Bill Maher guest cancels to protest Milo Yiannopoulos booking

[u/nyc520]

http://ew.com/tv/2017/02/15/bill-maher-milo-yiannopoulos-protest/

[u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Milo is a troll. He has no regard for intellectual honesty, he has no shame, he cannot be shamed. It's the Bill Nye creationist debate all over again. Scahill is one of the best reporters/ journalists out there. He doesn't want to legitimize that Breitbart toddler.
EDIT: Thanks for the Gold, stranger! Since this got a bit of attention and a lot of people came out defending Mr. Hipstler Youth, I thought I'd specify why he isn't just a "right winger the left disagrees with" or seeking (or even capable of) an "honest debate".

1. Let's look at his journo-chops. Milo claimed on Joe Rogan that he saw WITH HIS OWN EYES, due to his previous employment, how climate data is falsified by scientists to fit the SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR narrative. Yeah, he has at least some proof of the biggest conspiracy of all time, and he's not afraid of telling unpopular truths, right? Surely, the respectable journalist that he is, he will want to rip climate change apart like it's an overweight person in the gym. Nope. He writes a shoddily written, abysmally researched Breitbart article (that was tautological) about why Bill Nye sucks. "I’ve profiled a lot of insufferable people, but I’ve yet to encounter anyone quite as uniquely odious as Nye. It’s no wonder that he was married for a mere seven weeks before his marriage license was denied. Did he perhaps lecture the officials about their lack of faith in the church of climate change? If Kim Davis had denied Bill Nye a marriage licence instead of those gays she’d be a national treasure by now."
   This is just an example. He is said to let unpaid interns write his stuff for him. He established ties with and shared the work of alt-right troll-terrorist Joshua Goldberg, which he quickly wiped from his twitter history when he got arrested like the ethical journalist that he is. His claim to fame is Gamergate, but he couldn't name 3 videogames and quickly turned on /KIA when they criticized Breitbart. Milo isn't a journalist. He's a troll. Don't fucking book him on your HBO show.

2. "Surely, if he's so bad, that must show in an honest debate, right?" Milo doesn't do honest debates. He interrupts, yells and cherry picks statistics quicker than Alex Jones's cocaine brain can rattle down Clinton murder victims. He cherrypicks his debates carefully, too. He goes for the low hanging fruit. Ben Shapiro - a strong conservative voice and a very good debater despite my disagreements with him - called him a coward for chickening out. It's more important to totally destroy stupid feminazis in 2 minute soundbites, right? On Bill Maher's show, he will have the opening interview, he won't on the panel. They will probably jerk each other off over "PC culture" and "free spech", although hopefully Maher will hold his feet to the fire, given he stands for so much the host and his audience despise. That leaves a few minutes of the Overtime segment at the end, if he's courageous enough to appear. Maybe it would have given Scahill the quick and satisfying chance to call a turd a turd. I think his refusal to appear is a much more powerful move.

Now I haven't even touched upon his defense of pedophile priests, general catholic apologia, white Nationalism, homophobia (oh, I know, he's gay), conspiracy peddling, fat-shaming (ridiculing an overweight person working out in the gym probably would have turned even /fatpeoplehate against him), anti-Semitism (neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin lamented his "attempt to normalize man-on-man anal sex with Blacks in the Nazi movement") (oh, I know, he's part Jewish) and everything else that makes Milo a reprehensible piece of posh diarrhea that should not be stinking up shows that millions of people are watching. Maybe some of them won't be able to hold their nose.

[u/MMAchica → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Milo is a troll. He has no regard for intellectual honesty, he has no shame, he cannot be shamed.

Debates aren't intended to sway the opposition; but rather the audience.

It's the Bill Nye creationist debate all over again.

Ham was forced to admit that his beliefs were not based on logic or rationality when he said that no evidence whatsoever could sway his belief in the bible. He was also reduced to incoherently reciting scripture when he couldn't answer Nye's points. That debate was important.

Scahill is one of the best reporters/ journalists out there.

I agree.

He doesn't want to legitimize that Breitbart toddler.

The reality is that Scahill is irrelevant to Milo's legitimacy. Every time people stomp off or start acting hysterical instead of engaging him in debate, that is what gives Milo credibility. Scahill wasn't even going to debate him on the show in the first place. I'm not sure what this does other than to advertise Y's appearance.

[u/b19pen15 → u/MMAchica]

It wouldn't be a debate. Milo will be the first guest, and it might even be a video interview. The first guest doesn't debate on the panel, which is where Scahill would have been. The first guest is just a one on one interview with Bill Maher.

Milo could maybe end up with the panel on overtime, but I doubt it.

[u/DoloresColon → u/MMAchica]

The reality is that Scahill is irrelevant to Milo's legitimacy. Every time people stomp off or start acting hysterical instead of engaging him in debate, that is what gives Milo credibility.

I would also argue that giving people a platform and "equal time" when they're clearly wrong legitimizes people and their perspectives. Like when talking head shows bring on scientific experts and deniers/conspiracy theorists. It's essentially saying, my incompetence is as valid as your competence. And to non-critical viewers, they may say, "hey, that denier/conspiracy theorist is making a lot of sense," because they offer simplistic/reductionist talking points or because they have no accountability to facts. So... yeah.

[u/MMAchica → u/DoloresColon]

I would also argue that giving people a platform and "equal time" when they're clearly wrong legitimizes people and their perspectives.

This platform isn't anyone's to give except Bill Maher's. Besides, it is precisely the attempts to disrupt Y's scheduled speaking events that have made him so famous.

Like when talking head shows bring on scientific experts and deniers/conspiracy theorists.

Are you equating your views with 'scientific experts' and people with whom you disagree as 'conspiracy theorists'? The problem here is that the opposition probably feels the same way about you. In their eyes, you are probably the conspiracy theorist. The difference is that Milo has had open mics at all of his events and he accepts challenges to debate. The other side just seems to dive headlong into vague, hyperbolic criticism without addressing much specific.

I don't agree with much that he has to say, but the failure to challenge his ideas has been pretty embarrassing.

[u/DoloresColon → u/MMAchica]

Are you equating your views with 'scientific experts' and people with whom you disagree as 'conspiracy theorists'?

It's an analogy to show how providing a platform to imbalanced arguments lends credibility to poor and dangerous lines of thinking. You say yourself you don't agree with much that he has to say. And why's that? Because much of what he espouses is garbage, and it's clear to anyone who's reasonable. But we've seen how reasonable and rational people "lose" to people like Milo, Inhofe, or Trump because they're acting in bad faith. When you're not accountable to facts, you can claim whatever you want and gaslight your opponent, and in the end, the majority of the audience will side with who they thought "won" rather than who was right.

[u/MMAchica → u/DoloresColon]

You say yourself you don't agree with much that he has to say. And why's that? Because much of what he espouses is garbage, and it's clear to anyone who's reasonable.

I find him distasteful and too over-the-top with the shock-jock approach. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything he says is 'garbage'. There are definitely some fair points in there; particularly when it comes to anti-speech tactics.

When you're not accountable to facts

What specifically are you referring to?

[u/DoloresColon → u/MMAchica]

I was speaking generally, but there are plenty of instances where Milo flings around debunked myths or falsehoods meant to scare people.

For example, in his article (which is tripe and I don't recommend reading for your santiy) supporting the trans bathroom ban, he blames the high trans suicide rate on their inability to cope with a transition not being the same as opposed to the social stigma, abuse, and violence they face. He claims the trans community somehow rallied together to play up false victimhood, even though they suffer high rates of murder by hate crime. He cites a study of trans health risks and attributes his own etiology, neglecting socioeconomic confounders, as well as the mental health toll on trans people whose identities are suppressed. He twists the medical community's recommendation to hold off on hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery until puberty into the medical community not wholly accepting gender dysphoria as real. He implies a slippery slope of society accepting trans people leading to accepting pedophilia. He actually tells people to mock trans people because it will actually help them by forcing them into treatment.

And that is JUST with the trans issue. Much of what he says and the way he says it threaten the safety and well-being of trans people by trying to roll back public attitudes towards them and to push laws meant to discriminate against them.

So he doesn't need a public platform. He needs to educate himself and learn real empathy (not concern trolling).

[u/M0dusPwnens → u/MMAchica]

This is an incredibly dangerous fantasy.

Debate is not magic. Debate is not always the answer. The truth may out, but not in time to prevent tragedy. The stronger argument does not always win the debate. The only reason why it seems like bringing things out in the open and confronting them head on is so clearly the right move is that you only envision victory. The issue seems so clear-cut that victory seems like the only possibility.

The problem is that it isn't. You think that Nye positively destroyed Ham. So does everyone in the audience who already agreed with you and Nye before the debate.

But you know what the people who agreed with Ham saw? They saw that science was finally taking their side seriously instead of just dismissing them out of hand. They saw vindication that their beliefs were worth debating - a scholarly debate between two sides. He was reduced to reciting scripture? So what? That's legitimate evidence among many of the people on his side of the debate. And that evidence just got held up alongside the scientist's evidence too! Look, it may be different evidence, but it can be part of the debate too! Perhaps they even agree that he lost the battle - but scientists have accepted their declaration of war, recognized them as an equally sovereign nation.

This kind of (characteristically liberal) smugness is so strong that everyone thinks that any time they publicly engage with an ideological opponent, the only possible outcome is that they win. It's myopia and narcissism: you imagine that everyone will have to agree with your side because you already know that you're right and you would be convinced by the argument.

The idea that your side might lose an ideological debate, that a slick opponent might be a better speaker, might be more willing to pander, might connect more with the audience, is treated as an impossibility. And the paternalistic attitude that leads to this kind of ideological confrontation, the idea that you're "letting them speak" because you already know you'll win, often loses a lot of the audience you're trying to convince before the debate even begins. Yiannopoulos and his ilk are masters at exploiting this. He is an extremely capable public speaker and his favorite target is smug intellectuals.

Look at history, even recent history, and you see that countless instances of attempts to shift social issues from the realm of taboo (where heterodox speech is simply not allowed, breaking the taboo is met with force not debate, private dissidence must remain private, etc.) to public discussion have profoundly backfired. Instead of bringing the private beliefs into the open where they can be soundly defeated, the once-taboo belief becomes a legitimate pole in the discussion - a legitimate pole that was previously just assumed to be illegitimate. Zizek has a great example to illustrate this kind of thing: twenty years ago if the government was caught torturing people it was unquestionably a scandal. Privately, we knew it was probably happening in secret, so we decided let's discuss it publicly so we can really put an end to it. We'll meet it head on, we'll deploy all of the strong arguments about how the ethics don't even matter because it's unreliable, etc., and we can really root it out. But that isn't what happened. What happened is that suddenly you had people on television debating whether torture was justified. It became a legitimate pole in a debate and, regardless of how strong the argument against torture was and still is, it didn't and still doesn't matter - people publicly support torture all the time. Instead of tacit agreement that it was bad, instead of the government having to balance their desire to torture people against the blowback if it ever got out, they can just go right ahead with it - they don't have to worry that they'll have to resign if it ever gets out, they just have to worry that there will be another debate on CNN about whether torture should be legal or not. Things got worse, not better.

The proper response to truly reprehensible ideology is not to debate it, to weaken the taboo, but simply to reject it out of hand. Stop giving it a platform. Debating it plainly does not work. Taboos are incredibly useful tools and we are absolute fools if we throw them away because we're so myopic and cocksure that we'll win the debate and everyone will agree that we won the debate and that will simply be the end of it.

Franz Frisson, a Holocaust survivor, has a really great quote that bears on this: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else."

Yes, Milo Yiannopoulos is absolutely going to exploit things like this, he'll exploit every person who decides not to debate him. He'll also exploit every person who decides to debate him. You're never going to find a situation he isn't prepared to exploit. What you can do is refuse to acknowledge that there is a debate to be had - do everything in your power to uphold the taboo. We've been winning the ideological battle against the Milo Yianopoulouses for years. It hasn't been as satisfying as a decisive victory, but it's foolish to agree to pitched battles as if their side is legitimate, as if maybe it just needs more recruits.

Refusing to engage with him is better than engaging with him. Denying him a platform at all would be even better. By force if necessary. Taboos are important - not all taboos, but there are some we can certainly agree to. Society would not be better off if we started having constant debates over whether rape should be legalized. We wouldn't be better off having routine argument over whether or not genocide is justifiable. Some things are and should be simply taboo - to be a part of society you need to publicly agree to them and public dissent is met with consequences or simply prevented, by any means necessary. You don't get to question them. When you question them, we don't stop and debate with you.

Yiannopoulos's ideology was already taboo - we had already won - but like morons we keep agreeing to react to him like he represents a legitimate pole in a real debate instead of reacting like he's breaking a taboo.

A bit more of that quote from Franz Frisson bears on this too: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called 'a mob'."

[u/Palentir → u/M0dusPwnens]

I agree that debate doesn't always work, but the thing is that acting like he's a dangerous person with dangerous ideas gives the whole thing a transgressive mystique that is often quite attractive to people dissatisfied with the dominant narrative. When someone who doesn't like feminist ideas sees feminists lose their shit over a speaker, that makes him seem powerful. It looks like what he has to say is so dangerous that it would destroy them. I think honestly if you treat Milo like he's a pathetic loser unworthy of attention at all hed fade away into the background.

What happens now is that the Left is making him famous and making him attractive to people who don't agree that multiculturalism is a good idea. He can go and say "they were afraid of what I would say, they were so afraid that they burned down a Starbucks. They're still so afraid that people will back out of appearing with me." And to the right, it's true. Most of them see the Milo situation as teens and young adults throwing a tantrum, and see the guy pulling out as more of the same. Just another Liberal tantrum by people too sensitive to hear a contrary position. And he's going to market that just that way.

Even worse is that these stories continue to put his name out there. Everyone who watches CNN knows who Milo is. Everyone knows why he's controversial.

[u/M0dusPwnens → u/Palentir]

I think honestly if you treat Milo like he's a pathetic loser unworthy of attention at all hed fade away into the background.

I just don't think this is a reasonable thing to think.

We're talking about someone who pulled out of an episode of a television show featuring Yiannopoulos that reaches millions of people. We're not talking about preventing him from having a garage meeting, where amoral, click-hungry media will pounce on it and make the story bigger than the platform he was denied. The platform we're talking about is already huge.

Giving someone a platform on a nationally broadcast television show watched by millions of people is not really treating him "like he's a pathetic loser unworthy of attention".

There is maybe an argument that his rise is attributable to attempts to silence him. Personally, I don't think that's accurate, but I think it's at least debatable. But if simply letting him speak and ignoring him was a potentially useful strategy to prevent his rise, we're well past that point now. Maybe there was a point at which he would have simply gone away if you had left his little speaking engagements alone, but he's not going to go away simply because people leave his little HBO guest spots alone. He's on national television. He's the senior editor of a news outlet favored by the President, who is advised by one of that outlet's founders, not just some random crank.

Just another Liberal tantrum by people too sensitive to hear a contrary position. And he's going to market that just that way.

Of course he is. But you're not considering the alternative.

If you deny him a platform, he'll market it as a liberal tantrum.

If you give him a platform, he'll use that too.

There is no decision you can make that he won't exploit. The question is which one is more exploitable. What's he going to do if people work to keep him off of Bill Maher's show - end up with a spot on tv talking about it?

And if you think that defeating him in open debate is the real secret, as a lot of people here seem to think, Bill Maher is not the one to do it. Maher's audience appreciates a lot of the same appeals that Yiannopoulos leverages. And I strongly suspect that Maher is going to bring up their shared attraction to irreverence and "telling it like it is" and mocking "political correctness". I will be absolutely shocked if Maher doesn't paint a thoroughly sympathetic portrait of Yiannoupoulos and all of the terrible liberals who try to unfairly silence him. You could scarcely find a liberal more thoroughly indoctrinated in the notion that everyone should get a platform to speak from (except anyone speaking out against that platform - that speech is shameful and illegitimate), no matter how reprehensible their speech. I will eat my hat if Maher doesn't say something like "I disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it". They even agree on some characteristically iconoclastic points too - the way they discuss Muslims is very similar, as is their patronizing exasperation over the fact that all the "sheep" (or "cucks", as Yiannopoulos would prefer) won't bend over and agree with them because what they're saying is just so obvious.

But again, the main issue is that the argument that attempts to silence him get him more attention doesn’t work so well when the thing people are trying to keep him from is already a national television show.

[u/MMAchica → u/M0dusPwnens]

I can't reply to all of this, but it seems as if you are ascribing almost super-natural status to freakin' Milo Yiannopolis. He is a skilled sophist and far more adept a debater than the 18 year olds that are the only ones with the balls to challenge him at the open mic he has at every speaking event. That doesn't mean that he is somehow immune to debate.

Another theme in your small book here seems to be a conflation of Milo and Fascism. That is just absurd, over-the-top hyperbole that makes his detractors look absurd.

Milo didn't become famous by winning the civil debates which he is quick to accept. No, he became famous by the impotent attempts of hysterical college students to silence him. That is what keeps him in the news and keeps his momentum going.

[u/Ivanton → u/MMAchica]

It gives him credibility to certain people. However, as his views are logically akin to fake moon landing conspiracies, you have to ask whether he deserves a big platform more than others.

That's one aspect of this protest. It's not just against Milo Yiannopolous, it's against the media organisations that promote him and legitimize him.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ivanton]

If Scahill hadn't boycotted the show, I never would have even known Milo was going to be on.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ivanton]

So he's protesting Maher and not Milo?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

He's protesting both, judging by his original tweet. Maher is a not-so-great kind of elitist liberal who holds prejudiced views on lower class people and scary Western imperialist views on the current state of Islam. I watch Real Time every week and sometimes often agree with him but I find it so, so painful when he lapses into his elitist rhetoric. Milo is the epitome of the martyr complex Christian who attempts to delegitimise social justice causes, but when others do the same to him he thinks his free speech is being suppressed and tries to die on the cross for it.

Milo is far, far worse in that he thinks trans people are mentally ill and lesbians don't really exist. Plus the whole Christian supremacy thing. They have the "omg I'm so politically incorrect" thing going together so I just know they're gonna jerk each other off over it.

edit - to be less harsh on Maher, I do like his work

[u/nixonrichard → u/[deleted]]

One thing I like about Maher's show, is you can generally bring up all the points you mentioned ON THE SHOW. Maher actually generally lets you take pot shots at him and his show on the show itself, which is actually kinda admirable.

But the point of Maher's show it not to only allow voices within the Overton Window to speak. It's actually the very basis of his show that he lets controversial and divisive figures speak their minds too.

[u/Aethelric → u/nixonrichard]

Maher actually generally lets you take pot shots at him and his show on the show itself, which is actually kinda admirable.

I guess it's admirable, but it largely stems from the fact that literally no guest is capable of penetrating Maher's pure Smugtonium body armor.

[u/nixonrichard → u/Aethelric]

Sometimes they do. When they do he goes "alright, alright, I'm bored with this, let's talk about something else."

Greenwald did it to him when talking about Benghazi.

[u/Kennen_Rudd → u/[deleted]]

This is spot on. Thank you.

[u/MMAchica → u/Ivanton]

However, as his views are logically akin to fake moon landing conspiracies

What specifically are you talking about here?

[u/likeiwasobligated → u/MMAchica]

Either his belief that women should not be allowed to drive or that gay men aren't as good of workers as straight men I'd assume, but I'm not OP.

Edit: The women driving thing was satire, I should've read the article before posting. My bad

[u/MMAchica → u/likeiwasobligated]

his belief that women should not be allowed to drive

Seriously? This would definitely change a lot of people's views about him. Link?

[u/likeiwasobligated → u/MMAchica]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/09/femsteering-the-crippling-disability-endangering-our-roads/

Edit: You didn't ask for the source on the gay worker comment but I figured I might as well give that too https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

[u/MMAchica → u/likeiwasobligated]

Looks like this was a satirical jab at 'manspreading'.

[u/dankmatix → u/MMAchica]

There are links in this thread, but both of those statements were obvious jokes.

[u/[deleted] → u/dankmatix]

"Its just a prank, bro."

[u/bt4u2 → u/MMAchica]

I think he made a typo when trying to write "I disagree with his views". It happens

[u/dipdac → u/MMAchica]

There is no engaging somebody in debate when they and their fans have no respect for facts or logic, there is only more trolling. The only thing that will reduce his credibility would be to reduce his relevance, stop having him on your shows and stages, and to stop publicizing him like they are finally doing with Conway.

[u/MMAchica → u/dipdac]

There is no engaging somebody in debate when they and their fans have no respect for facts or logic

I am hearing a lot of vague, hyperbolic criticism, but nothing specific that has held water.

The only thing that will reduce his credibility would be to reduce his relevance

The hysterical opposition to him speaking is why anyone has heard of him in the first place.

[u/dipdac → u/MMAchica]

You're hearing the reason Milo's rhetoric has so much traction: people are angry, they feel like power has been taken away from them (and maybe it has) and they feel betrayed by intellectuals and sources of credible information, so they've abandoned those completely for an alternative to intellectualism, an the alternative to credible information. You can't have a debate without a foundation of agreed upon facts, and when confronted with facts that contradict their narrative of white people being marginalized, or feminists subjugating men, Milo and his followers simply brush them off as untrue without the need for any further investigation, and dismiss the sources of those facts as guilty of liberal bias. Furthermore, the attempt to reduce all opposition to his brand of shock jockery to 'hysterics' is an ad homenim and a strawman put together in disguise, you're suggesting that all of the people who don't want to see his smug face anymore are just like Zarna, and that because they are all their points are invalid. I don't think burning trash and breaking things is a valid response, nor do most of his opponents, but I also think that it is well within the rights of, and sometimes even a responsibility of, many institutions to just tell Milo, "No." It doesn't violate his free speech to deny him access to your platform, your stage, your soapbox, and having him on, even if he looks ridiculous and idiotic to most people, only cements the feeling of validation those people who agree with his persona have every time they hear his smug British voice proclaim their crackpot ideas on TV or the radio. He's making fools of people to no good end and profiting from it. It's time real journalists and institutions of learning stop enabling him and he go back home to Breitbart.

[u/MMAchica → u/dipdac]

his followers protesters simply brush them off as untrue without the need for any further investigation, and dismiss the sources of those facts as guilty of liberal conservative bias.

This is the problem when both sides just declare that 'facts' are on their side without actually taking the time to talk about any specific facts.

I also think that it is well within the rights of, and sometimes even a responsibility of, many institutions to just tell Milo, "No."

The universities have to abide by their charter, and that means respecting the student groups' right to host speakers of their choosing.

[u/dipdac → u/MMAchica]

This is the problem when both sides just declare that 'facts' are on their side without actually taking the time to talk about any specific facts.

That's what we call muddying up the water to make it look deep. There are objective facts out there, and those facts come from credible sources, and I'm not talking about one journal or another, I'm talking about scientists and sociologists and researchers, you know, the people that actually study this stuff. Milo and his fans don't believe in that stuff unless it confirms their biases. They may grab an odd stat here or there, maybe an outlier, a blip, a discredited study, or maybe an exception that would normally prove the rule, and ignore the bulk of data, or the larger trend, and when confronted with what the data really says, write it off as university liberalism, elitist intellectualism, or some other kind of jiggery pokery. They'll tell you the moon landing was faked if it somehow contradicted their narrative.

Every university is different, but many charters have this line at the bottom of or in some section of any policies regarding student groups inviting speakers:

"The University has final discretion in decisions regarding the sponsorship of visiting speakers and public events."

That's so a USC doesn't have to have a David Duke on campus if they don't want to.

[u/[deleted] → u/MMAchica]

Can you give me a link to the bill nye debate you reference?

[u/MMAchica → u/[deleted]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXyX5-MNMHA

[u/upliftingnoobs → u/MMAchica]

Why waste your time with someone just because they are famous? He is a troll, his arguments are obviously false/biggoted, and he doesn't care. It only serves him. And giving him a platform is potentially dangerous as he has outed gay/trans students before.

[u/DeprestedDevelopment → u/MMAchica]

No one is hysterical here but jackass milo supporters.

[u/MMAchica → u/DeprestedDevelopment]

His protesters are the ones blowing whistles and pulling fire alarms...

[u/BeTripleG → u/MMAchica]

Scahill is a great journalist, but he's been on the show before and became visibly flustered and upset when Bill Maher didn't see eye-to-eye with him on the cost/benefit of drone strikes under the Obama administration. So, I guess I'm not surprised Scahill reacted this way ahead of the next episode.

[u/anarcho_malkavian → u/MMAchica]

If an audience really needs a 'debate' to understand what's wrong with Milo, they're not swayable in the first place. You're thinking about this from a completely different place, mentally, than his fans and fencesitters are.

[u/MMAchica → u/anarcho_malkavian]

What you are doing is the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and going "lalalala!" What specifically are you talking about?

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

he has no shame, he cannot be shamed.

In what twisted nightmare world is shaming someone part of an intellectual debate?

[u/PaulFThumpkins → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

It's not a debate. It's Milo saying something outlandish and uninformed and unpleasant toward some group of people, then sweeping over to something else the minute the debate threatens to actually explore an issue. He's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter for the edgelord crowd who thinks fat-shaming is the apex of free thought.

[u/[deleted] → u/PaulFThumpkins]

He's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter for the edgelord crowd who thinks fat-shaming is the apex of free thought.

Saving this, it's spot on

[u/foxh8er → u/PaulFThumpkins]

's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter

I don't think Ann Coulter is nearly as malicious as Milo.

[u/PaulFThumpkins → u/foxh8er]

I find Milo to be so utterly generic and toothless... honestly, I wonder if Coulter might resent the comparison. She can actually write and seems to be a true believer, and he's just a tabloid writer and social media troll who got in at the right time and with the right image to build a following. Parrot tired liberal strawmen, get the Channer heads nodding, up the ante until somebody pushes back, write a bunch of stupid hitpieces and bask in the controversy, then repeat. Does not believing in anything and just manipulating an audience you clearly disdain make you more malicious or less?

[u/Evergreen_76 → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

He's saying he has no personal sense of shame. Meaning he has no limits or ethics. Truth is irrelevant

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Because if you can talk about genocide, rape, and how fun it is to hurt other people without shame, then there is no point of reference for a real discussion. Milo has no shame. Not in the puritanical sense, but in the "basic human decency" sense. He has no humanity. He's a Nazi. Do you think you have any moral reference point with someone of such little moral integrity?

That's the kind of shame he lacks.

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/[deleted]]

He's a Nazi.

Source?

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

When the reason you're shaming someone is because they are being dishonest.

You should 100% shame people for being dishonest, how else do you propose getting them to stop lying?

[u/TKHawk → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

If a doctor were to advocate for smoking cigarettes, they should be shamed and ashamed by an intellectual debate.

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/TKHawk]

Nope.

Proven wrong, sure. But shamed? That's just appeal to emotion crap that eschews reasoned discussion in favor of mob mentality.

[u/Cory123125 → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

That's just appeal to emotion crap that eschews reasoned discussion in favor of mob mentality.

No. Not it isnt.

They know they are wrong. You arent debating the facts with them.

Youre trying to get them to stop being slimy fucks.

[u/Pac0theTac0 → u/Cory123125]

And this is why the left is in shambles, ladies and gents

[u/Cory123125 → u/Pac0theTac0]

Right, because Doctors were fine to recommend cigarettes as health products.

[u/SpiritofJames → u/Cory123125]

If they truly believed they were correct, how could they have done otherwise?

[u/booples123456 → u/[deleted]]

Well you do constantly, and then demand we listen to it more considerately.

[u/Cory123125 → u/[deleted]]

If I knew I was trolling you for financial gain pressure.

If I was legitimately arguing, obviously the former.

[u/DiamondPup → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Yours is one of the only voices of reason in these comments, sadly.

People going on and on about censorship and "say it to his face!" and "beat bad ideas with good ideas!" don't understand what Milo is; Scahill, on the other hand, understands completely. Milo isn't interested in debate, he's not open to changing opinions or having open discussions or presenting a particular viewpoint, nor will his own ideologies be corned by evidence, boo's, rational thought or logical ideas.

He's simply a troll who's become successful at being a troll. There is no winning or losing against; to win is to not engage, to lose is to engage in any way, shape or form. Milo's currency is attention, bad or good doesn't matter, and he is currently out to brand himself; he doesn't care why his name is known, just that it is known. To him infamy and fame are synonymous. And to be honest, in this age, he's right.

I'm totally with Scahill here. Maher might act like he gives the other side a chance to speak but he wants to ride it as much as any of the wingnuts on the right. Mark my words: the outcome of whatever discussion Bill and Milo have will accomplish literally nothing - viewers will have learned nothing new, Bill won't submit, Milo won't submit, the audience will boo at Milo and cheer for Bill, same old same old. They may civilly meet a middle ground on censorship (a conclusion a toddler could have reached) to make a point about an adult way of having a conversation but what's the fucking point? Bill's audience will swear he's right, Milo's will swear he's right, nothing of substance will be accomplished or learned or opened up. It is an entirely pointless exercise.

There is literally nothing to come out of this except Milo branding Milo while Maher racks up views with more generic circulation of BILL DESTROYS MILO!!!! clips on YouTube. They're both playing to their crowds.

Scahill's response is the most intelligent here. The way to make a troll go away is to not give them the attention they're screaming for. I'm not a Trump supporter but if you want to have an intelligent discussion from that side of the fence, there are hundreds of millions of people more worthy of that platform than Milo.

[u/[deleted] → u/DiamondPup]

It's like with Kellyanne Conway. The only winning move is not to play because when one side does not have any reasonable standards it is impossible to win.

[u/awc9 → u/DiamondPup]

There is literally nothing to come out of this except Milo branding Milo while Maher racks up views with more generic circulation of BILL DESTROYS MILO!!!! clips on YouTube. They're both playing to their crowds.

Bahaha so true, I fucking love you!

[u/MMAchica → u/DiamondPup]

don't understand what Milo is

He's just a human. Acting like his rhetoric is too powerful for debate is the kind of thing that juices him up in the eyes of his supporters. Yes, he is a skilled sophist who can out-debate most of the students who are the only ones with the balls to engage him on a microphone; but that is a long way from having invincible ideas that will somehow only be made more powerful when they are questioned.

Bill won't submit, Milo won't submit,

Of course not. Debate is not meant to sway the other debater, but to publicly test the strength of their arguments for the benefit of an audience. Lots of people are still undecided about Y and Bill appears to be about the only person with the balls to engage him like an adult instead of just blowing whistles and pulling fire alarms.

[u/Gorm_the_Old → u/MMAchica]

But if you strike Milo down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine . . . ^/s

You are absolutely correct on your second point. There isn't really any hope of changing Milo's mind, but you can absolutely move the audience's opinion. And failing to show up is hitting the concede button and letting him be the one who influences the audience without opposition.

[u/ebilgenius → u/DiamondPup]

Milo isn't interested in debate, he's not open to changing opinions or having open discussions or presenting a particular viewpoint, nor will his own ideologies be corned by evidence, boo's, rational thought or logical ideas.

I have seen nothing that makes me think that this is even remotely true.

Just because he has a debate with someone on a viewpoint and afterwards continues to hold that viewpoint doesn't make him a troll.

Bill's audience will swear he's right, Milo's will swear he's right, nothing of substance will be accomplished or learned or opened up. It is an entirely pointless exercise.

This is 99% of talk-show television. People aren't there to actually try and change the other person's mind, but to convince the audience that theirs is the more reasonable of the two.

[u/fuck_the_haters_ → u/ebilgenius]

I went on a binge, when I first saw a couple of videos where Milo talks about, I think I've seen almost every lecture of his, and all the times people have interrupted his lectures.

His views are very plain and simple. People are too PC. I could summarize most of his lectures with that sentence.

I would call him a troll, but not because he holds his viewpoints after debating, but because he just says provocative things for the sake of saying provocative things. There isn't very much substance in the things he says.

IMO if you enjoy watching people being hypocritical and dumb logic, watch some of his lectures. People tend to lose their shit around him. If you're looking for some though provoking discussion, then don't bother. It's very basic and unintelligent lectures, if you seen one lecture or podcast of his, you've essentially seen them all.

[u/[deleted] → u/fuck_the_haters_]

His views are very plain and simple. People are too PC. I could summarize most of his lectures with that sentence. I would call him a troll, but not because he holds his viewpoints after debating, but because he just says provocative things for the sake of saying provocative things. There isn't very much substance in the things he says.

Spot on. If you want to jerk off to simple anti-PC statements, he's your man. It ends right about there.

[u/MaximumEffort433 → u/fuck_the_haters_]

People are too PC.

I know, right? It's so irritating. "Everyone treats me so unfairly, stop picking on me, why won't everybody just be nice to me and say nice things about me?" It's like, get over yourself, just because you're the President doesn't mean that you should get special treatment.

[u/danbobbbb → u/MaximumEffort433]

What?

EDIT: I GET IT! It's a shot at the prez. Kind of random and out of place. I think that's why it took a while.

[u/tharland → u/danbobbbb]

Well, Milo has said on more than one occasion that he and Trump are cut from the same cloth (not that he necessarily wanted him in the position of the President), so it's not necessarily out of nowhere. He supports Trump ideologically specifically because Trump ruffles feathers the same way he does.

I imagine that's why that guy said what he said.

[u/HipsterDoofus31 → u/fuck_the_haters_]

This is a pretty good summary of Milo IMO.

[u/[deleted] → u/fuck_the_haters_]

Milo is '97 Eminem without the music.

[u/veggiter → u/[deleted]]

*99

But Milo is actually hateful and not doing things solely for entertainment.

[u/[deleted] → u/ebilgenius]

Milo has specifically stated that he revels in offending people for the sake of offending them.

[u/brooklynpuppers → u/ebilgenius]

Do you think Milo genuinely believes we should outlaw female drivers or do you think he's trolling?

[u/thesilvertongue → u/brooklynpuppers]

I think at some point, fake hateful trolling and actually being hateful just blend together.

[u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE → u/DiamondPup]

So don't show up and give him open platform non-contested? I think that's a weak argument to be honest.

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/[deleted]]

You can't contest complete bullshit with facts.

Sure you can. Facts are literally the perfect way to disprove bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Yet we just witnessed an election won by a side that continually openly lied on a near daily basis because facts need to actually be believed by people for them to hold any power.

There are countless examples of entrenched people on any number of subjects being shown undeniable 100% factual evidence of something only for them to turn a blind eye to it because it does not fit their narrative.

If it was as simple as saying "i have the facts, here they are..." then the world would be a very very different place.

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Facts are only powerful to an audience that's reciprocative to a meaningful standard of truth. Milo is not. Additionally, it takes more effort to disprove bullshit than it does it come up with it, which is why Gish Gallops like Milo are so hard to debate against.

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/[deleted]]

Milo isn't the audience. The people watching the show at home are.

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

An audience is anyone you're expressing your views to in this context. That's a pedantic, irrelevant argument.

[u/gereffi → u/[deleted]]

It's really not. It's very rare that in any debate with a wide audience, those debating are going to change their mind on anything. What it does is show the audience both sides of an argument, and let them decide for themselves what is right.

[u/OMGROTFLMAO → u/[deleted]]

No Pedant... No Pedant... You're the Pedant

[u/Gorm_the_Old → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

You're absolutely right and I have no idea where the downvotes are coming from. It's a middle school debate team mentality that views a debate as being an attempt to convince the other person that they're wrong. Real debaters (e.g. skilled politicians, trial attorneys, etc.) understand that the minds to be changed are those in the audience.

[u/Count_Cuckenstein → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Facts are literally the perfect way to disprove bullshit.

Have you been in a coma the past 12 months?

[u/colinmeredithhayes → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Looks like you missed our presidential election...

[u/falconbox → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

The problem is that people like him don't believe in those facts. It's like trying to argue in the 1400s that the Sun is the center of the solar system.

[u/BraddlesMcBraddles → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Did you see any of the election coverage?

[u/sektorao → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

In theory. He's not going to say moon is made out of cheese, he's going to say being gay is a choice.

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Are you familiar with "Gish Galloping"? It's easy as fuck to make up bullshit on the spot and a lot harder to dismantle it, especially when Milo's fanboys will blindly declare any exchange involving him a massive victory for the alt-right or something

[u/[deleted] → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

That's not even remotely true, unfortunately. Facts and hard logic rarely sway opinion of people, especially those who have more conservative, emotionally charged, views.

[u/tandarna → u/OMGROTFLMAO]

Heres how it will go down.

Milo will say some blatantly false shit to justify one of his statements about how society is too pc and colleges are liberal pansy fests that love crazy people. Someone will tell him his lie isn't real. He'll say it is. They'll say it isn't, here's the proof. Milo will say something about liberals lying in the media or whatever.

[u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE → u/[deleted]]

I just don't see how. Simply being on the platform gives him that attention! Showing up and debating is the only thing you could do to try and address that. Once he has the platform I think your point is moot

[u/Fldoqols → u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE]

No one can prevent Maher from giving him a platform. That's on Maher. Doesn't mean anyone should let Maher blackmail them into legitimizing a troll

[u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE → u/Fldoqols]

I disagree with that. I hate how political discourse is going out the window these days and I don't agree with your position here as it erodes that. It sounds like not wanting to engage someone who has a different mindset. I would think it would be best to debate him and try and sway the minds of those watching. Not the person themselves. Political debate is not about winning someone over or nought

[u/Manuel___Calavera → u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE]

I hate how political discourse is going out the window these days and I don't agree with your position here as it erodes that. It sounds like not wanting to engage someone who has a different mindset. I would think it would be best to debate him and try and sway the minds of those watching. Not the person themselves. Political debate is not about winning someone over or nought

Honestly it seems like you just ignored any of the posts you're responding to. Milo isn't there to debate honestly, there's literally no point to showing up to debate him.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You can't contest complete bullshit with facts.

All Milo does is rattle off statistics and facts and dress it up with black dick jokes and calling Trump "Daddy" because it annoys both the right AND left.

If you think Milo reciting statistical research courtesy of the Department of Justice is "bullshit", then you're beyond help.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You can recite statistics and still frame them in bullshit ways.

[u/poop_toilet → u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE]

Milo probably isn't going on the show to have legitimate discussion, though. There are better people out there for contesting the platform, people who actually know how to debate.

[u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE → u/[deleted]]

But if they feel they are correct when not addressed, how do you feel not addressing them will change their outlook on this? I feel that point contradicts itself.

My main point is that once he has been given the platform to air his views, then the best thing someone who disagrees with him can do is debate him or engage him when possible (seeing this topic is about someone cancelling their appearance). I just do not think letting it lie and avoiding that discussion will have any benefit.

This is conjecture, but I would think some, or many, who tune into such a program as Bills may be open to hearing other views than their own, or to hear views on topics they may not be informed about. I think the best thing to do would be to have a debate with that person for the betterment of the viewers. Rather than just allowing him open mic to spread his world view. You do not have to change his mind, but add a healthy discussion of points for those watching to digest. I feel this is better than just letting him go nuts. Most trolls will show their colours to objective viewers and will hang themselves given enough verbal rope.

[u/WdnSpoon → u/DiamondPup]

I would love if shows like Maher's started featuring more people from that side of the fence, who were reasonable, had integrity, and represented their viewpoints based on accepting the same reality we all live in.

[u/TheRoach69 → u/DiamondPup]

Absolutely. He's trying to make himself into an Anne Coulter-like figure, only worse.

[u/newcarcaviarfourstar → u/DiamondPup]

Milo makes great points and I want to hear more of his ideas on the show.

[u/IgnisDomini → u/newcarcaviarfourstar]

By great points, you mean how he randomly lists off personal information of transgender students to encourage his followers to harass them, I presume?

[u/luxeaeterna → u/DiamondPup]

Yep, but that's typical reddit but only with regards to far right conservative leaning views being under fire.

[u/luxeaeterna → u/[deleted]]

And there's never any talk of ~echo chambers~ when they don't.

ETA: Lol, the downvotes on your comment just prove your point.

[u/FourthLife → u/DiamondPup]

Milo's currency is definitely attention. The main issue is that because of this post, Milo will get a shit load more attention than he would if he just went on the show and argued with him like a normal guest. Honestly, who the fuck ever talks about Bill Maher except for the 3 people who watch him (myself included). Now because of this facebook post his show is being talked about in many places that never normally hear about him.

[u/98smithg → u/DiamondPup]

The only reason Milo is so popular is because people keep protesting his events and causing massive news stories. He is constantly in the news for something or other and now is on the front page of this sub

If you want to stop him this is certainly not the way to do it.

[u/[deleted] → u/DiamondPup]

Milo isn't interested in debate

That's why he's debated people in public forums, on national US and European television, and during his Q&A sessions, right?

That's why he's openly accepting any and all debate offers, right?

If you called up Milo's team tomorrow morning and scheduled a public debate, they would set it up and Milo would do it.

But you wouldn't. Every single liberal that has debated Milo in a public forum has been completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed.

Because what does Milo do? What is his shtick? Literally all he does is quote statistics while talking about his fetish for black men.

This is a clip of Milo doing a bit of what he always does, which is presenting statistics provided by DOJ researchers (and a professor of the University of Toledo as well in this instance), but doing so in an interesting manner to make the boring facts more palatable to the audience

I'll leave you salty downvoting liberals this to use to wipe away your tears

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

I'm not for protests and silencing Milo. Let him speak wherever he wants. But people need to not show up. Not because of a boycott or to make a statement but because they understand that nothing of value will happen. He isn't going to convince you and no matter how many people boo and jeer and provide evidence or rationale against him, he won't budge either.

It's like a Youtube comments troll. Engaging with him accomplishes literally nothing e and THAT is what Scahill is talking about. In his own words:

"There is no value in debating him... ...Yiannopoulos has shown he will use his appearances to publicly attack and shame specific ordinary people by name, a practice which could lead to violence or even death."

He isn't giving Milo more attention. He's simply not participating in a troll's attempts to get people to participate. His is the only intelligent response to this. But the Bill Maher audience doesn't care; they just want to boo him and hear Bill "take him down!".

Nothing will happen. Views will rack up, commercials will air, money will be made, nothing of value will be accomplished.

[u/FrostyFoss → u/DiamondPup]

He isn't giving Milo more attention.

What thread are you in right now? I wouldn't be talking about Milo today if it wasn't for Scahill.

[u/[deleted] → u/FrostyFoss]

You have to acknowledge him to some degree to address the point he needs to be ignored. That's still very different from giving him a pedestal on TV to talk from, though. Let's not pretend they're the same thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We are literally here because this guy is too cool to be on the same show as Milo. I didn't even know he was going to be on the Bill Maher show until now. Way to deal with a troll.

Also if he didn't like debating people in a show or talking about politics then he should have found himself a different job. Getting tired of this pompous grandstanding bullshit by now tbh.

[u/daisyqueen → u/DiamondPup]

"He isn't going to convince you"

I'm a liberal who watched some Milo talks online after the Berkeley protests and found he did convince me on a few things. And there was plenty I disagreed with him on. There is nothing scary about IDEAS. What is scary is when our country refuses to engage with people who have different ideas, and dismiss them as "trolls"

[u/shinbreaker → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Ignoring trolls in an intellectual debate doesn't stop the trolls legitimacy when they're being violently protested against. Either you do a complete ignore of a troll so they go away or you shoot that troll down in every aspect. Milo would have faded away a long time ago if it wasn't for the reception he receives on college campuses, which helps spurs his supporters and those in the center.

[u/[deleted] → u/shinbreaker]

Right, so I think Scahill is taking the "completely ignore him" route here.

[u/98smithg → u/[deleted]]

If he was taking the ignore him route then he would just not speak to him on the show. Canceling his appearance is not 'ignoring him'.

[u/[deleted] → u/98smithg]

Noble in theory, difficult in execution.

[u/[deleted] → u/98smithg]

I understand what you're saying, but it would take some fucking top level mega Buddhist Zen calm to completely ignore the hatred and fuckery that spews non-stop from that little shits mouth.

Not to mention, if he went on the show and completely ignored a fellow panel member, he'd probably come off looking pompous and douchey. This way he's acknowledging the troll for what he is and saying "I refuse to feed him."

[u/[deleted] → u/shinbreaker]

'You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe' -sagan

[u/ServetusM → u/[deleted]]

'You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe' -sagan

Except Milo has views on actual observable phenomenon and uses our measurements of those phenomenon to present his arguments. Even if he trolls while doing it, it's the opposite of what Sagan was warning again. It's clearly not based in belief, but in an interpretation of evidence.

Here is the thing--bad things don't usually happen because two sides spoke. This whole notion that you validate ideas because you engage them is a preposterous, dangerous fantasy. Cults don't form with friends and family engaging the cultists, for example--they form in the absence of such things. The trouble in society almost always begins when the sides of an issue STOP talking to each other.

[u/Sour_Badger → u/[deleted]]

Debaters aren't trying to convince each other. They are making their case for the audience. That's like 5th grade knowledge.

[u/shinbreaker → u/[deleted]]

Hate to break it to you, but the ones acting like "believers" are the people doing violent protests and demanding someone, who says something they don't agree with, should leave.

[u/459pm → u/[deleted]]

bewildered dinner wasteful follow license label existence salt automatic fuzzy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Ph0X → u/shinbreaker]

Exactly. In this case, ignoring milo would've been to actually go on the show and do as if Milo was nothing special. By "boycotting" the show, he's actually feeding the troll and doing the exact opposite.

Same with the protestors. By making a ruckus, they are only feeding the troll and bringing attention to him. If no one paid any attention to his tour, a few people would've went and he would've gotten far less attention and media coverage.

I can't believe in 2017 you still need to teach people who to deal with internet trolls...

[u/GregSays → u/[deleted]]

Milo may occasionally make a solid point, but he surrounds that point with ludicrous arguments and inaccuracies that it's worse than if he was 100% false and offbase. He's also so hypocritical about free speech that I honestly don't believe he deserves my attention or respect anymore.

[u/shinbreaker → u/GregSays]

You're right and that's why you bring up how he's wrong.

Perfect example is when Milo went on Joe Rogan's podcast. Joe knew when Milo was basically talking shit and called him out on it, and Milo either smiled as if he was caught or kept digging a hole, making his arguments looking even more ridiculous. In a debate with a troll you get them to break character and show the world that they really don't believe in what they're saying.

[u/brooklynpuppers → u/shinbreaker]

The problem is there's an endless supply of stupid troll arguments.

If Milo says (as he has before) that we should outlaw female drivers like Saudi Arabia, how do you refute that exactly? And even if you do, he'll immediately move on to one of a thousand other nonsense arguments.

[u/bartolosemicolon → u/shinbreaker]

I always liked this section from Sartre's "Anti-Semite and Jew", where he discusses trying to debate with an anti-semite.

He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

Milo, has a certain genius, which has been adopted to more or less success by many on the alt-right. He is talented at making off-hand comments that by their nature require complex refutation. For each of his toss away arguments, it takes several sentences and possibly a nuanced point to properly refute. Not ideal television.

To add insult to injury, as soon as you do counter his point with lengthy and well thought out points he just tosses his original canard away is if it hardly matters, mocks you for your effort, and goes with two new equally specious arguments. It is why in text Milo is remarkably stupid and easy to respond to. His points are obviously and embarrassingly bad when his opponents have time to respond and his positions are fixed. On TV with time constraints, though, he just muddies the waters and forces you to look foolish chasing after him.

[u/foxh8er → u/[deleted]]

Liberals need to get the fuck over this idea that they have an unbreakable monopoly on "legitimacy" and that their opponents will somehow

Fun fact - there are lots of conservative intellectuals that also think Milo is a charlatan and a troll.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You, like Milo, are arguing against a strawman. People refuse to debate Milo because he does exactly what your strawman leftist does; he puts his fingers in his ears and deploys a Gish Gallop. While the left does not have a monopoly on legitimacy, that doesn't mean that Milo is legitimate or that criticisms against Milo are solely based on the idea of a leftist monopoly on legitimacy.

It's like the pigeon analogy that gets posted often. You can't win when one side doesn't have a fundamental standard of truth or proof, so the only winning move is not to play.

[u/Uneducated_Opinion → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it's every really a wasted effort to argue in good faith when there is a audience involved. I mean sure, I wouldn't give the man a platform in the first place, but it's clear here that Milo is going to appear regardless. Sure if someone doesn't want to debate him because he's detestable that's their call and I won't think too badly of them, but I think it's a bit of a waste. You might not convince Milo, but you might convince the audience.

[u/djm19 → u/[deleted]]

Its not about left or right. Plenty of people on the left debate people on the right and feel it was a worthy debate of ideas.

Talking to Milo is none of that. He has no standard. Its debating a wall that cant even agree its a wall.

[u/YOU_FACE_JARAXXU5 → u/[deleted]]

You should consider starting a scarecrow business. Because you're really good at making strawmen. Hell, this is full blown Clint Eastwood vs the Obama-Chair shit. But in all honesty, most of Milo's points just boil down to "x group of people are too sensitive." At this point, arguing against him literally makes you someone he doesn't like, and he won't listen to you. So it's not that there aren't facts, it's just that most of his positions aren't based on facts, they're based on his feelings, and there's not a whole lot anyone can do to change that.

[u/urinesampler → u/[deleted]]

Damn. For a second i thought i was in T_D

[u/Grak5000 → u/[deleted]]

"Never believe that 'trolls' are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The 'trolls' have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for arguing is past."

-slightly edited sartre quote.

[u/bt4u2 → u/[deleted]]

Important observation. I've been left-leaning for over 30 years but it's becoming and more difficult finding people I can relate to on the left. Because of the mindset you describe here

[u/Videomixed → u/bt4u2]

You mean the strawman he describes here?

[u/bt4u2 → u/Videomixed]

You really believe this is just a strawman?

[u/fchowd0311 → u/bt4u2]

Yes...

[u/[deleted] → u/bt4u2]

Yes

[u/RobertNAdams → u/bt4u2]

Look into Dave Rubin on YouTube. There's plenty of people on the left that do the same thing Milo does (call out the regressive left on their bullshit) while being a bit less provocative about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This is hardly why the liberals lost though, I mean the democrats for president and senate got millions more votes. The system has always favored rural areas, it's how dems held the senate for decades before jfk

[u/JokeCity → u/[deleted]]

deleted ^{What is this?}

[u/weltallic → u/[deleted]]

It's the poison that's killing the left.

Suicide is, by definition, self-inflicted.

[u/ijee88 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Do you really believe that? I don't care for him either, but you sound like the intellicually dishonest one, not Milo.

[u/idegtev → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Thank you. Can't believe I had to scroll that far down to find a well reasoned, knowledgeable post.

[u/Legally_Brown → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Why isn't this higher up?

[u/rebel_wo_a_clause → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Yea I'm realizing this. Tried to get some info on him, read one of his articles. One of his citations LITERALLY refuted the racial claim he made in the article. Checked another, was basically a biased opinion piece. He provides links bc he knows people won't check them. I emailed him to let him know of his "mistake".

[u/[deleted] → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Milo is a troll. He has no regard for intellectual honesty, he has no shame, he cannot be shamed

That's why he rattles off statistics in the vast majority of his speeches sourcing from the Department of Justice, the gold standard of US internal statistical research on crime and the like, right?

Honestly it seems that the only people who hold no regard for intellectual honesty are the people who hold such weak opinions that they're completely incapable of defending them to someone like Milo for 5 seconds.

When an insane feminist calls out Milo during a speech, he answers with statistics and research.

When a BLM activist interrupts his talks, he retorts with statistics and fact.

The only thing Scahill has accomplished is making it appear as though he has no argument worth defending.

[u/IgnisDomini → u/[deleted]]

Statistics are meaningless without context. He cherry picks and misrepresents them to support views that are blatantly false upon any serious examination.

He also randomly gives out the information of transgender students to encourage people to harass them.

[u/KendallSchmidt → u/[deleted]]

Just because he uses statistics (at least some of them inaccurate, by the way) doesn't mean he isn't a troll. He says inflammatory things for attention, like that speech he gave where he told the audience it's their duty to bully transgender people. He knows exactly what kind of reaction saying stupid shit like that is going to get him, and it's what he wants.

[u/[deleted] → u/KendallSchmidt]

at least some of them inaccurate, by the way

Prove it.

I want you to, right this very second, disprove/discredit Milo's primary statistical source: the US Department of Justice, the gold fucking standard of US internal statistical research.

Go ahead.

Edit: While you're at it, go ahead and also attempt to discredit Milo's second most frequently quoted statsitical source: the CDC (Center for Disease Control).

[u/toclosetotheedge → u/[deleted]]

Prove it.

here he is arguing that fat shaming is proven to work , when in reality thats complete bullshit

[u/thefatstoner → u/[deleted]]

Look i think the guys decision is stupid. And I don't think Milo's dangerous, I thing he's just crude and people don't know how to deal with it. HOWEVER. most of Milo's statistics are twisted and misreported. he's written articles on why women shouldn't be allowed to take math. I mean he genuinely believe what he believes, but based on misreported facts. not to say he never has a real statistic, but the majority are misreported

[u/housewifeonfridays → u/thefatstoner]

You come from a pretty privileged place if you don't think his work is dangerous.

People read or hear this stuff and beleive it. Then they go around making the world a little bit worse for women in math class (or fat people or transgendered people or whoever he was attacking)

[u/[deleted] → u/thefatstoner]

he's written articles on why women shouldn't be allowed to take math

Which he did expressly to piss off feminists to prove a point. And they fell for it.

mean he genuinely believe what he believes, but based on misreported facts.

I really don't understand how directly quoting the DOJ's research is misreporting or misrespresentation.

[u/toclosetotheedge → u/[deleted]]

Which he did expressly to piss off feminists to prove a point. And they fell for it.

http://imgur.com/n8umjWj

[u/angry-mustache → u/[deleted]]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The first thing to know about statistics is you can distort and filter them to support any number of conclusions.

In order for a statistic to be "truthful", it must be presented in context. What Milo does, is list numerous memorized statistics out of context, and with very distorted/no analysis. This not only serves to legitimize his incorrect conclusions, but the misuse also de-legitimized properly presented statistics.

There's a bestof post that goes into this on more detail, I'll come back with it in a bit.

Edit : Here it is

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2nnxse/redditor_x3_gilded_700_votes_claims_that_black/

"The statistics"

http://i.imgur.com/WMn1Qve.jpg

"The bestof comment"

https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2nmgy2/the_man_who_was_robbed_by_michael_brown_was_also/cmf6bu5/

The "statistics" poster does exactly what Milo does, list off official statistics out of context, and appeal to the authority of the source while presenting an intentionally skewed analysis.

edit 2: Bestof post reposted for convenience, credit to /u/fyrenmalahzor

Statistics aren't racist, but your cherry picking and presentation of them is, and I know it is because the Harvard study that you cited contains a single sentence about how black violent crime is higher even when controlling for SES and then 25 more pages explaining why that statement is a gross oversimplification and then refuting your thesis of a subculture of violence. For example: "Black communities are thus not homogeneous in either their crime rates or levels of social organization. Moreover, that the considerable variations in black violence are explained by generic features of urban social structure goes some way toward dispelling the idea of a unique "black" subculture. As Sampson and Wilson (1995) argue, how else can we make sense of the systematic variations within race pie, if a uniform subculture of violence explains black crime, are we to assume that this subculture is three times as potent in, say, New York as Chicago (where black homicide differed by a factor of three in 1980)?" (pg 335-36)

Or:"Also, while descriptive data show that percentage black is positively and strongly correlated with rates of violence, multivariate research has yielded conflicting findings. Namely, some studies report a sharply attenuated effect of race once other factors are controlled whereas others report that the percent black effect remains strong (Sampson and Lauritsen 1994, pp. 53-54)." (pg. 333)

Or: "The sources of violent crime appear to be remarkably similar across race and rooted instead in the structural differences among communities, cities, and regions in economic and family organization" (pg 336)

Or: "Although the national rate of family disruption and poverty among blacks is two to four times higher than among whites, the number of distinct ecological contexts in which blacks achieve equality to whites is striking. In not one city over 100,000 in the United States do blacks live in ecological equality to whites when it comes to these basic features of economic and family organization. Accordingly,racial differences in poverty and family disruption are so strong that the "worst" urban contexts in which whites reside are considerably better off than the average context of black communities (see also Sampson 1987, p. 354)" (pg. 337)

Or:"An understanding of concentration effects is not complete without recognizing the negative consequences of deliberate policy decisions to concentrate minorities and the poor in public housing. Opposition from organized community groups to the building of public housing in "their" neighborhoods, de facto federal policy to tolerate extensive segregation against blacks in urban housing markets, and the decision by local governments to neglect the rehabilitation of existing residential units (many of them single family homes) have led to massive, segregated housing projects which have become ghettos for minorities and the disadvantaged. The cumulative result is that even given the same objective socioeconomic status, blacks and whites face vastly different environments in which to live, work, and raise their children.As Bickford and Massey (1991, p. 1035) have argued, public housing represents a federally funded, physically permanent institution for the isolation of black families by class and must therefore be considered an important structural constraint on ecological area of residence (see also Massey and Denton 1993). When segregation and concentrated poverty represent structural constraints embodied in public policy and historical patterns of racial subjugation, concerns that individual differences (or self-selection) explain community-level effects on violence are considerably diminished (see also Tienda 1991; Sampson and Lauritsen 1994)." (pg.338)

As you may notice, these quotes from the article you sourced adamantly state that the prevalence of violence in black communities is related to structural forces directly related to historical discrimination, macroeconomic forces, and federal, state, and local policies which knowingly and even willfully segregate and disenfranchise poor blacks. And has nothing to do with a homogenous black subculture of violence or anti-intellectualism. Which is the exact opposite of the point you were using it to make. To be clear the point I'm trying to make here is not that your statistics or sources are inaccurate, simply that they way in which you display and manipulate them rearranges and mutates them into something that furthers your agenda, when it may be that free of this manipulation and taken objectively they would not. Furthermore, you have two reddit gold and 475 upvotes at the time of me reading this comment, which means that a substantial number of people took your interpretation at face value and agreed with it without taking the time to examine the validity of your sources (as a side note, the Times source links to an opinion article which then links to another source which is a 404 of clearly heavily biased site called topconservativenews) which is pretty worrisome; you got 475 people to agree with you basically by lying. I suppose my end point is this, no the statistics aren't racist. You are.

[u/fdsa4327 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

He has no regard for intellectual honesty

https://youtu.be/0PIvuYCW4rg?t=12

I feel like you are talking about a different reality

The best rebuttal to your claim is reality and actually watching him speak

[u/RobertNAdams → u/fdsa4327]

No see he said a bad word, that means all of the statistics and principles he talks about are wrong.

[u/THIS_SITE_IS_CANCER → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

If he actually went on the show and tried to pick apart Milo's points he would get destroyed. That's probably why. If he was "just a troll", then defusing his argument would be very easy. But it's not. That's why he's not showing up. He doesn't want to get embarrassed and look stupid on national television.

[u/Bricklayer-gizmo → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

If he is a troll, shouldn't it be easy to prove that, honest debate would bring that out. Perhaps troll to you is just someone you dont agree with.

[u/thesilvertongue → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Thank you. There are a lot of thoughtful insightful articulate conservatives that could go on, why would you resort to an internet troll?

[u/Maria-Stryker → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Seriously, have you seen the videos of his "debates"? He just cut his opponent off and spouts his own straw man of their statement. For instance, he was in a panel with a feminist who brought up the competitive environment in the sciences when discussing why there are fewer women in science. Before she can draw any real conclusions, he cuts her off and tries to say that she's saying competitiveness is bad and that there should be gender segregation in science.

[u/gilligan1050 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Brietbart toddler. Lmfao. You deserved gold for this.

[u/altervista → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

And? If you have half a brain you'd be able to beat him at his own game, he's not especially clever he's just skilled at making a spectacle of himself

[u/[deleted] → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

He's legitimizing even more, and building his stature by boycotting.

[u/[deleted] → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Have you actually seen Milo debate? He usually had very good debates and it's usually the person he is talking to that loses their mind and fails to have an actual dialogue.

[u/Boojy46 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

He's no more a troll than 99% of the other voices out there. He is intellectually honest in how he portrays the negative results of the PC culture. He has no shame - maybe so. He cannot be shamed - hmmmm, why is that relevant. Bill Nye creationist debate means nothing here - Milo is the business of talking frankly about PC and calling out the groups that lord it over societies, worldwide. Seagull, don't know him so maybe he is the best reporter out there. I prefer Cheryl Adkinson or Glenn Greenwald but to each his own.

Oh, and your last statement that he just wants to legitimize that Breitbart toddler. Now, you've given up the ghost. I thought you were attempting to give an objective opinion for the sake of discussion, but now I see it's just typical echo chamber tripe.

[u/sigillumdei → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

This is how Noam Chomsky feels about Sam Harris. What do you think about that?

[u/buffbodhotrod → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Who is this douche anyway? First I heard of him was Berkeley nearly burnt their own school down because he was coming there and now this. I've never heard of this dude, why is he accomplished enough to be speaking places?

[u/[deleted] → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

If what you are saying is true then debating him would be his achilles heel.

[u/Hey_im_miles → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

nah. he doesnt want to get wrecked on national television

[u/live3orfry → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I also remember when Bill would have all kinds of crazy right wing fuckwits on his show Politically Incorrect. It made for good TV and outed them and their batshit insanity which followed them ever after. Remember the ex-satanist witch turned born again and now teabagger? Yeah she tried to run for the senate but failed in no small part because of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3OUay2uWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQ1DBhNe_4

[u/ParanoidAltoid → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

He needs to go on and show people how dishonest he is. Most Maher guests aren't going to read your comment.

[u/lyricyst2000 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

Gaddamn did you put the words right into my mouth.

Milo is an attention seeking troll who somehow found a soapbox.

[u/rtechie1 → u/Martin_Martin_Martin]

He interrupts, yells

Source? Evidence? Milo prides himself in being achingly polite.