Because most moderate conservatives don’t think they have much in common with guys like that.
That’s because I genuinely believe that Milo’s left-wing protestors did much, much more to boost his signal than the conservative organisations who paid and promoted him. Why do I think this? Well, it’s because…
You truly are a master of understatement! Some liberals were not only unwise, and were not only unprincipled, but were also hilariously and utterly batshit crazy! Maybe some videos will help:
Milo at DePaul.
Milo at Rutgers.
Milo (and others) at UMass.
Milo at UC Davis.
Milo at U Milwaukee.
And, of course, Berkley.
I don’t know what these students were majoring in, but if it was how to make YouTube videos go viral they certainly got their money’s worth!
And all this isn’t even touching on all the death threats Milo received, the bomb threats the owners of the venues hosting him received, and the used needles and dead animals he was sent through the post - all of which is worse than being mean to people on Twitter.
Does it, though? Remember, we’re talking about publicity here. Do the conservatives who turn up to Milo’s lectures and laugh at his lame jokes really create as much publicity as the left-wing agitators screaming and yelling at him, snatching away his microphone, attacking his cameramen, forming human barricades to keep people from hearing his talks, setting off the fire alarms and smearing themselves in fake period blood while yelling ”THAT MAN REPRESENTS HATRED!!!”?
Your position seems bizarre to me. It seems to rest on an unspoken assumption that it’s somehow impossible for a man’s detractors to create more publicity for him than his promoters. This is, frankly, ridiculous. In fact, there are so many examples of the reverse occurring that it’s genuinely difficult to know which ones to pick.
Take Piss Christ, for instance. Who do you think did more to publicise that piece? The artist and his supporters, or his detractors? Could you even name the artist without googling? I’d wager most people couldn’t, and I’d bet everything I own that most people couldn’t name the gallery which showcased the exhibit, and publicising it was their job.
Here’s another example: Uber. When Uber were just starting out in London, cabbies staged a city wide protest, clogging up the roads, causing traffic jams, and generally acting like assholes. The result? Uber downloads rose by 859% in one week. The protesters ended up advertising Uber a thousand times more effectively than Uber themselves.
And then there’s movies: Life of Brian, Last Temptation of Christ, Anti-Christ, The Interview, Fitna, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Deep Throat…in every case, the protesters who wanted to hinder the films ended up helping them. And those protesters were nowhere near as hilarious, ridiculous, and sanctimonious as Milo’s protesters.
The best way to get people interested in something is to tell them they can’t see it. And there’s a direct correlation between the outrageousness of one’s protest, and the determination of one’s audience to ignore it. This is just a simple fact of human nature, and it’s one that the left-wing agitators on Milo’s college tour consistently disregarded. As with the other examples I listed above, they gave Milo publicity he could otherwise only have dreamed of. So yeah. Damn right I blame them.
As I asked that histrionic fuckwit Banquet Bear, do you really think Milo would have been invited on Real Time if the students at Berkley had simply ignored him?
Actually, I don’t think anyone comes out of this looking good. Milo comes off badly because he’s Milo. The conservatives who turned up to watch him tell lame jokes and have their egos stroked come off badly because they’re uncritically lapping up stupid bullshit (not that everything Milo says is stupid bullshit, mind. Just most of it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day). And the liberals who decided to gatecrash his talks, use the heckler’s veto to shut him down, threaten him, and generally act like spoilt, entitled ’my-way-or-the-highway’ cunts came off badly because nobody likes a bully, and because their dumbfuck antics helped ensure Milo’s videos went viral.
The only people who came off well were the people who ignored him.
It’s the conservatives who invite and pay Yiannopoulos to spew bigotry so they can enjoy watching “left-wing agitators” get agitated about it who make all that publicity possible in the first place.
You seem to be asymmetrically comparing conservatives as mere passive spectators of Yiannopoulos’s troll show with liberals as active protestors of it. But that’s not accurate.
The role of the conservatives isn’t limited to being an appreciative audience when Yiannopoulos shows up: they’re the ones who deliberately chose to give Yiannopoulos a platform for his intentionally incendiary hate speech.
Of course, that doesn’t make those conservatives responsible for any illegal acts committed by anti-Yiannopoulos protestors. But it does make those conservatives responsible for having deliberately invited, promoted and paid for Yiannopoulos’s intentionally incendiary hate speech. They are the reason that Yiannopoulos has (had?) a career as a campus speaker at all.
Look, ock, nobody’s saying you’re the *dumbest *conservative poster on this forum. It’s just that… well, doorhinge might retire one day, you know?
He also advocated killing the guy’s family, wot? Any movement on that?
Any form of violent extremism should be discouraged. We have laws that could be enforced that would make a difference. Why do police stand around doing nothing like at Berkeley?
They arrested this man and there will be a trial. What do you suggest to be done in a country in which there are, rightfully so, strong freedoms of press, speech, religion, and association? The only thing I can think of is constant education in order to teach civility and other socially beneficial traits and keeping on an eye out for the mentally unstable. Perhaps a better mental health screening system. The answer, in my opinion, is not shutting down basic liberties even if the expression of such is offensive.
In a world of 6+ billion and a country of 300+ million killing two random people isn’t going to advance whatever cause that nut was trying to advance. I don’t see how what people like this guy and Dylan Roof do are rational at all. That’s just me though.
When I see attacks like this I know my support for socialized medicine goes up. I’m not sure how other people see this, even on the right, but no-one I know expresses any support for these violent domestic attacks.
I don’t think I have ever advocated collective punishment. I don’t like aspects of Islam but that’s true about all religions I’m familiar with. I think attacking the concepts and ideologies of a religion are fair game. I think attacking people for no reason at all is not.
I also think critiques of right wing and left wing extremism are fair game. I don’t think attacking the people or denying them liberty is. I think that the US and other modern nations should be emotionally mature enough to out reason extremist nuts of any sort.
Will there always be a few outliers? Yes. But outside of mind reading or a draconian police state how do you deal with that?
I condemn them! Now what particular ideology creates them? Extremism comes in all flavors.
Write your congress-critter or call Trump. I don’t see how rightfully exercising control over national borders and sovereignty has anything to do with domestic law enforcement. The 6 billion earthlings don’t have a right of entry or residence in every country. Not while we still believe in concepts such as nations.
Write your congress-critter. Maybe you can get a bill drafted and a law passed.
Here’s a tutorial. https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
And for Kb9
This is why you shouldn’t be a potty mouth or a yuck moth. It’s just not attractive.
“intentionally incendiary hate speech” is your subjective opinion and still gives no one the right to react violently. Aren’t these students and other vermin that were burning stuff down adults? I know kids and teenagers who act more mature.
You called my mom, iirc, a whore. Did I get incensed? Nope. It’s a transparent attempt to agitate and since I’m not 2 and you didn’t steal my cookie I’m not about to have a temper tantrum. We are Homo Sapiens not Pan Troglodytes.
Just repeal the EPA and wait for the lead in the water to do its thing.
I suggest that law enforcement, and the FBI, be taken seriously by conservatives when they say that right wing extremism really is as significant a threat in this country as radical Islamic extremism.
I’m not sure what your last sentence is referring to – I don’t advocate shutting down basic liberties either.
Well, there you go again, describing this brave patriot who tried to defend his small section of America as a “nut”. What have you ever done to defend America from the invading hordes of nonChristians, you lazy internet neckbeard fatass? Voted Trump? Pffft, big deal.
:dubious: What part of what I said gave you the impression that I was claiming that anti-Yiannopoulos protestors had a right to react violently?
Sheesh, octopus, first you respond to my remark about a NONviolent protestor getting shot by a Yiannopoulos supporter with the query “violent protesters receive violence?”, and now this. I’m starting to seriously wonder about your reading comprehension problems.
[QUOTE=octopus]
You called my mom, iirc, a whore.
[/quote]
:eek: 
SayWHAT?!?
…Oh, I see. You didn’t in fact RC, and you didn’t bother to check your faulty recollection, so you got me mixed up with Budget Player Cadet and his hate-speech thought experiment in post #467.
Please be a little more careful about your attributions in future. I shouldn’t have to comb through the whole thread to figure out where you’re getting your slanderous accusations from just because you’re too lazy to determine whom you actually meant to accuse.
Right, so maybe work a little harder on bringing your reading comprehension up to species level, 'mkay?
Exactly. Which is why there should be, for example, no infringement of the civil liberties of Muslims in general just because some Muslims are violent extremist nuts. Nor should Muslims in general be held responsible for preventing the violent actions of a tiny minority of extremist nuts, any more than conservatives in general should be held responsible for preventing the violent actions of their tiny minority of extremist nuts. Glad you agree on these important principles.
[QUOTE=octopus]
I don’t think I have ever advocated collective punishment.
[/quote]
The point I was making had nothing to do with collective punishment: it had to do with demands that the nonviolent moderate majority of a particular group should take responsibility for denouncing and policing the actions of a tiny violent extremist minority within that group.
Such demands are very common when the group in question is Muslims, but curiously absent when the group is white conservatives.
Saw Mr. Yap-at-us on Bill Maher recently and manoman what a repulsive eel. In one way Milo Pastry is similar to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad - they’re both about as ‘smooth-talking’ as it gets, which is shitty when such facility is behind often dubious messages.
It was pretty lazy wasn’t it? Now I feel bad.
And how do you propose telling a group who practice a particular religion that large parts are incompatible with enlightened society? It’s easy to tell white conservatives to not use violence for political ends.
Here I’ll do it. White conservative people! It’s octopus! Don’t use violence to advance your political goals. Use debate. I did my part.
https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new-right-629a77e87986?ICID=ref_fark#.8ueo0jz3b
"As I write, Yiannopoulos, the fame-hungry right-wing provocateur and self-styled “most dangerous supervillain on the Internet,” is fighting off accusations of having once endorsed pedophilia. Former friends and supporters who long tolerated his outrage-mongering as childish fun are now dropping him like a red-hot turd: His book deal has been canceled, CPAC has disinvited him as a speaker, and today he resigned from his job at Breitbart. I’ve been following Yiannopoulos’ tour for months, and I can absolutely confirm that he means almost nothing he says, that he will say almost anything for attention, and that none of that matters to those who face violence and trauma as a result. Yiannopoulos has cashed in hard on the cowardice of American conservatives, exploited their complete allergy to irony. Now it’s payback time.
The Lost Boys were never the new punk. They were never the suave and seductive blackshirts of the new American authoritarianism. They are, at best, the brownshirts, and they are becoming less useful to their benefactors by the day."
It’s just as easy to tell Muslims exactly the same thing. Which is all that’s relevant concerning the issue of violent terrorist attacks carried out by Islamist extremists.
You may think that parts of Muslim ideology are incompatible with enlightened society, and I may think that parts of white conservative ideology are incompatible with enlightened society. But when it comes to the specific practical problem of rejecting violent terror tactics, the only message we need to bother with, in either case, is the message that people shouldn’t promote their ideology by violent means.
However, as I remarked, people often act as though it’s the responsibility of Muslims in general to enforce that message on their tiny minority of violent extremists, but not the responsibility of white conservatives in general to enforce that message on their tiny minority of violent extremists.
Neckbeard? That’s going too far.
The entire ACU is accurately characterized as radically reactionary. I can’t recall when I first became aware of CPAC, but I have never considered them to be conservative. Neither should anyone else who cares about language and the notion that words actually mean things.