Come on dude, you know better than I do that you need to be more subtle than that! Do you want to be an effective troll here or not?
I love that this entire post leads up to evidence that the poster is confused, troubled and basically mentally ill.
I think it was the case. A lot of his campus lecture videos went viral because the protestors were going to outrageous lengths to shut him up. Whether it was getting up and smearing fake period blood on themselves and blowing air horns; or whether it was storming the stage, snatching the microphone out of his hand and screaming in his face while blowing whistles; or whether it was barricading the entrance to his lecture halls and setting off fire alarms, their attempts to shut him up only made more people curious to hear what he had to say. It was classic Streisand Effect, and these idiot campus activists did it over, and over, and over again.
I’m not saying no-one was listening until liberals got upset at him, but the way these left-wing campus activists behaved in response to him boosted his audience by several orders of magnitude.
The correct response would have been to either (a) debate him, or (b) ignore him altogether. Instead, they abused the heckler’s veto to shout him down and tried to intimidate people into not attending his lectures. This just made them look like spoilt bullies throwing a tantrum because they couldn’t get their own way. And the idea that he can’t be debated because he didn’t come to his position rationally is ridiculous. He made claims. Those claims were either true or false. If they were false, they could be refuted. This is the same logic we use with everyone else. Creationists don’t come by their beliefs rationally, yet people still debate them. Islamists don’t come by their beliefs rationally, yet people still debate them. Anti-vaxxers don’t come by their beliefs rationally, yet people still debate them. Global warming deniers don’t come by their position rationally, yet people still debate them. And you expect me to believe that somehow, the power of rational discourse is useless in the face of some half-bright, right-wing shibboleth spewing clown? Please.
None of that happened because of anything they did. Yiannopoulos’s fall from grace came about because someone released old footage of him waxing lyrical about child abuse. Left wing campus activists had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with his downfall and quite a lot to do with his success.
Even Blinkie is too smart to turn his back on him.
…here’s the thing.
You are fucking wrong.
I don’t blame you for trying to rewrite history. Milo has done so many horrible things that it really is hard to keep up.
But Milo was a facilitator of abuse. I watched as he wrote articles that were full of lies that attacked Harper, attacked Nyberg, I watched as the hate-mobs incited by those articles harassed/doxxed attacked the vulnerable. I watched his constant attacks on people of colour, his attacks on women, his attacks on transgenders. I watched as strong people became weak, I watched them withdraw from social media, as some moved across country to escape the hate.
This was who Milo was. An evil troll who revelled and encouraged others to destroy people’s lives. And this is why you are fucking wrong. You’ve normalised Milo. Your an apologist for his disgusting behaviour. You characterize Milo by the people that protest him and not by the things that he actually did.
It is deliciously ironic that Milo was finally bought down by accusations of pedophilia, the very thing he used to delight in accusing his opponents of supporting.
Your shrillness makes it difficult for me to take your accusations seriously. Can you honestly not see how overblown and hysterical you’re being? Reading your post, people could be forgiven for thinking Milo spent his weekends barking orders at lynch mobs from the back of a pick-up truck.
The guy’s an idiot, and I’ve no doubt he’s probably a prick. But people like you who act like he’s Satan incarnate have done more to boost his signal - to normalise him, in other words - than people like me ever could in a thousand years. You think he’d have gotten on Real Time if the fuckwits at Berkley had just ignored him? 'Course he fucking wouldn’t.
Just do yourself a favour and google ‘The Streisand Effect’. 'Cos that’s what people like you have been doing for Milo. For about two years.
Good job.
The fact that he was able to book his “Dangerous Faggot Tour” at numerous and well regarded universities around the US and Britain suggests he had more of a following than you’d like to admit. At least, I am pretty sure if I tried to book a tour at these universities they would ask “who?” and be done with it.
I keep trying to tell people there is a wave of support for Milo from a collection of youtubers that are all into his trolling as a virtue.
These are people whose hatreds of social justice warriors burn brighter than everything else. People like Sargon of Akkad, who is kind of a moderate when it comes to politics, but hated Hillary and those associated with her so much he spent a large chunk of his time going after her and them. Libertarian youtubers often backed milo. These people rail against the media and overreactions of the left, and the left alone. They are some of the biggest victim mongers I’ve ever encountered, but then many on the right are often the very thing they accuse the left of.
Your quantitative perception is maybe, um, a bit weird? In this thread, for example, by my count I’ve made 8 posts and used :dubious: in only one of them. That’s not what I’d call “in nearly every post”.
Perhaps it just seems more frequent to you because you find it triggering for some reason? In any case, now that I know it bothers you I will try to remember not to use it in responding to you.
[QUOTE=Rick Sanchez]
Anyway, I can’t say for absolute cast-iron certainty whether or not each and every one of the black-bloc thugs who tore up Berkeley were actually students. I can, however, say that some of them were. Here, for example, is an article which opens with an interview with a Berkeley student who admitted taking part in the black bloc vandalism.
[/quote]
Thanks for the cite. From your own link, though, it seems clear that the focus of the “left-wing campus activists” in general was on very different tactics:
Which makes your earlier statement:
at best ill-informed and at worst disingenuous.
Responding to a hate-speech proponent with a nonviolent protest is “responding to him in a mature way”. But you completely ignored the more reasoned (and apparently more widespread) forms of protest among “left-wing college campus activists”, seemingly in order to try to insinuate that they’re all just deranged perpetrators of criminal assault.
If I weren’t a fundamentally compassionate and reasonable person, I might be tempted to raise my eyebrow at you for that kind of biased rhetoric.
…fuck off troll. I don’t care if you don’t take my accusations seriously. I don’t give a shit what you think. You aren’t going to be convinced by whatever I say. But I’ve seen your “act” before. You aren’t fooling me.
I didn’t accuse him of being Satan incarnate. I described, in detail, things that he actually did. Stop being a whiny little shit. Stop being an apologist. Stop blaming me for the things that Milo did.
Trust me: after hearing gater’s blame everything on ‘The Streisand Effect’ for the last two years I’m well aware of what ‘The Streisand Effect’ is. I’m not to blame for the rise of Milo. Mio rose to prominence because people like you normalised him and apologised for him and have helped him spread his message of hate.
Well! There does appear to be some inconsistency. Alright then, let’s clarify, people can express approval or disapproval as they wish. However, it is arrogant to think your personal viewpoint about who should be invited to speak is more important than the desires of the the host.
I don’t give a good fuck about anything you have to say. You’re clearly a hysterical little bitch, too stupid and ignorant to see that you’re part of the problem. Luckily, this being a message board with an ignore function. I can make you fuck off.
Cheerio.
…awwwww. I’ve hurt the poor gater’s feelings. Just like all the rest of them they can’t stand the heat. Had to run off to their safe space. What a precious fucking snowflake.
The Streisand Effect made me read your posts. Thanks, Barbra!
[QUOTE=Rick Sanchez]
The correct response would have been to either (a) debate him, or (b) ignore him altogether.
[/QUOTE]
So what’s your take on the conservative organizations, up to and including the American Conservative Union, that helped keep him in the public eye by inviting him to speak? It’s interesting that you vehemently blame liberals for “boosting” Yiannopoulos’ public profile by denouncing him, but completely ignore the crucial facilitation provided by the conservatives who voluntarily chose to promote and publicize his message and pay him for the opportunity.
This is like blaming the election of Trump on liberals for not being “nice” enough to conservative voters, instead of on the conservative voters who, you know, actually elected him.
It’s more than time for conservatives to start taking some actual responsibility for the shitty causes and individuals they support for the sake of “pissing off the liberals”. A surprising number of conservatives seem to believe that when they do shitty things or endorse shitty views because they enjoy seeing liberals get upset about it, the fault lies with the liberals for getting upset.
Unlike those people outside (or upstairs) in the real world, right?
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=octopus]
However, it is arrogant to think your personal viewpoint about who should be invited to speak is more important than the desires of the the host.
[/QUOTE]
Okay then, how about all the conservatives who complained about the ACU’s inviting Yiannopoulos to speak at CPAC? Was it “arrogant” of them to think that their “personal viewpoint about who should be invited to speak” was more important than the clearly expressed desires of the host organization?
If you think it was “arrogant” for liberals at Villanova, say, to pressure the host organization (College Republicans) into withdrawing a speaking invitation to Yiannopoulos by expressing their outrage at the prospect, then isn’t it also “arrogant” of conservatives to pressure the ACU into withdrawing his CPAC speaker invitation by expressing their outrage?
Liberals are outraged at Yiannopoulos for being a misogynist racist aggressive lying asshole. Conservatives are outraged at Yiannopoulos for having said that he thinks cross-generational sexual relationships that violate statutory-rape laws aren’t necessarily always bad. I really don’t see why prioritizing one’s outrage over the “desires of the host” institution should be considered “arrogant” on the part of liberals but not on the part of conservatives.
Well, they claim to be. I’m guessing this is just a convenient excuse to let them distance themselves from Yiannopoulos just as he was starting to become a little too embarrassing, and the modern conservative tolerance for embarrassment is pretty damn high.
Lets face it. If you enjoy saying questionable or mean things just because it makes other people angry, you are not a nice person and your character is questionable at best. In societies where face and honor are valued, such people have none.
So when these people complain about not getting any respect, the only answer is that they have proven themselves unworthy of it, as they don’t respect anyone else.
… who thinks cross-generational sexual relationships that violate statutory-rape laws aren’t necessarily always bad.
At least this liberal.