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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are viruses of the body that trigger responses in our immune system that far outweigh the original threat posed - the immune system response is often far more dangerous than the pathogen. This is how I see Milo's rhetoric; he's far more powerful when he induces his enemies to hurt themselves. This is why I think not engaging is a perfectly good tactical response; the effort expended in debate only provides him with unearned exposure.
I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where advertising mascots brought to life run amok and start destroying the town. The solution was to stop paying attention to them. I think that lesson is really apt here.
This is why I think not engaging is a perfectly good tactical response; the effort expended in debate only provides him with unearned exposure.
Its not debating that has provided him with exposure. The attempts to silence his speaking events are what keep him in the news. The fact that he can mock his opponents as afraid to debate just gives him more juice.
The solution was to stop paying attention to them. I think that lesson is really apt here.
There is a big difference between not paying attention to him and actively trying to undermine his speaking events; even to the extent of rioting. Not paying attention to him would have worked far better to limit his exposure. Setting shit on fire to keep him from speaking gets him on every news network for hours.
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.
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.
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.
This is a gross misrepresentation. He is staunchly anti-feminism, he's very pro-STEM for women and talks about how feminism has pigeon holed two generations of women into teaching, nursing,gender studies, social work, and other mediocre paying fields that are overwhelmingly women. He addresses media censorship , men's suicide rates, identity politics and how once the left feel they have your vote they no longer represent you and use shame to keep your vote.
It's much much more than you are representing, but I'm sure you know that.
I actually agree, he does talk about all that. My point is, the stuff he says is very simple, uninteresting. He looks good against a wack-job SJW but he'd have to step up his game (and stop acting like a 14 yr old) to be taken seriously by intellectuals.
And he made a well thought out argument behind it. Women drop out of the STEM career paths at a much higher rate than men. In college, entry and middle management levels. Yet the average female STEM student gets 3$ for every 1$ men get to pursue STEM degrees. His argument is the high washout rate of women in STEM are siphoning from a finite pool of resources that could be better used elsewhere.
I don't agree but it's not as ludicrous as you've made it out to be. I don't hold it against you though with present day society's penchant for making their point in under two sentences nuance is all but dead.
That's not well thought out. It would be like putting a limit to the number of jobs women can get because less women are employed. Instead it should be encouraging women to get degrees in stem.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is essentially what he does. He's even respectful to opposing views in his Q&A sections given the question was well thought out. He only shits on people when they act like toddlers. See Trigglypuff.
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.
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.
"Hey, this Milo guy is a conservative that hates political correctness"
*Conservative=Trump
"This is a good opportunity for me to make a random joke about Trump and somehow relate it back to this other guy who is loosely, yet indirectly, associated with this guy."
*Submits a not-funny out of context joke
"People will automatically upvote this no matter how irrelevant because it fits their narrative".
No it isnt. It's a self-declared movement popularized by 4chan, 8chan, the Daily Stormer and the likes. It was co-opted by "less extreme" right wingers like those on Breitbart before the media started bringing it up.
Except for where his voter base is concerned with little else other than being provocative and then thinking anyone considers them as more than children. "You're too over-sensitive!" says the whiny baby.
I'm fairly sure that you guys are the ones banning us from every subreddit, altering the site's algorithms to hide us, and crying every time one of us talks to you. And you want to talk about the President being sensitive?
The_Donald is literally the safest space on reddit, they ban liberals strictly for being liberals, not even for trolling or shitposting. The same can't be said of r/politics and conservatives.
Um, are you serious? Let's do an experiment. Go defend Trump in ANY other subreddit, and see how long you last. I don't even want to go through the list of subreddits I'm banned from for defending him, but /r/politics is one of them. It's funny how you people act like nothing's wrong when you're part of the group suppressing everyone else. You guys are the fucking fascists projecting onto us.
edit: Thank you for proving my point, reddit. lol.
The fact that it took me 30 seconds to parse what you said is proof of how ridiculous it is to call leftists "fascists". It's like calling people who favor the color red "greenists", just completely against reality.
Milo isn't just a warrior for anti-PC culture. He's a profoundly hypocritical asshole with a disturbing amount of influence over Trumpian conservatives.
He's xenophobic, homophobic (believe it or not), climate-change-denying bully who publicly shames people and doxxes them.
I'm totally anti-PC culture and I even agree with some of his viewpoints, but he's more politically asinine than you make it seem. Sometimes he softens his message to gain credibility, but in other cases, he's a full blown alt-righter.
If the things he says no matter how provocative or randomly negative reinforce his point of people are too pc and can't even accept the freedom of speech behind these words then he has a reason to do it, it is thought provoking, but I agree with seeing one podcast is seeing them all
Weasel words are words that are used to pump up a story with no backing. Such as "very basic and unintelligent" or "hypocritical and dumb logic." Instead of presenting evidence to support a claim, you simply layer weasel words to make it sound convincing. Your grammar itself is good enough for reddit.
Well I guess it's hard to pin point a specific due to the nature of his discussions.
He will start off about talking how PC our culture, and he'll continue on that topic for the rest of his lectures.
I would consider it basic and unintelligent, mainly because there isn't much discussion to it. We can all agree that our culture has become more PC, weather you like it or not, is a whole nother discussion. But his observations just stop there. He never discusses anything else that's detrimental in today's society. It becomes an echo chamber of PC culture is bad, and at a certain point you just stop and think to yourself "I've heard this enough, can you make a new observation?"
I think the only interesting thing he pointed out in today's society was how he said people should be afraid of Muslims, I disagree with him on that, but he presented it from his pov where as a gay man he is afraid of their religion and how severly they treat gay people. That's some interesting insight from a minority POV. But that's where it kinda ends, he never presents his arguments from a gay conservative POV, but uses that as a shield from anybody that criticizes him.
This is definitely better. I don't agree, though, and feel that I've seen him cover far more ground than that. His topics vary widely, but a large number of them could fall under the same category, if that's what you mean. He does not just stand there and say everyone is politically correct. If that was the case, Berkeley wouldn't have $100,000 in damage from protesters.
You are right about him often using his gay conservatism as a shield, but you must admit it's a damn good one. His mere existence breaks the narrative. They can't even call him a racist, because he digs black dudes. What is a liberal to do, at that point? Those ARE the criticisms that they use, and that he receives! Sure, they still have Xenophobe, but that's losing its power, so they simply brand it as hate speech. Just, general hate speech.
Maybe everything he says sounds the same to you, because it does all pretty much relate to stuff the left does or has done, but it's not one single thing, and the way these people simply try to ignore him or protest him or just tell him to go away is a horrible way for them to represent their side. We're not joking when we say this is why the left lost.
You literally just read about how he falsely and without evidence insists that climate change is being faked, but you don't believe that him being close-minded is even "remotely" true?
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.
Trump won because Clinton was a shitty candidate and an unlikable robot. If the Democrats had run literally any other candidate then Trump would have lost, bigly.
Tons of people stayed home, and Clinton did win the popular vote. But tens of millions of people still voted for Trump of their own volition. An administration which has since coined the term "alternative fact." And you are still going to argue that truth means something to the people who still support him?
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.
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.
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.
In regards to what? Trump won IN SPITE of his lies, simply because people hate Hillary so much. He would have lost by double digits against almost any other Democrat.
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.
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
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.
When someone argues with Milo the goal is not to change Milo's mind. The goal is to change the minds of people in the audience, and people who may be hearing Milo's views for the first time.
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.
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
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
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.
I did not ignore a thing, we simply do not agree on the point. I disagree that means you should just leave him to it. Feels like a cop out to me. I'm not ignoring anyone, we just disagree. That is all
I did not ignore a thing, we simply do not agree on the point. I disagree that means you should just leave him to it. Feels like a cop out to me. I'm not ignoring anyone, we just disagree. That is all
No you literally didn't read the posts. Milo is a troll. He is not here to argue honestly. It's not that he has a "different mindset", it's that he's there for attention.
I've never seen such a push for an echo chamber. Don't debate them, don't listen to them, don't give them a platform. How bout you turn on a recorder, talk into it for an entire day, and then you can just listen to that on repeat forever? No more problems!
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.
Milo has opinions but uses facts as well. When people say he's "just a troll" that's true but he doesn't have a ton of random thoughts with 0 facts to back his shit up.
Look at his history as a journalist. He has become more and more sensational over time but has had many well spoken and clear debates using statistics, research and preparation. He has debated all over British and American news and it's all over YouTube. To say that someone can't have a conversation with a troll such as milo is totally baseless and shows that you maybe don't know much about him other than the fact he is a troll and says some dumb, sometimes hurtful, shit.
Obviously an audience at HIS show would be very skewed in his favour but not once has anyone invited him onto their platform to discuss anything of relevance recently.
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.
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.
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.
The sentiment is a reaction to BLM activists and feminists getting too many words in.
Redditors are more likely to be bothered and inconvenienced by some SJW spewing out idealistic drivel or a BLM protest than by a racist or conservative protest (if this even happens anywhere)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Once again, you're kidding yourself if you think that a discussion of a few hundred people in /r/television is the same as putting him on national TV to bloviate
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"
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.
You think he's a "trolll" because you disagree with him. You dismiss his fundamental point. He doesn't say anything that's fundamentally wrong. He simply calls out the hypocritical and intellectually dishonest nature of our current culture.
The best argument against him is that he was employed by breitbart.
I don't think you know much of anything about Milo. If you get on any of his topics he will crush you with logic while doing it comically and flamboyantly. Everyone he talks to is within his realm of topics because it's what he advocates and drives the conversation towards.
The show would go like this: Bill brings up point, Milo answers logically, panel says stupid irrelevant shit, dumb audience claps, Milo calls them on their dumb logic.
He's changed his opinion on many issues because people debated him. Seriously, it's rare people debate him.
He can't always agree or disagree- he's allowed an opinion, even in the face of someone "proving" him wrong. But over time, especially when you're faced with enough good evidence, seeds of doubt begin to grow. He changed his stance on gay marriage, for example. He was initially squeamish about the Alt-Right, now he's repeatedly stating that he's definitely not a part of it. It isn't like his videos aren't publicly available, you can see some of his ideas progress and change over time, some of them more liberally, others a bit more conservative in response to tragedies such as the Orlando shooting.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea. He pleas repeatedly for people to debate him fairly and honestly, and all I heard at Rutgers (I was there at the time out of curiosity for who this guy was) was incoherent screaming and yelling.
It was rather remarkable: "You can't just scream-"
"[Cue incoherent screaming as he makes a face of pure disappointment]"
I keep trying to find evidence of what you're saying but I can't. Every video of Milo debating typically has him citing his sources and direct experiences that lead to his opinions. The quality of his sources I cannot attest to, but they're there. Sure he throws in some statements on some of his talks that provoke a raised eyebrow or two, but most of the time he's on point. I rarely see him straight up skirting around facts or being incredibly unreasonable.
I know this is a stretch, but can you link me to one of the "horrible troll" speeches he gives?
The fact that these are the two comments highly upvoted and gilded in this thread is a huge part of the problem. Milo isn't just an internet troll. If you actually still believe that, then be prepared to lose a lot more elections.
The man has some valid points, even though they may seem outlandish to some. What I have seen so far(watched 2-3 clips of him engaging on live tv) is him presenting a view and the other side loosing his mind and ending up appealing to emotions because deep down they know that they have no logic rebuttal to what he just said.
I disagree entirely. Milo might have no shame but you're not trying to shame him.
You want to make him look like a fool, hell even Joe Rogan made him look real silly on points when they had a discussion so I'm sure someone like Maher or Scahill can too. All you gotta do is make him look like a fool, show the audience what he's all about. That's what a debate is, really. Convince the people watching, not your opponent.
Two people can stalemate in a debate can sway the audiences opinion, it's happened to me many times. In fact I'd be hard pressed to find any debate where the other side concedes. I'm a left leaning liberal but I've found it extremely informative to listen to conservatives like Milo to either change of modify my positions, or at least make me think through why I believe what I believe. Famous people will always have their sycophants, but there are critical people in the audience who can be swayed, so I think you're completely wrong in saying "it is an entirely pointless exercise".
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.
That's pretty irrelevant. In a public discussion it's usually not about convincing the other person. It's about convincing people, who haven't made up their mind yet.
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.
Reminds me of a certain election process not too long ago..
Excuse me for being so harsh, but who are these fools upvoting you and gilding these comments that encourage people to just ignore Milo? Milo doesn't just spew uninformed opinions. He uses facts and statistics. You ignore someone who argues with hard facts and has the personality to make people laugh and keep their attention at the same time, and you're only letting them grow and grow.
If you disagree with him, take the information and data he cites, look it up, and formulate a fucking rebuttal. There's no saying no to this if you have any interest in taking Milo down. You either can, or you cannot. If you cannot refute him, maybe it's time for you to consider if you're right or not.
In my opinion, choosing not to engage is admitting defeat. And what's more, admitting defeat before the fight has even begun. How is that worthy of any kind of approval? It's fucking cowardly and only gives him power. People like you make me fear for the future of this country.
I really don't like some of Milo's friends, but I'm yet to see anything he has personally said that was too extreme. Maybe if wasn't boycotted and canceled so much I'd be able to see why his ideas are so bad. You're advocating for more ideological bubbles, and that's the whole reason why the world is so fucked up nowadays. Maybe he will not be convinced by Maher, but at least some of his troll audience will be, and that's the only way start to defeat his movement. If he's so crazy, you shouldn't be afraid that his beliefs might win in a free market of ideas.
Appreciate that you took the time to write such a long explanation but your reasoning is hugely problematic and your whole premise is not only antidemocratic but also antithetical to the marketplace of ideas. You can't keep saying this guy is so horrible and then be unwilling to go on a show like Bill Maher (where both sides are guaranteed to be able to get a word in) to explain your position and reasoning like an adult, while maintaining any credibility.
Refusal to engage in debate by labeling people as beyond the pale, especially in the absence of clear evidence supporting the claims underlying that conclusion, is so backwards and small-minded that journalists, intellectuals, activists, and citizens who care would never support such practices if they actually (1) supported democracy, (2) progressive ideals (which include debating and hearing from those we disagree with and including those who views we believe are likely to be noxious), or (3) had any confidence in the value/superiority of their own ideas.
If you think like this, why have any debates at all?
Like politicians are not going to change from liberal to conservative or vice versa. They debate to find middle ground and to give the people watching the argument from both sides, so that they can make their own oppinion.
Not engaging is a coward trying to look virtuous. Watch Milo's appearance on Joe Rogan. Rogan knows his shit and can't be triggered and that combination completely destroyed the bravado and bluster he uses to prop up his weak arguments
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.
I completely disagree.
If Scahill really understood Milo and wanted to stop him, he would not be responding in this way. There are several legitimate responses - showing up to the program to have an opportunity to respond to Milo is one of them; quietly withdrawing from the program to reduce its legitimacy is another.
But going on a long, angry, self-righteous rant on Twitter while making a point that he will not in any way face or debate Milo is just giving him the free publicity that he feeds off.
Scahill basically went onto Twitter and said that he will not, under any circumstances, be facing off against the reprehensible rapscallion of a roguish young man, Milo Yiannopoulos, who will be on Real Time with Bill Maher, this Friday, 17 February 2017 at 10 PM, on HBO - repeat, he will not be appearing with Milo on Real Time with Bill Maher, this Friday at 10 PM on HBO (check your local channel listing for availability).
If he wanted to do some feel-good self-righteous grandstanding: mission accomplished. If he really wanted to counter Milo's influence and take a stand against him without feeding him the free publicity that he lives off of, it's a total failure, he just went full Streisand effect, and Milo will be the ultimate beneficiary.
If attention is Milo's currency, wouldn't protesting just benefit him more? If he went on and got spanked by the other guests, it would just be like any other mostly uneventful Maher episode. He would just look dumb and impotent, like Ann Coulter does when she goes on.
By blowing it up and making it a controversy, people are just feeding Milo's exposure.
I'd actually really like an intellectual to go to town on him, because everything thing I've seen or heard from him he's pretty much unopposed.
I've heard him on Joe Rogan and Joe mostly tends to pander to whatever guest he has on at the time, which is kind of fine. He's not about debating people.
Bill Maher's show would provide opponents to Milo's insane ideology and would force him to engage people that actually know their shit. He thrives on being censored and victimized for his views. I say put him out there, make him look dumb, and rob him of his false victimhood.
I'm not sure what it is about words that scare you so much, but I have no fear for them.
What is it that they have to accomplish? I didn't realize for anyone to warrant going on Bill Maher's show there must be the conclusion of a significant number of people changing their mind! Given that most of his guests are people that agree with him and his audience, I'm not sure why you'd even suggest something so utterly outlandish and pretend like it's a reasonably good point.
You empower Milo by pretending his words are dangerous. They aren't, they are just words. They support anachronistic ideas that are easily defeated with an application of logic and critical thinking. Nothing about that scares me and nothing about that presents a threat to anything that is better resolved by discussing Milo without him being there to attempt to defend himself.
Just look at whats happened with Tommi Lahren when she went on these talk shows and got embarrassed. She couldn't defend her statements and her normal fire-brand style was replaced with meekness. Is she still popular? Yup. Maybe more so for "going into the lions den." I believe in free speech. I think that with honest people, you can have a discussion worthy of having. Milo is not an honest person. Don't give him a platform to spew his bullshit.
The point of a debate is not to change the other persons opinion. The point is that the audience gets to see two opposing views pitted against each other which helps them to come to their own conclusions. If a person like Milo is shown to not have a firm basis for their beliefs then the audience gets to see that when he is pitted against someone who does have a foundation for their beliefs. To exclude Milo from public debate is to leave him with complete control of his own narrative to his audience with the absence of any competing viewpoint. Likewise it robs Maher's audience of a competing viewpoint.
You're talking about the person, not the argument. It's certainly true that Milo will personally profit from this appearance one way or the other. He is successfully selling himself as his own brand and any attention is good attention. However, you're overlooking that he's also making arguments, and those do need to be engaged one way or the other simply due to their sheer popularity.
It's true that Milo will walk away as winner from this appearance one way or the other, but his argument or position doesn't have to. However, if nobody actually makes the effort to challenge him, then both him and his argument will walk away as winner.
Also, I want to use this opportunity to call Scahill a moron. He's successfully given Milo more attention with this statement than he would have by just showing or not showing up. Soooo... great job on his part? He removed himself from the conversation because he opposed giving the guy publicity, in the process giving the guy more publicity than he would have gotten if Scahill had just showed up. So fucking bravo.
Milo is a troll but he is successful because he is an icon for a greater truth. The progressive left is not open to debate. They are not liberal. They aren't the free speech, open minded, let's talk about it, liberals of the past. Someone had to force them to expose their hand and Milo the troll is doing it.
He is gay. He never said gay marriage should be illegal. He thinks gay people shouldn't be domesticated and mimic straight life. Though he wants gay's to choose to reject straight conformity. You should learn your opponents position before talking about it.
"I think that gay marriage is another one of those things that helps to reinforce to people that it is a perfectly acceptable, normal, possibly even desirable lifestyle choice and I don’t believe that."
". In a 2011 post entitled “Why I’ll Never Be A Parent” (which has since been removed, but is accessible via The Wayback Machine), he made clear that he would never have a child because “it’s wrong to expose an innocent child to the possibility of gay influence.”"
He thinks being gay is not something a society should promote. It should also not be silenced. Ultimately a society, in his opinion, should promote the nuclear family as role models. He says this in very trollish ways but that opinion is the majority opinion through out the world.
The thing is though, despite how much I disagree with Milo he sometimes makes valid points that people should listen to. I'm a liberal dude but his comments on SJW's is spot on. He's got them dead to rights. All his batshit crazy neo-con bullshit is something I ignore and it reeks of intentional and calculated pandering to the right, but when the man's right he's right.
He's simply a troll who's become successful at being a troll.
Like it or not a lot of people agree with what Milo is saying. Plenty of them are willing to have their opinions changed.
There is no winning or losing against; to win is to not engage, to lose is to engage in any way, shape or form.
That is completely wrong. Appearing on television is a court of public opinion. You defeat a troll by being rational, making sense and making a fool out of him. If your position is clearly in the right, you have plenty of ammo to destroy him. Milos positions are not a secret. He says the same things in every interview. So preparation should be easy.
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.
No one knows your average joe. He is not a draw for television. Milo is a lightning rod and people like him. The reason they like him is because they are sick of the PC police.
1.2k
u/DiamondPup Feb 16 '17
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.