Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

[StriderX]

There are some political beliefs (that I am not saying I agree with) that believe revolution is the only way to power.

And then what?

What do these people think they can do better, you never ever see this in the movies or tv shows, the aftermath of a revolution. Only history provides much answers, and generally its usually exactly the same as prior to the revolution in the end - an Oligarchy of some variation... i mean look at wonderful Marxist-Capitalist (lol) China, why the hell is there a ruling class?

 

[Tunney]

Tim Hunt at UCL

As the result of a student campaign? From what I can gather online, he was forced to resign by the university with very little outside influence.

 

[hurfdurf]

You might consider not abandoning principles of civilised behaviour if only for your own sake. Do you really want a world where violence is an acceptable method of resolving political debate? Are you that confident that "your side" would come out on top in such a world or that others wont be hurt in the struggles that follow?

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

-Karl Popper, from The Open Society and its Enemies

Basically
TLDR: Bash the fash.

 

[hurfdurf]

Well don't be surprised when people fight back then. Jesus Christ.

Nazi's want to eradicate certain races, their use of violence is already well documented, fighting back and making them feel unsafe already runs the risk of fighting with them. Don't be scared Mr StriderX. Sometimes good people have to fight bad, and tell good people might get hurt. You can stay at home with your feather in your hat though, denouncing all the violence.

 

[dowie]

As the result of a student campaign? From what I can gather online, he was forced to resign by the university with very little outside influence.

well rather a lot of outside influence - the media **** storm... and yes that was an example of this PC culture currently being pushed by SJWs

 

[dowie]

Nazi's want to eradicate certain races, their use of violence is already well documented, fighting back and making them feel unsafe already runs the risk of fighting with them. Don't be scared Mr StriderX. Sometimes good people have to fight bad, and tell good people might get hurt. You can stay at home with your feather in your hat though, denouncing all the violence.

Yet again, what does any of this have to do with Nazis?

When has Milo called for the eradication of certain races?

 

[SlyReaper]

Nazi's want to eradicate certain races, their use of violence is already well documented, fighting back and making them feel unsafe already runs the risk of fighting with them. Don't be scared Mr StriderX. Sometimes good people have to fight bad, and tell good people might get hurt. You can stay at home with your feather in your hat though, denouncing all the violence.

You only get to "fight back" against people who are already fighting you. It's a very simple concept that everyone in this thread has tried various different ways to articulate, but you refuse to grasp it. Right now, the people you think are Nazis aren't hurting anyone. They're not doing anything, they're just talking. If you throw the first punch, that makes YOU the villain.

 

[Roar87]

Nazi's want to eradicate certain races, their use of violence is already well documented, fighting back and making them feel unsafe already runs the risk of fighting with them. Don't be scared Mr StriderX. Sometimes good people have to fight bad, and tell good people might get hurt. You can stay at home with your feather in your hat though, denouncing all the violence.

Very dangerous sentiment

 

[hornetstinger]

Milo seemed a bit more reasonble a few years ago, now he's a right wing nut.

 

[datalol-jack]

You're talking about different things now -why apologise? Well it caused a **** storm and hurt him financially, maybe he thought it was good PR as his choice of words weren't good.

But I don't quite understand your point re: his ardent critics not fitting your Nazi criteria. There have been plenty of stories that check off most of your boxes on that list posted.

The point is rather simple, paraphrasing somewhat from the Trump thread: an appeal to alleged hypocrisy does not justify Milo's actions or rhetoric.

The fact that he avoids directly challenging his ardent critics in court, preferring the court of public opinion and online comment, and only seems to give a damn about what he says when he's backed into a corner and hurt financially, does not help either.

And since nobody's taken up my offer of line by line analysis (it would've been interesting to see you do say CNN, and hurfduf Milo's output at BB, but I appreciate it's GD), I had a skim again through Milo's coverage across the left and the right instead. The picture that emerges is of a demagogue skirting close enough to the far right to raise concerns, especially after his move to Breitbart, whose editorial line he had few qualms with; a character who's happy to offend for exposure and cash rather than because of any deeply held convictions, channelling an undercurrent of online hatred into public discourse. He has done little to dispel this notion with his public trolling, consequent repeat career failures, Twitter ban and responses to criticism. Now this interview saga. One rationalisation too far? I think so.

I appreciate the irony of the right turning on him now (what happened to free speech fundamentalism?), but as before -- he arrived at this nadir on his own steam, having offended just about everyone and their grandma.

 

[dowie]

I'm still not sure how that makes him a Nazi or how any rather broad set of rules that apparently do make him a 'Nazi' don't equally apply to quite a few of his critics who are happy to throw unsubstantiated claims like 'white supremacist' at him.

 

[datalol-jack]

I'm still not sure how that makes him a Nazi or how any rather broad set of rules that apparently do make him a 'Nazi' don't equally apply to quite a few of his critics who are happy to throw unsubstantiated claims like 'white supremacist' at him.

The set of criteria, outlined in the two original sources, being far more robust and comprehensive than the summary for GD is there to be applied, and is far from broad, is for a fascist; Goebbels being a prime exemplar (who it must be noted took a dim view of 'race science' but enabled his fellow travellers nonetheless), but far from the only one. Combined with the three chief concerns of fascism -- radicalism, nationalism, authoritarianism -- the test is fairly self-contained. You can apply it to whomever you like, and that's what the media uses. On balance, Milo appears to score more hits than the Beeb, the Guardian, CNN, hurfdurf, etc; going further to the right between his various gigs.

Yes, a few of Milo's critics are open neo-Nazis, but they appear to attack him mostly on the grounds of who he is, rather than the themes of his editorials or direction. His attempts to dismiss his critics by advancing their alleged hypocrisy and Milosplaining, is taken as evasion, and doesn't actually offer an elaboration of his stance to the extent he thinks it does. Cue **** storm.

As for white supremacy specifically, it's an interesting point. It's largely emanating from the alt-right equating race and culture and Milo's take on the culture wars. Much depends on where you stand on those two aspects. The take I got from the New Statesman was of a hate preacher dynamic: stay within the law but close enough to the edge so your dog whistle can be heard. Libertarians were more happy to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Telegraph with its 'ultra-conservative' label less so.

 

[Angilion]

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

-Karl Popper, from The Open Society and its Enemies

Basically
TLDR: Bash the fash.

Interesting...you're now advocating violence against yourself and those like you.

You are aware that you match the people described in that quote in every respect, right? You're intolerant, you're not prepared to use rational argument, you teach using violence in response to arguments (or anything other than abject submission to your authoritarian rule). Etc, etc. You are enemies of open society. You are the fascists.

 

[dowie]

The set of criteria, outlined in the two original sources, being far more robust and comprehensive than the summary for GD is there to be applied, and is far from broad, is for a fascist;

It is pretty broad - I really don't see how Milo is a 'Nazi' and I could quite easily see those criteria fitting various main stream media critics, I'm not talking about his far right critics here.

 

[B&W]

It is pretty broad - I really don't see how Milo is a 'Nazi' and I could quite easily see those criteria fitting various main stream media critics, I'm not talking about his far right critics here.

Stop getting fixated with the word Nazi. People often use it to mean far right.

He probably isn't far right but he supports and hangs around with them, speaks in events organised by them. So why are you so surprised why people call him that?

Your judged by your actions in this world and his actions speak for them self.

 

[dowie]

Stop getting fixated with the word Nazi. People often use it to mean far right.

He probably isn't far right but he supports and hangs around with them, speaks in events organised by them. So why are you so surprised why people call him that?

I don't follow him but have watched some clips on youtube as far as I could tell he mostly speaks at Student Republican events - can you give some examples of far right events he's spoken at and/or example where he's supported a far right group?

 

[hurfdurf]

Interesting...you're now advocating violence against yourself and those like you.

You are aware that you match the people described in that quote in every respect, right? You're intolerant, you're not prepared to use rational argument, you teach using violence in response to arguments (or anything other than abject submission to your authoritarian rule). Etc, etc. You are enemies of open society. You are the fascists.

Lol k m8!

 

[datalol-jack]

It is pretty broad - I really don't see how Milo is a 'Nazi' and I could quite easily see those criteria fitting various main stream media critics, I'm not talking about his far right critics here.

How many assumptions do you wish to relax? We seem to have gone from 'even more so than him' and 'most of the points on the list' to 'ardent critics' and 'a few'. I can only indirectly infer who this 'they' are from my own searches. Yes, individual bias exists, but I sincerely doubt an independent reviewer would take that list and pop out... I don't know... Owen Jones, lol!

But okay, let's revisit what's problematic about Milo to liberals and conservatives (who may agree with some but not all of his activity) on the axes proposed earlier.

I’m primarily drawing from his BB output, his blog and the Bloomberg profile (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/), which is actually far more balanced than the headline, before the pedo-gate.

Authoritarian

• Powerful ego; emphasis on will, as opposed to skill or luck
• Cult of the leader ideal: Support for Trump and Putin; strongman leaders in other words
• Support for a reduction in, the scope of and attack on the present rights of minorities
• Happy with concentration of power for the greater good (better society in his view)/ higher, more capable authority relying on executive power (see ‘Daddy’)
• Wishes and opinions of others? Doesn't give a toss, until he's backed into a corner or hurt financially, as we’ve already noted
• Vindictive to a fault
• Democracy? Not if it gets in his way or protests
• A rather unique interpretation of the paradox of tolerance; again, see Popper for why free speech fundamentalism is a disaster
• Appeals to hypocrisy; attacks on the media
• Attracted to elite status; few problems with success at any cost (at times he attributes this to mental illness/condition)
• ‘Law and order’
• ‘Double down, don’t back down’ mantra is basically an incitement to online abuse or violence (applied to trolls, it gets you memes; applied to Breivik and Mair, it gets you dead bodies.); seemingly oblivious to the effects of this
• Penchant for paranoid conspiracy thinking

Radical

• Sharply opposed to the status quo; wants to regress society to a previously ideal state, which is a form of radical change
• Takes extreme positions to offend and illustrate his stances; most notably when it comes to hate speech as free speech (offending because you have the capacity to offend is supposed to be some kind of an argument for this, or a weird form of self help for internet trolls)
• At the fringe of the political tradition he claims to be a part of
• Blames the status quo for the many current ills he perceives in society
• Contends that a post-fact era is upon us, and that it’s ‘wonderful’
• Undisciplined and a bad student – clashes with authority other than that in his own image
• Offers his outlook and lived example as part of a solution to the root causes of modern cultural ills; and, yes, we are talking simple solutions to complex problems (like using one’s gut to gauge hate speech)
• His views are meant to radicalise what he considers a largely sedate, millennial middle class, or at least what's now considered the part of the alt-right which feels the white male is a minority(!), if his audience is anything to go by; his campus tour is basically just this

Nationalist

• Seemed quite happy at the Telegraph; picked up and towed the line at Breitbart quite well re immigration, Trumpism, Muslims, the EU, etc; certainly going off the deeper end than at the Telegraph; Bannon seemed to have liked him as an attack dog on these matters
• Clash of civilisations? It's Breitbart’s core angle, so yes
• Not beyond in and out groups; implicitly defines them by exclusion
• No Bannon, but equally has few qualms with being in such company, and has a mixed record on his views regarding racists and white supremacists specifically: they are either anthropological curiosities and have a point about society/culture or dumb thugs; he can't decide which (though he does offer a gem that ‘Behind every racist joke is a scientific fact.’; google his Jews run things rant for comedy)
• His views on majoritarian culture as a unifying identity and how it influences society and the state, which by definition is white masculine culture in the Western democracies he most often refers to, drops him in hot water often enough; cue a lot of labels he gets in the media
• Terms like 'Culture War' don't help; neither do cultural assimilation tendencies they imply

Topped off with his preference for the PR style already explained, banal memes and his silly scholarship stunt, 'fellow travelling' with the alt-right notwithstanding, one does wonder. Hitler? Perhaps not quite. But neither Mussolini, Mosley nor FN would kick him out on that characterisation. Unless you give him a large discount on the grounds of irony, mental health issues and basic immaturity, his pattern is neither that new nor original; less jackboot more tweet, maybe.

As authoritarian populism once again pulls at the Overton window (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/trump-brexit-front-national-afd-branches-same-tree/) people appear to be more inclined to consider Milo's antics nearer to the mainstream; but the question remains, are people like MILO and his cheerleaders a bridge for the old hatreds into a new era? Racialism is scientifically debunked, but cultural and national essentialism has effectively taken its place in these discourses, even if some of the language on the left hasn't quite caught on.

Anyway, I've had enough Milo and Breitbart to last me a long time. Peace.

 

[h4rm0ny]

There are some political beliefs (that I am not saying I agree with) that believe revolution is the only way to power.

There are, and they may in their cases be right. But what I wrote remains true.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

-Karl Popper, from The Open Society and its Enemies

Basically
TLDR: Bash the fash.

I read some Popper when I was seventeen and I found it trite then. More so, now. None of the above contradicts anything I wrote. Indeed, it's argument solely by assertion and merely a statement of what he thinks should be done, not a justification of it. It trades the one virtue your "LOL" style responses have (they are short) for an attempt at justification by verbosity. And I know verbosity when I see it - trust me.

Your position is anti-democratic and anti-intellectual. You advocate pre-emptive violence as a means to combat ideas or popular support. Again - what will you do when you have established this as a legitimate behaviour and people turn the same principle around on you?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Racialism is scientifically debunked, but cultural and national essentialism has effectively taken its place in these discourses, even if some of the language on the left hasn't quite caught on.

This, to me, is progress. Race as a distinguisher is meaningless. Worse than meaningless. Where it is conflated with culture it both harms individuals and also hinders dialogue. Criticism of, say, Islam (a religion and culture I dislike and can make well-supported criticisms of) gets tarred with racist nonsense and people who think someone is inferior because of their ancestry. I am very, very much in favour of cultural essentialism taking the place of race in such discourses. One is legitimate, the other not. Example: Indian and Pakistani are genetically the same people (not that there are any races where there's a relevant difference anyway, but regardless), yet I have a significant distrust and dislike of Pakistani culture, but less so with Indian immigrants. Replacing race discussion with cultural and national discussion is exactly what should be done, imo.