Milo Yiannopoulos in Dublin

Waestrel

For those of you who might be aware of him, his website says he is talking in UCD soon

http://yiannopoulos.net/tour/

Yet i can find no info on it, has anyone heard any further details?

The man is a hopeless narcissist and a bit of a troll, but I do find him entertaining and would like to see him

Waestrel

this is tomorrow - anyone know?

robp

Milo is a legend. Wish I had been there.

discus

Great man for espousing free speech. He doesn't back down from any debate, and even his rivals - who despise a lot of what he says - back him up on his free-speech, anti-censorship stance.

Wibbs

Waestrel wrote: »

The man is a hopeless narcissist and a bit of a troll

That would be my take on him. Like you I find him entertaining at times and he's clearly extremely bright, but he does wonders for clicks I'd imagine. It says much for that bit of the media and wider society that against the shrill harpies of the third wave this is the guy who's set against them. Measured debate is fading fast.

discus wrote: »

even his rivals - who despise a lot of what he says - back him up on his free-speech, anti-censorship stance.

Actually - and this is the scary part - many of them don't. Many of them are calling for far tighter controls on what someone can say on the interwebs. I'm not talking about actual cyber bullying etc(Milo's take that the victims can just walk away from it is moronic). The range of what is considered "OK" should be narrowing according to them. To the point of any opposing position that goes against their script is bad speak.

Waestrel

Bit similar to the goings on with Roosh lately, if you know who he is. He is more distasteful perhaps, but still a champion of freedom of speech

ancapailldorcha

Waestrel wrote: »

Bit similar to the goings on with Roosh lately, if you know who he is. He is more distasteful perhaps, but still a champion of freedom of speech

He's not championing free speech, he's just irritated that his seminars, and his income from them have been cancelled. I don't agree with censorship of any form as it strengthens the narrative if idiots like this.

Penn

The first thing to come to mind whenever I hear about Milo complaining about free speech or censorship:

Manach

Only read the occasional pieces from him and has some interesting work. Rather marmite, love / hate , but some of his utterances about Twitter given especially their recent embrace of effectively speech codes will gain him a wider audience.

tritium

Penn wrote: »

The first thing to come to mind whenever I hear about Milo complaining about free speech or censorship:

That cartoon would be very true if it weren't for the internet and its ability to bring a wide range of rent a mob lunatics together in a way that makes them look like some kind of meaningful group instead of a collection of cazy radical hermits who keep in touch to support each others extreme views. Works for all sides by the way, whether its Roosh's meetups, rad fems protesting Warren Farrell or the huge number of signatures for online petitions from people who five minutes earlier knew nothing on a particular subject

Wibbs

tritium wrote: »

Works for all sides by the way

+1 one. That very cartoon though usually used as illustration by "liberals" could be used by their diametric opposite too. Indeed the aforementioned Roosh douche(see what I did there) has a forum and I've seen that very pic posted on it. IIRC just after a guy got banned. One man's arsehole is another's righteous dude and vice versa.

In both cases it's all too often an attempt to keep whatever echo chamber is your poison free from off script notions. There is also all too often a self awareness bypass on both sides of the house, from radical rainbows to radical redpillers.

Thankfully in life most people are centrists, what ever you're having yourself types. "Purple pillers" as it were. Certainly in Ireland anyway(and I've found in Western Europe in general). In the US where pretty much all this opposing nonsense sprang from it's less the case, or at least the minority on both sides seems larger. Not by much mind you.

It's at its highest concentration on the interwebs and the media and often they just whinge at each other across the wires. Harpies gonna harp. EG when that Roosh clickbait site first published the "legalise rape" article, the other side went ballistic in their attempts to scream the house down(ditto for the "only date anorexics" nonsense). Outlets like Jezebel had a near meltdown of breast beating. Yet the same Jezebel took many months to report on the actual mass gang rapes in Rotherham and even then it was a short article. They weren't alone in being blind to that.

When the scientist chap got hauled over the coals about a bloody shirt(designed and made by his friend, a woman) by more online harpies, to the point where the poor bastard had to break down on TV in contrition, yet go back and try to find a single article written by these "writers" about the many women scientists on the project that made that happen. Good luck with that.

Does Milo spin bullshít? Yes. However he's just adding a bucketful of bullshít to the oceans of it we're all exposed to on a daily basis.



Oh and we don't have "free speech" in Ireland. That's how bought into this US guff people often are. Our "1st amendment" is something to do with emergency powers the state holds in war.

Maguined

Wibbs wrote: »

Does Milo spin bullshít? Yes. However he's just adding a bucketful of bullshít to the oceans of it we're all exposed to on a daily basis.

He does it in entertaining style though. :pac:

robp

Penn wrote: »

The first thing to come to mind whenever I hear about Milo complaining about free speech or censorship:

People loosing their jobs, people being banned from giving talks or having their honours withdrawn are violations of free speech. The most extreme forms involving violence are accepted in our country too. Look what happened in Dublin at the Pegida march. Demonstrators were assaulted before even joining the anti-immigration march. It is a sad state of affairs when progressive campaigners adopt classic fascist tactics.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 one. That very cartoon though usually used as illustration by "liberals" could be used by their diametric opposite too. Indeed the aforementioned Roosh douche(see what I did there) has a forum and I've seen that very pic posted on it. IIRC just after a guy got banned. One man's arsehole is another's righteous dude and vice versa.

In both cases it's all too often an attempt to keep whatever echo chamber is your poison free from off script notions. There is also all too often a self awareness bypass on both sides of the house, from radical rainbows to radical redpillers.

Thankfully in life most people are centrists, what ever you're having yourself types. "Purple pillers" as it were. Certainly in Ireland anyway(and I've found in Western Europe in general). In the US where pretty much all this opposing nonsense sprang from it's less the case, or at least the minority on both sides seems larger. Not by much mind you.

It's at its highest concentration on the interwebs and the media and often they just whinge at each other across the wires. Harpies gonna harp. EG when that Roosh clickbait site first published the "legalise rape" article, the other side went ballistic in their attempts to scream the house down(ditto for the "only date anorexics" nonsense). Outlets like Jezebel had a near meltdown of breast beating. Yet the same Jezebel took many months to report on the actual mass gang rapes in Rotherham and even then it was a short article. They weren't alone in being blind to that.

When the scientist chap got hauled over the coals about a bloody shirt(designed and made by his friend, a woman) by more online harpies, to the point where the poor bastard had to break down on TV in contrition, yet go back and try to find a single article written by these "writers" about the many women scientists on the project that made that happen. Good luck with that.

Does Milo spin bullshít? Yes. However he's just adding a bucketful of bullshít to the oceans of it we're all exposed to on a daily basis.



Oh and we don't have "free speech" in Ireland. That's how bought into this US guff people often are. Our "1st amendment" is something to do with emergency powers the state holds in war.

I agree with you for the most part (though I fail to see how your points regarding the scientist or Jezebel are in any real way connected). Yes, the picture I posted absolutely applies to any and all sides, and despite the part about the 1st Amendment, the point still stands. Just because Milo has what would be considered to be an alternative opinion doesn't mean any organisation has to facilitate him in voicing that opinion.

If an organisation, whether journalistic, educational, whatever, decides to cancel a proposed talk by him due to backlash from protesters, his free speech isn't being censored. The protesters are using their free speech to voice their opinion, and the organisation is deciding what to do for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with all the "safe space" and "trigger warning" bullsh*t that goes around (or more specifically, what trigger warning has become and how it's used somewhat willy-nilly for minor nonsense rather than its original intention), but all I'm saying is that free speech works both ways. Milo acts like he's championing free speech while disregarding it when it acts against him.

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

I agree with you for the most part (though I fail to see how your points regarding the scientist or Jezebel are in any real way connected).

It was more to illustrate the atomic level of harpie society sometimes has to deal with and how hypocritical and sometimes dangerous they are to people's lives and livelihoods.

Yes, the picture I posted absolutely applies to any and all sides, and despite the part about the 1st Amendment, the point still stands. Just because Milo has what would be considered to be an alternative opinion doesn't mean any organisation has to facilitate him in voicing that opinion.

If an organisation, whether journalistic, educational, whatever, decides to cancel a proposed talk by him due to backlash from protesters, his free speech isn't being censored. The protesters are using their free speech to voice their opinion, and the organisation is deciding what to do for themselves.

Oh I completely agree 100%. However organisations might try to be a little less hypocritical and po faced when making such decisions and they should be careful about gauging the amount of actual protest too. Not so rarely a minority that agree with the politics de jour get the biggest ear.

Milo acts like he's championing free speech while disregarding it when it acts against him.

He is that and again the same BS goes on across the floor too. Harpies gonna harp and he's a harpie.

newport2

Penn wrote: »

If an organisation, whether journalistic, educational, whatever, decides to cancel a proposed talk by him due to backlash from protesters, his free speech isn't being censored. The protesters are using their free speech to voice their opinion, and the organisation is deciding what to do for themselves.

I agree with most of what you say, Penn and I have no time for Milo. But..

Where do you draw the line though? There are certain situations now where people are afraid to say what they think because of this "backlash".

Not identical, but similar scenario. One of my parents, both in their late 80's, was not going to vote yes in the last marriage referendum. When asked in the street, they said the opposite, knowing the abuse some of their age group had encountered from saying that they didn't agree with gay marriage. They said a lot of their age group did too. I think this is wrong.

I think the organisation is basing their decision on how they will be perceived once the media and online mob start, not on what's right/wrong. 30 years ago, they would have probably have considered both sides and made their decision based on that. A fair conclusion. Now there is just fear of the possible reaction so they cancel. That can lead to a situation where it's not acceptable to say anything controversial, or against popular opinion. And I think we are heading down that road. I thought it was a disgrace that Germaine Greer didn't speak at a university in the UK just because some people didn't like an opinion she held. I think the same applies here.

I'm not 100% on this, I'm just uncomfortable with the way things appear to be going. There seems to be different rules based on which side you're on in a lot of cases.

Penn

newport2 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say, Penn and I have no time for Milo. But..

Where do you draw the line though? There are certain situations now where people are afraid to say what they think because of this "backlash".

Not identical, but similar scenario. One of my parents, both in their late 80's, was not going to vote yes in the last marriage referendum. When asked in the street, they said the opposite, knowing the abuse some of their age group had encountered from saying that they didn't agree with gay marriage. They said a lot of their age group did too. I think this is wrong.

I think the organisation is basing their decision on how they will be perceived once the media and online mob start, not on what's right/wrong. 30 years ago, they would have probably have considered both sides and made their decision based on that. A fair conclusion. Now there is just fear of the possible reaction so they cancel. That can lead to a situation where it's not acceptable to say anything controversial, or against popular opinion. And I think we are heading down that road. I thought it was a disgrace that Germaine Greer didn't speak at a university in the UK just because some people didn't like an opinion she held. I think the same applies here.

I'm not 100% on this, I'm just uncomfortable with the way things appear to be going. There seems to be different rules based on which side you're on in a lot of cases.

No I absolutely agree. Some elements of progressiveness (not sure if this is the right word to use but I'll use it nonetheless) are going above and beyond what should be acceptable, and when you have such diametrically opposed sides, it's always going to be extremely difficult to find the balance.

The problem is, taking the case of your parent with the marriage ref as an example, large sections of the Yes side probably would have given No voters abuse for saying they were voting No, but that's because a No vote meant almost nothing to your parent, but a Yes vote meant everything to the Yes side. Likewise with Germaine Greer, transgenderism means nothing to her, but means everything to those involved. Hence why the pushback on such issues tends to be so strong, because it's deeply personal for those sides, and actually affects their lives.

On the other hand, using the example Wibbs gave about the scientist's shirt and the furore that caused, that was just nonsense of the highest order. That shouldn't have happened and that's just people taking offence at something for the sake of taking offence at something.

I completely agree that the needle swings both ways and in trying to find the correct balance, sometimes the needle swings too far left into Crazyville.

newport2

Penn wrote: »

The problem is, taking the case of your parent with the marriage ref as an example, large sections of the Yes side probably would have given No voters abuse for saying they were voting No, but that's because a No vote meant almost nothing to your parent, but a Yes vote meant everything to the Yes side. Likewise with Germaine Greer, transgenderism means nothing to her, but means everything to those involved. Hence why the pushback on such issues tends to be so strong, because it's deeply personal for those sides, and actually affects their lives.

Saying that a no vote meant nothing to these people is just dismissing concerns people of that age had. And I don't see what suppressing their opinions or getting them cover up what they really believe adds. This isn't even about free speech, it's about being asked a question in the street and getting abuse if you don't give the right answer. That is bullying, plain and simple. It's not as if they were walking about with placards and shouting. I voted yes and disagree with them, but you could also say it meant nothing to me, because I am not gay. FWIW, I can't understand why anyone would have voted no, but that's the point. I don't understand their standpoint, so I shouldn't disregard it as meaning nothing. I don't think how much something means to either side of a debate should give one side free reign over the other.

Look at Cologne. Most of the media afraid to report on it for fear of being called racist or being perceived to be on the wrong side. If it was English soccer fans they would have had a field day from the word go. And that's the problem, decisions being made based on fear of reaction, not whether something is right or wrong.

Wibbs

newport2 wrote: »

And that's the problem, decisions being made based on fear of reaction, not whether something is right or wrong.

That would kinda sum up my take too N.

Penn

newport2 wrote: »

Saying that a no vote meant nothing to these people is just dismissing concerns people of that age had. And I don't see what suppressing their opinions or getting them cover up what they really believe adds. This isn't even about free speech, it's about being asked a question in the street and getting abuse if you don't give the right answer. That is bullying, plain and simple. It's not as if they were walking about with placards and shouting. I voted yes and disagree with them, but you could also say it meant nothing to me, because I am not gay. FWIW, I can't understand why anyone would have voted no, but that's the point. I don't understand their standpoint, so I shouldn't disregard it as meaning nothing. I don't think how much something means to either side of a debate should give one side free reign over the other.

Look at Cologne. Most of the media afraid to report on it for fear of being called racist or being perceived to be on the wrong side. If it was English soccer fans they would have had a field day from the word go. And that's the problem, decisions being made based on fear of reaction, not whether something is right or wrong.

I meant means nothing to them in the sense that it doesn't affect them personally, and that regardless of the outcome, nothing changes in their own lives. Not in any way comparable to those on the Yes side whose lives it would affect directly.

I agree the abuse wasn't acceptable, as I'm sure you'd agree that there was abuse from the No side also which was also unacceptable. Hell I was a strong Yes supporter but some people close to me voted No. But I'd be the same as yourself; from my standpoint, that's their vote and they're entitled to it. But again, for some people, the vote was deeply personal and it was seen by many not just as a vote on marriage equality, but simply equality. Not saying the abuse was justified, but just that strong opinions can result in loud protestations, as can be the case for and against someone like Milo & what he stands for.

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

Not saying the abuse was justified, but just that strong opinions can result in loud protestations, as can be the case for and against someone like Milo & what he stands for.

What does he stand for though that's the thing and why is he considered so beyond the Pale? Genuine question. My only real knowledge of him has been a debate he was in with a woman academic over how women are promoted in education(and he had a few good points. Men are falling seriously behind in education), that he was called a fascist because he backed a fund to help men in college, that he's been banned from a couple of university debates and a recent TV spot(linked in this forum somewhere) where he made some good points, some OK points and some shaky points, but his naysayers on the same programme responded with trying to shout over him and shout him down and almost nothing of substance.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

What does he stand for though that's the thing and why is he considered so beyond the Pale? Genuine question. My only real knowledge of him has been a debate he was in with a woman academic over how women are promoted in education(and he had a few good points. Men are falling seriously behind in education), that he was called a fascist because he backed a fund to help men in college, that he's been banned from a couple of university debates and a recent TV spot(linked in this forum somewhere) where he made some good points, some OK points and some shaky points, but his naysayers on the same programme responded with trying to shout over him and shout him down and almost nothing of substance.

I absolutely don't doubt that he has a lot to say which is probably valid and worth discussing.

The problem though is that he got his following and publicity through his association as being one of the figureheads of Gamergate, which for many people is something completely toxic to be associated with. And he hasn't helped because he's completely played up to, what is now, his audience. I think he has valid points to make, but he now covers those points in a smooth, creamy layer of bullsh*t, saying and perpetuating notions and ideals that will get him publicity and notoriety rather than demonstrating the substance behind his points.

Wibbs

Ah gotcha P. The layers of creamy, usually overwrought and clickbait bullshít seem to be all over the place everywhere these days. Measured voices rarely get a look in. Real lines drawn guff, especially on the interwebs.







TBH gamergate passed me by as the last time I played video games it cost ten pence and blocky alien spacecraft were invading from above. What I did hear of it it seemed to me to be on one side a bunch of gamers pissed off at the world and Women(™) and so naive as to be shocked that industry journalism whores itself out and is usually about as reliable as a 1970's Fiat, who then went full retard and got nasty on reddit. Followed by an understandable hue and cry from t'other side.

johnnyskeleton

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and we don't have "free speech" in Ireland. That's how bought into this US guff people often are. Our "1st amendment" is something to do with emergency powers the state holds in war.

We do have freedom of speech under art 40.6 BnE. But its not the sacred cow here (or the rest of europe) that it is in the US. Snyder v Phelps would not have had the same result here, I dont think.

ancapailldorcha

The odd moderate does get through though. Here's an example where Kate Andrews of the Adam Smith Institute uses logic and facts to dismantle Kate Smurthwaite's (of that BBC "do men hate women" video) nonsense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MTF79Xq27k

Lemming

That video was very poor. The Sky presenter made little attempt to control Smurthwaite's in-your-face ranting & generally rude and interruptive behaviour, yet shouted down Andrews more than once whilst allowing Smurthwaite to soapbox.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

That video was very poor. The Sky presenter made little attempt to control Smurthwaite's in-your-face ranting & generally rude and interruptive behaviour, yet shouted down Andrews more than once whilst allowing Smurthwaite to soapbox.

Indeed. Sadly narcissitic nutjobs like Smurthwaite sell and an outlet of Sky News'... calibre will be only too happy to feed her publicity. I did however enjoy watching Andrews dismantle her points given the disadvantage the moderator put her at.

masculinist

Damn it. I would have gone to see him. Those who criticize Milo should divert their criticism to the social justice warriors and feminazis instead. To not do so could be interpreted as having an agenda.

RadiationKing

newport2 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say, Penn and I have no time for Milo. But..

Where do you draw the line though? There are certain situations now where people are afraid to say what they think because of this "backlash".

People have always been afraid to say what they think in certain situations. To give a, perhaps oversimplified, example, you wouldn't expect a doctor to just bluntly tell someone their spouse died; they exercise a little tact in doing so.

And really, why should Yiannopoulos et al. be given a platform to speak? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely asking.

In my experience, and I know it's not going to be a popular thing to say around these parts, these people are akin to conspiracy theorists: you can say we should hear them out and disprove what they say but I'd hope most of us know that wouldn't actually happen. They believe there's some kind of left-wing conspiracy against them and attempting to show that's not true will, in some cases, just further entrench them. By not indulging them, you become one of the enemy because obviously if you're trying to prove them wrong, what you're really trying to do is cover up the conspiracy.

I'm really not convinced that giving these people a platform does anything more than lend them credibility. Leaving them to their blogs and whatnot isn't really a solution either because then, the lack of engagement becomes a part of the conspiracy - obviously those evil liberals are just trying to shut them up, I mean you see it all the time even on Boards.

And I don't know what the answer is. Discourse seems to becoming more extreme all the time. Engage with them or don't, neither option works to reduce that.

And I understand the criticisms of those of us on the left, really I do. But from my perspective it looks simple - if you give ground on the ridiculous things then people will lump the actual real problems in with them. That's just how low political discourse has sunk.

newport2

RadiationKing wrote: »

And really, why should Yiannopoulos et al. be given a platform to speak? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely asking.

I was talking in general, not necessarily just about MY - who I don't care about. But wasn't he organising something himself, a meeting of some sort? If so, I would not consider that being "given a platform". IMO being "given a platform" would be being given airtime on RTE or asked to speak at a university. Invited to some public event.

RadiationKing wrote: »

And I understand the criticisms of those of us on the left, really I do. But from my perspective it looks simple - if you give ground on the ridiculous things then people will lump the actual real problems in with them. That's just how low political discourse has sunk.

You could say this reasonably from any perspective. But who gets to decide what "ridiculous" is? If it's just the people who protest the most or shout the loudest who do then that's not far from mob rule. And it's usually the fringe elements of both sides that lead that. (not just the left!)

I hear totally what you're saying, but I think if you apply that in real life then the opinions of some get promoted and those of others get surpressed. I think all opinions should be heard.

orubiru

RadiationKing wrote: »

And really, why should Yiannopoulos et al. be given a platform to speak? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely asking.

I think the recent drama with Richard Dawkins highlights why these kind of "anti-feminist" speakers should be given a platform.

Dawkins posts a tweet where he states that he is a feminist himself, he states that he knows not all feminists are extreme, and then he goes on to criticize the more extreme aspects of feminism.

For that he is publicly berated and is then disinvited form a Science & Skepticism conference.

When folks are disinvited from a skepticism conference because they express skepticism towards some elements of feminism then you have a bit of a problem.

If Milo's beliefs are so crazy and "out there" then it should be easy for his opponents to debunk him. Instead they are resorting to bullying tactics.

Giving guys like Milo a platform forces feminists to come out and defend their beliefs and then people can make up their own minds.

Allowing him to have a platform gives people the opportunity to assess all the points of view.

I was raised in a Christian family and not exposed at all to the opinions of Atheists until I was a bit older. As soon as I was able to see these 2 opposing sides go at each other? It was an intellectual massacre! I am still a little bitter that my parents forced me to believe in stupid and silly ideas to the point where people who practiced rational thought and skepticism were able to make me look, and feel, like a total fool.

How many feminists or "SJWs" believe without questioning simply because the opposition have been demonized or silenced or both?

silverharp

RadiationKing wrote: »

People have always been afraid to say what they think in certain situations. To give a, perhaps oversimplified, example, you wouldn't expect a doctor to just bluntly tell someone their spouse died; they exercise a little tact in doing so.

And really, why should Yiannopoulos et al. be given a platform to speak? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely asking.

In my experience, and I know it's not going to be a popular thing to say around these parts, these people are akin to conspiracy theorists: you can say we should hear them out and disprove what they say I'd hope most of us know that wouldn't actually happen. They believe there's some kind of left-wing conspiracy against them and attempting to show that's not true will, in some cases, just further entrench them. By not indulging them, you become one of the enemy because obviously if you're trying to prove them wrong, what you're really trying to do is cover up the conspiracy.

I'm really not convinced that giving these people a platform does anything more than lend them credibility. Leaving them to their blogs and whatnot isn't really a solution either because then, the lack of engagement becomes a part of the conspiracy - obviously those evil liberals are just trying to shut them up, I mean you see it all the time even on Boards.

And I don't know what the answer is. Discourse seems to becoming more extreme all the time. Engage with them or don't, neither option works to reduce that.

And I understand the criticisms of those of us on the left, really I do. But from my perspective it looks simple - if you give ground on the ridiculous things then people will lump the actual real problems in with them. That's just how low political discourse has sunk.

In fairness this is a problem the lelt created for itself . a lot of the guys that like Milo identify as left liberal and do not identify with conservative.
Nobody is saying there is a conspiracy But the regressives have turned everything into identity politics and seem hell bent on shutting down discussion instead of fighting back with better ideas. The very fact you think Milo shouldn't be heard is a typical regressive attitude. So I assume you can't dismiss what he has to say readily. I don't even rate him as an intellectual its just that there is so much low hanging fruit. A few data points and a bit of common sense is enough to deal with the average TV feminist and its damn funny to watch.

tritium

orubiru wrote: »

I think the recent drama with Richard Dawkins highlights why these kind of "anti-feminist" speakers should be given a platform.

Dawkins posts a tweet where he states that he is a feminist himself, he states that he knows not all feminists are extreme, and then he goes on to criticize the more extreme aspects of feminism.

For that he is publicly berated and is then disinvited form a Science & Skepticism conference.

When folks are disinvited from a skepticism conference because they express skepticism towards some elements of feminism then you have a bit of a problem.

If Milo's beliefs are so crazy and "out there" then it should be easy for his opponents to debunk him. Instead they are resorting to bullying tactics.

Giving guys like Milo a platform forces feminists to come out and defend their beliefs and then people can make up their own minds.

Allowing him to have a platform gives people the opportunity to assess all the points of view.

I was raised in a Christian family and not exposed at all to the opinions of Atheists until I was a bit older. As soon as I was able to see these 2 opposing sides go at each other? It was an intellectual massacre! I am still a little bitter that my parents forced me to believe in stupid and silly ideas to the point where people who practiced rational thought and skepticism were able to make me look, and feel, like a total fool.

How many feminists or "SJWs" believe without questioning simply because the opposition have been demonized or silenced or both?

Your example of Dawkins is unfortunately a common enough scenario. Even the term "anti feminist" is thrown around as a charged term to try to have some voices removed from the discussion. Hell there's even been proposals to enshrine anti-feminism in legislation. What is anti feminism however? In many cases it means disagreeing with the loudest and often most of radical voices in the room. A list of people condemned as anti feminist over the years is instructive- Dawkins, Warren Farrell, Erin Pizzey, .....


almost in entirety it consists of people who themselves identify as feminist, but obviously not the right kind of far left feminist:

robp

RadiationKing wrote: »

People have always been afraid to say what they think in certain situations. To give a, perhaps oversimplified, example, you wouldn't expect a doctor to just bluntly tell someone their spouse died; they exercise a little tact in doing so.

And really, why should Yiannopoulos et al. be given a platform to speak? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely asking.

In my experience, and I know it's not going to be a popular thing to say around these parts, these people are akin to conspiracy theorists: you can say we should hear them out and disprove what they say but I'd hope most of us know that wouldn't actually happen. They believe there's some kind of left-wing conspiracy against them and attempting to show that's not true will, in some cases, just further entrench them. By not indulging them, you become one of the enemy because obviously if you're trying to prove them wrong, what you're really trying to do is cover up the conspiracy.

Universities are supposed to be not mouthpieces of the progressive left. It is absurd that student unions have black lists of who can and cannot speak. It is not just UK universities, Irish student unions are barely better. Yiannopoulos is not ridiculous, he uses colourful oratory but all of his view are moderate. Many other moderates have also been black listed, from leftist feminists to conservatives.

Letree

I'm glad Milo is getting a bit of attention. He is vocalising issues that a lot of younger men are experiencing. Feminism has moved so fast that the older generation of men who still occupy a bit of a privileged position in society still believe feminists need more help to gain equality. Men of about 30 to 45 have seen women catch up and don't really have much issue with feminism but men under 30 are beginning to see real problems with feminism. Milo is just trying to bring these issues into focus. And thank goodness Milo is gay as if he was straight he would have been silenced long ago.

Skullface McGubbin

One of Milo's events was met with a disruptive protest by a few social justice warriors recently.

http://www.breitbart.com/education/2016/02/10/fake-blood-and-war-chants-milo-yiannopoulos-event-at-rutgers-disrupted-by-feminists-black-lives-matter-activists/

Whether you like them or not, people like Milo, Roosh and so on, are absolutely needed in this day & age because who else is there in the public sphere to highlight and challenge the stuff the loony left comes out with?

Penn

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Whether you like them or not, people like Milo, Roosh and so on, are absolutely needed in this day & age because who else is there in the public sphere to highlight and challenge the stuff the loony left comes out with?

So the answer to the loony left is the loony right? How will that ever solve anything? It's like trying to cure someone's shoulder pain by kicking them in the leg.

Waestrel

Penn wrote: »

So the answer to the loony left is the loony right? How will that ever solve anything? It's like trying to cure someone's shoulder pain by kicking them in the leg.

Milo is hardly Loony right. His trolling aside, his views are moderate conservative.

Penn

Waestrel wrote: »

Milo is hardly Loony right. His trolling aside, his views are moderate conservative.

"His trolling aside" can't be removed from the equation because that's what makes him loony. As I've said previous, I have no doubt he can make salient points worth discussing, it's how he frames them and wraps them up in his trolling that's the problem. Likewise, those on the left have salient points to make, but their over-reacting to everything is what makes them loony.

TheKevin

I attended this event. It was entertaining, provocative, informative, and cathartic--because he said lots of things that most of us figure isn't worth the bother to say. It was a nice respectful crowd with a little tension at times, but a generally mature and healthy environment.

He's popular for a reason. His views reflect those of a marginalised group that no longer have the political authority to hold certain views publicly without being labeled as bigoted or mysoginsitic.

Ice Maiden

What if the labeling as misogynistic is based on what the guy says himself? Is that not just fair opinion, freedom of speech?

masculinist wrote: »

Damn it. I would have gone to see him. Those who criticize Milo should divert their criticism to the social justice warriors and feminazis instead. To not do so could be interpreted as having an agenda.

What about people who would criticise both, which is, I would bet, most people?

Do people who criticise SJWs and feminazis but do not criticise "Milo" also have an agenda?

walshyn93

Yeah, I was at this event as well. He kept referring to "this country" as if he thought he was in the UK. Not sure if he was just trying to get a rise out of someone but no one called him out from what I remember.

His ability to take apart prevailing myths and completely reorientate your views on certain subjects with a turn of phrase and a list of facts to back it up is at times masterful. I'm sure a lot of people left the room seeing things very differently.


As to that picture up above, that may be the case in America where the constitution only regulates the relationship between citizen and state, but the Irish Constitution applies horizontally. So in this country, protections on fundamental rights also govern the relationship between individuals.

We also have a court system that is less reluctant to compel and individual to act to provide for the rights of another. So when you say that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be kicked off a college campus for stating an opinion, that's simply not true.

In the States, I expect within the next 10 years the SCOTUS will rule in favour of someone who has had their right to freedom of speech violated by another private citizen. All of the major means of communication are in private hands now. If the 1st amendment is to have any teeth at all the government needs to be able to step in and interfere in those relationships to ensure the free exchange of ideas.

walshyn93

Penn wrote: »

"His trolling aside" can't be removed from the equation because that's what makes him loony. As I've said previous, I have no doubt he can make salient points worth discussing, it's how he frames them and wraps them up in his trolling that's the problem. Likewise, those on the left have salient points to make, but their over-reacting to everything is what makes them loony.

How does being deliberately provocative make one a looney? His version of "trolling" is just typical tongue in cheek humour saying things he knows will draw lots of phoney outrage. It's funny and entertaining. It doesn't make him a looney.

walshyn93

Opinions like Milo's are quite popular, which is what makes it all the more disturbing that there is a systematic effort to disrupt his events and if possible ensure he never has a platform to share his views. When popular opinions like his are suppressed in that manner it becomes especially damaging for a free society. The reason freedom of speech needs to be over-protected is because no one has a vested interest in freedom of speech. As far as rights go, it's especially fragile. Either side would willing take away the others' if they could. No matter where you stand politically, morally you have to oppose the trend of 'no-platforming' that's sweeping Universities. It might seem politically advantageous and expedient for a progressive to have non-progressive opinions shut down, but the tables can turn and you'll have made a rod for your own back.

Ice Maiden

Should e.g. hardline Muslim fanatics' freedom of speech (about how westerners deserve to be destroyed) in Britain be protected?

ancapailldorcha

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Should e.g. hardline Muslim fanatics' freedom of speech (about how westerners deserve to be destroyed) in Britain be protected?

Not a suitable topic for this forum. Please take this discussion to a more suitable form such as Humanities or Political Theory.

Ice Maiden

Not trying to start a discussion on hardline Islam, just using an isolated example in response to unflinching support for freedom of speech (which I find, generally, to be quite disingenuous) sorry.

Lemming

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Not trying to start a discussion on hardline Islam, just using an isolated example in response to unflinching support for freedom of speech (which I find, generally, to be quite disingenuous) sorry.

I think that you may be confusing freedom of speech with incitement to hatred/violence *, which are two very, oh-so .... very, different things.



* I'm not implying hardline Muslims incite hatred by association with Islam, but I suspect that is what you meant by your rather extreme example.

Ice Maiden

Lemming wrote: »

I think that you may be confusing freedom of speech with incitement to hatred/violence *, which are two very, oh-so .... very, different things.



* I'm not implying hardline Muslims incite hatred by association with Islam, but I suspect that is what you meant by your rather extreme example.

Well I've seen plenty of people defend incitement to hatred (once they agree with it) as free speech, that's my point.

Lemming

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Well I've seen plenty of people defend incitement to hatred (once they agree with it) as free speech, that's my point.

For example?

Ice Maiden

Lemming wrote: »

For example?

Nick Griffin? Roosh?

Point is, hate speech can sometimes be subjective. I'm sure people who agree with those two would not consider what they espouse to be hate speech but others sure would.