for crap you say. It does not guarantee you to media platforms where you can spread your bullshit loud and clear for everyone to hear.

 

[Oersted]

I still can't comprehend how easily people are willing to throw human dignity under the bus just so free (hate) speech stays absolutely pure.

Cause they are white and noone ever put their humanity in question probably.

 

[StrategyFan]

Why the fuck not

because they run the white house. they're not just random people anymore

they need to be exposed to a wider audience.

the media currently doesn't have enough credibility to just assign labels to people. people need to see the evidence.

spewing hate speech demonstrating how abhorrent their views are, being unable to justify it, and getting caught dehumanizing people is a primary source - not some media spin

 

[Chie Satonaka]

I still can't comprehend how easily people are willing to throw human dignity under the bus just so free (hate) speech stays absolutely pure.

(Probably because they are never on the receiving side of it)

Correct!

 

[excelsiorlef]

He told him to shut the fuck up three times and told him to respect the people who were on with the reasoning that the person on the far left has done things to allow Milo to basically exist. So yes, the latter, with added "shut the fuck up.

That's not taking him to task that's decorum advice...

 

[B-Dubs]

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

You don't get it, he doesn't have an argument. He's not actually debating. The only reason he brings up free speech is so people think he should be given a platform and debate like he was holding an ideology that isn't based purely in hate.

Sure, he's got the right to spew hate speech all damn day. He doesn't have the right to a platform that can reach million and elevate his message to do it.

Again, you can't debate guys like Milo because they aren't looking to debate. They're looking to spew as much hate speech as humanly possible and infect as many people with their toxic ideology as they can in that time.

because they run the white house. they're not just random people anymore

they need to be exposed to a wider audience.

the media currently doesn't have enough credibility to just assign labels to people. people need to see the evidence.

spewing hate speech demonstrating how abhorrent their views are, being unable to justify it, and getting caught dehumanizing people is a primary source - not some media spin

And that's how they win. That's how they won. Their entire goal in doing things like this show is to expose as many people as is humanly possible for the toxic waste they call ideas so they can spread their ideology like a disease.

You think people haven't been exposed enough to Trump's crap? Have you been paying attention for the last two years? The news has been wall-to-wall hate from Trump. It's been pure hate wrapped in a crunchy coating of populism and everyone ate it right up.

You're playing right into their hands with your idea on how to deal with it. It's like you looked at an ebola patient and said, "Yes, this infected guy needs to be taken to Times Square so people can see him throw up blood and shit all over them." That's how you spread the disease!

 

[excelsiorlef]

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

No one wants to lock him up

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

His arguments may look poorly delivered to us but dumb fucks eat that shit up.

Trump became president on saying stupid things and delivering very poor arguments.

If those things where so stupid though, why did they vote him in? There had to have been some validity in what he was saying to drive people to the polls.

 

[RM8]

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

You won't address this point, but it'd be useful if you told us who is planning to jail Milo because of his opinions. If you can't answer this, then this isn't about free speech at all.

I'm sorry but I have to say it, Americans are beyond quack when it comes to this. Americans just love defending hate speech for whatever twisted reason.

 

[excelsiorlef]

because they run the white house. they're not just random people anymore

they need to be exposed to a wider audience.

the media currently doesn't have enough credibility to just assign labels to people. people need to see the evidence.

spewing hate speech demonstrating how abhorrent their views are, being unable to justify it, and getting caught dehumanizing people is a primary source - not some media spin

Well hate got put on display tonight and know what Maher said in response: That's reasonable.

 

[AnathemicOne]

If those things where so stupid though, why did they vote him in? There had to have been some validity in what he was saying to drive people to the polls.

No there doesnt. People aren't known to be beacons of rationality on average.

 

[StrategyFan]

You can attack their ideas and their words without ever having them on the show, without ever giving them the platform. Colbert does that shit 5 days a week, Sam Bee does it weekly. You can attack their ideas and words without having them on, we see people do it all the time. The second you invite them on you've lost.

Also, as much as we'd like to think using hate speech delegitimizes those using it, it doesn't. It just doesn't. I wish it did, society would be better for it, but that's not how it works. If you want to make hate speech taboo you can't go around giving those who spew it a platform, you can't elevate the level of their hate to that of your ideals by engaging in debate.

You can't debate hate because it's irrational. It's not based in reality.

yes. there are other ways to attack their ideas. maybe they are more effective than actually having a live conversation. it depends on the audience

i'm just saying that no idea is immune to criticism. if something truly goes completely against the ideals of the viewer, there are always going to be ways to get that point across

 

[excelsiorlef]

If those things where so stupid though, why did they vote him in? There had to have been some validity in what he was saying to drive people to the polls.

What?

So if bigots get elected their bigotry must be somewhat valid?

 

[Monocle]

If those things where so stupid though, why did they vote him in? There had to have been some validity in what he was saying to drive people to the polls.

Really?

 

[RM8]

What?

So if bigots get elected their bigotry must be somewhat valid?

People elected Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Those were clearly good decisions.

What's more, orange hack didn't even win the popular vote.

 

[B-Dubs]

yes. there are other ways to attack their ideas. maybe they are more effective than actually having a live conversation. it depends on the audience

i'm just saying that no idea is immune to criticism. if something truly goes completely against the ideals of the viewer, there are always going to be ways to get that point across

I'm not saying it's immune to criticism. You can absolutely beat his ideas. What you can't beat is him, simply because he's not actually engaging with the person debating him. You can't beat a tape recorded message in a debate.

You have to attack his ideas, attack his quotes, what he's done. The second you trot the actual person out though you've lost.

 

[TheWhiteWolf]

Yeah that was really hard to watch.

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

This here is an issue that people have in understanding free speech. The right to free speech guarantees you won't be jailed by the government for crap you say. It does not guarantee you to media platforms where you can spread your bullshit loud and clear for everyone to hear.

Well those platforms are privately owned companies so I don't disagree with you. My point still is that ignoring a person like milo is the best solution. If y9h disagree with him don't give his ideas a reaction. As soon as you do, it might snowball into something much bigger.

 

[RinsFury]

Bill Maher is a fucking joke. Done with his show.

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

What?

So if bigots get elected their bigotry must be somewhat valid?

I reject the premise that bigotry was a major reason trump was elected. It may have played a small role, but I think most if not all elections are won on the promise of a improved economy.

 

[B-Dubs]

I reject the premise that bigotry was a major reason trump was elected. It may have played a small role, but I think most if not all elections are won on the promise of a improved economy.

Small? According to the data from the election his voters cared more about illegal immigration and terrorism than the economy. The people who cared about the economy voted against him. Saying he won on economics is rewriting reality. His entire campaign was hate speech wrapped in a crispy coating of populism.

Also, we're literally coming off what is likely the longest sustained period of job growth in the nation's history.

He didn't win based on economics.

 

[dlauv]

Milo is a troll that uses circular logic. His arguments aren't meant to be correct, they're meant to be disruptive. You can't genuinely attack the argument that "All lesbians are fake; they all want dick" (actual Milo stance). It's not falsifiable, and if you attempt to engage it, you'll look like some idiot with your dick in your hand as you listen to his list of anecdotal evidence. It's just hate-speech looking for a platform.

It takes more than a comedian to dismantle a political journalist. Either of the panelists would have been more appropriate. Furthermore, even a scientist like Neil Tyson had a hard time debating Joe Rogan, of all people, on the moon landing, of all fucking things. Maher believes in GMO poisoning. Professional comedians can typically debate morals with witticism and that's about it. Going further can require a lot of research or in-the-know facts that they're just not ready to tackle.

A lot of Liberals now-a-days seem to be clinging to humorists. The right thinks they're complete idiots.

 

[Sunster]

His consistent underlying argument is free speech, that something I think everyone should be for.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but he has a right to say it.

Who is trying to take that away from him? I'm for free speech. I don't think it's bold for me to say all of GAF is for free speech. I definitely don't want to take away Milo's free speech. I couldn't even if I wanted to. Free speech is your right to speak without the government silencing you. That is what the constitution says.

Bill Maher not allowing Milo on is not infringing his rights, a college not allowing Milo to speak is not infringing his rights. 1 trillion protesters in the street outside Milo's house shouting him down morning, noon, and night are not infringing on his rights. These are people exercising their own rights, the right to assemble and protest in a peaceful way. Milo gets to speak all he wants. That doesn't give him freedom from ridicule or consequences socially or professionally. People have the right to choose to give him a platform or not, it isn't owed to him. Now I think Bill should not have given him a platform and you think people should hear him out. We can agree to disagree there. However you are just dead wrong when you insinuate I or anyone here want to take away his right to free speech.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

Well that was a disaster. At least now I can stop giving Maher the be if it of the doubt from now on.

 

[B-Dubs]

Milo is a troll that uses circular logic. His arguments aren't meant to be correct, they're meant to be disruptive. You can't genuinely attack the argument that "All lesbians are fake; they all want dick." It's not falsifiable, and if you attempt to engage it, you'll look like some idiot with your dick in your hand as you listen to his list of anecdotal evidence. It's just hate-speech looking for a platform.

It takes more than a comedian to dismantle a political journalist. Either of the panelists would have been more appropriate. Furthermore, even a scientist like Neil Tyson had a hard time debating Joe Rogan, of all people, on the moon landing, of all fucking things. Maher believes in GMO poisoning. Professional comedians can typically debate morals with witticism and that's about it. Going further can require a lot of research or in-the-know facts that they're just not ready to tackle.

A lot of Liberals now-a-days seem to be clinging to humorists. The right thinks they're complete idiots.

Milo isn't a political journalist.

Also, no one could win debating someone like him because, as you point out, it's just hate speech looking for a platform.

To me the issue is more people seeming to think free speech buys you an automatic seat at the debate table.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

There's a reason we stopped debating with people of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

Small? According to the data from the election his voters cared more about illegal immigration and terrorism than the economy. The people who cared about the economy voted against him. Saying he won on economics is rewriting reality. His entire campaign was hate speech wrapped in a crispy coating of populism.

Also, we're literally coming off what is likely the longest sustained period of job growth in the nation's history.

He didn't win based on economics.

Yes he did. It's always about economics. Trump voters viewed illegals as a drain to the society monetarily. Weither it's through social welfare programs or percieved job theft, he used them as an economic scrapgoat. Trade agreements, China and the economy where what gave him the rust belt to win.

 

[Mivey]

Watching the interview, Yiannopoulos seems like a nihilstic jokster, not caring about anything. I kind of doubt that he even truly believes most of the stuff he is saying, seems just that he made a career by getting people upset, or cheering him, either way giving him attention.
I guess the worst you do to him, would be just to ignore him. That would also mean not demonizing him, like he is some kind of modern Mephisto.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Yiannopoulos has used social media as a platform, but it is that same platform, and its increasingly malevolent reputation of social media (justifiably or not), that have caused people to be, at very least sceptical of his motives, never mind the substance of his views.

It was telling that he commented on how "fun" trolling on Twitter was, but how can you complain when you're accused of being provocative just to offend at the pleasure of others?

You can't have it both ways: you can't commentate on social topics through humour and then simultaneously glorify the trolling of individuals for no effect other than to laugh.

 

[broncobuster]

Sheesh. At least there's humor in reading the first few pages of this thread...

 

[dlauv]

I have a hard time believing northern swing states give a fuck about borderland jobs being stolen. They're worried more about American companies manufacturing abroad and below.

Watching the interview, Yiannopoulos seems like a nihilstic jokster, not caring about anything. I kind of doubt that he even truly believes most of the stuff he is saying, seems just that he made a career by getting people upset, or cheering him, either way giving him attention.
I guess the worst you do to him, would be just to ignore him. That would also mean not demonizing him, like he is some kind of modern Mephisto.

Completely agreed. Looking for meaning in debate with him is like looking for meaning in the void. Don't feed the troll and he'll eventually cease to exist.

 

[Monocle]

There's a reason we stopped debating with people of the Westboro Baptist Church.

But GAWD HATES THE FILTHY SODOMITES.

Discuss.

 

[d00d3n]

because they run the white house. they're not just random people anymore

they need to be exposed to a wider audience.

the media currently doesn't have enough credibility to just assign labels to people. people need to see the evidence.

spewing hate speech demonstrating how abhorrent their views are, being unable to justify it, and getting caught dehumanizing people is a primary source - not some media spin

I agree. This is a slow process about winning the intellectual debate, though. Some people on the left don't get that, and will be outraged when someone like Milo gets to talk without making his "support for genocide", his "loyalties to nazism" and his views that "other ethnicities are subhuman" the lasting impression.

 

[Nibel]

Get son'd on your own show brehs, lmao

and lol @ anyone thinking giving someone who is not only a shit person but also shameless a stage like this might be a good idea; #letsdebate my ass

 

[Joel Was Right]

There's a reason we stopped debating with people of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Members have left that Church as a result of others engaging them.

 

[cyress8]

spewing hate speech demonstrating how abhorrent their views are, being unable to justify it, and getting caught dehumanizing people is a primary source - not some media spin

Uhhh, they are doing just that and using it to win. Shit they say is false as fuck but if they keep getting platforms to constantly spew it, they are allowed to reach the more uninformed populace that will most likely not even fact check it, like say the rust belt?

 

[Count of Monte Cristo]

Who is trying to take that away from him? I'm for free speech. I don't think it's bold for me to say all of GAF is for free speech. I definitely don't want to take away Milo's free speech. I couldn't even if I wanted to. Free speech is your right to speak without the government silencing you. That is what the constitution says.

Bill Maher not allowing Milo on is not infringing his rights, a college not allowing Milo to speak is not infringing his rights. 1 trillion protesters in the street outside Milo's house shouting him down morning, noon, and night are not infringing on his rights. These are people exercising their own rights, the right to assemble and protest in a peaceful way. Milo gets to speak all he wants. That doesn't give him freedom from ridicule or consequences socially or professionally. People have the right to choose to give him a platform or not, it isn't owed to him. Now I think Bill should not have given him a platform and you think people should hear him out. We can agree to disagree there. However you are just dead wrong when you insinuate I or anyone here want to take away his right to free speech.

I never said that. I just said the Berkeley protests tried to silence him, which lead him to a national spotlight. I merely suggested that was not the right approach when dealing with someone you disagree with.

 

[Monocle]

Members have left that Church as a result of others engaging them.

Is Milo going to abandon fat paychecks, TV appearances, and legions of fans who figuratively and probably also literally suck his dick, if enough people engage with him?

The people who left WBC were victims of brainwashing. Milo is an educated opportunist who knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[Loudninja]

I never said that. I just said the Berkeley protests tried to silence him, which lead him to a national spotlight. I merely suggested that was not the right approach when dealing with someone you disagree with.

No it did not at all.

Why is this being said? He was already very well know.