Support NeoGAF

[toddhunter]

Hatemongers (or specifically anti-semites as Sartre originally wrote about) absolutely love to be challenged on their views and debate people, because they relish the opportunity to do so in bad faith. Nothing is ever accomplished by debating literal nazis, just deny them a platform and don't try to divert away responsibility by hiding behind free speech.

It's like saying neogaf should stop banning trolls because we need a platform to discredit them.

Challenge seems to be the alt-right thought of the week. It is really quite cute how they think they can change the world with their elite argument skills.

"Oh you want to tell me why being a nazi is wrong? Well let me tell you a few things that I read on a gif that will BLOW YOUR MIND"

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Milo literally (not figuratively, actually literally) made most of his fame by harassing people. The University deserves some of the blame.

Oh for sure, morally speaking. If his entire online shtick is bullying transgender people, then publically outing and shaming someone is definitely at least somewhat foreseeable. I guess I'm thinking more from a "can I hold the university responsible for this somehow?" perspective. Certainly if this were to happen again, the school wouldn't be able to then say "we had NO idea he was going to do THAT."

 

[TheSpoiler]

It's kind of like a movie.

He'll come out all sleezy, and say some awful things, even interrupting you in the middle of that speech you had written out.

But then, you rip up that paper. The whole audience gasps, and even he stops himself from rattling on some more dumb bullshit. Then you give a speech, not from something memorized, but from the heart.

When you finish, she smirks. He's won. But wait! There's a guy standing up! And he's clapping proudly! Now three more, and then the whole audience is in an uproar of applause.

Milo runs outside, in tears, and you push away the Debate Award sticker to run outside after him.

Turns out, he didnt mean all those terrible things he said, and your words changed him. You guys hug, Tommy gets the girl, you are still late to class, but you have a new friend in Milo so everything is great.

Spoiler

This is how people who don't struggle see solutions for people who do struggle.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

and whatever your reasons are for not wanting to attempt to have the argument with Milo, I respect. All I am saying is you should respect those who are willing to attempt to have a rational argument with him

I personally am willing to have that argument, and I understand that by doing so I am leaving myself open to personal attacks from him. In spite of that, I am willing to give the argument a try.

This wasn't a debate, argument or conversation. It was hate speech from the only individual with a microphone.

You should learn geography before you pick which hill you want to die on.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Let's see here.

Stay at a school where people like this are allowed to come talk shit about you in a presentation, meaning that any further "debates" would most likely not be done in a civil manner.

Or

Make it public that this school isn't relegating a safe spot as it proclaims, move on to another school because time and money is better spent at a place where you can have civil discussions, and continue to push for equality elsewhere?

One of these is going to bring to light a problem. The other is going to feed into what they want. But by all means, tell us how she should have combated Milo, the same guy willing to bring a shitpost to life as a presentation.

Option 3: Rush the stage and beat the shit out of the fucknut.

 

[TumblingHippo]

I read threads like this, with people trying to do backflips to say why hate speech should be allowed, and I'm just tired of it. The first feeling is to want to try and think out some clever argument, or analyze both sides, but naw, there's no energy and time for that anymore.

Milo spews hate speech. University allowed it to happen and they should face consequences. People who try to justify why Milo should be allowed to spew hate speech are supporting hate speech themselves, most likely because it doesn't affect them.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Option 3: Rush the stage and beat the shit out of the fucknut.

And get charged with battery, give Milo a new talking point, and dramatically increase the likelihood that his followers will harass you and everyone you care about.

Great plan. At least whoever follows that won't look like a special little snowflake, right?

 

[Platy]

Oh for sure, morally speaking. If his entire online shtick is bullying transgender people, then publically outing and shaming someone is definitely at least somewhat foreseeable. I guess I'm thinking more from a "can I hold the university responsible for this somehow?" perspective. Certainly if this were to happen again, the school wouldn't be able to then say "we had NO idea he was going to do THAT."

ACTUALY no, whose entire online shtick is bullying and publically outing trans people are TERFs.... like Germaine Greer whose last year thread was sadly different from this here, with most people being totaly ok that she speaks at some university.

Nice to know what change one year makes =D

 

[TheSpoiler]

Option 3: Rush the stage and beat the shit out of the fucknut.

Again, fam, this ain't a straight-to-Netflix feel good movie. You can't assault someone on stage, in public, and think that'll help your cause or your standing in the world. Sure, you punched him once or twice, but what are the repercussions?

You go to jail, he can press charges, Milo gets a real life LIBERALS R FIGHT piece to write about and spread all over the net, this event gets added to all the bullshit he already said about you, he gets a pity party from his slimy group, and he keeps going to schools unaware that he's garbage.

How is that better.

 

[Psychoward]

Option 3: Rush the stage and beat the shit out of the fucknut.

This is a joke right?

 

[Alienfan]

I have watched dozens of his speeches now, I listen to all the ones I can and heard him on podcasts too, enough to know all his talking points, all his rebuttals, he is such a strange character, when he first started to appear in the UK on Sky news he provided quite an upstanding image, he argued on tv on tech, gender issues and presented himself almost entirely as someone of integrity, whether he had it or not. Watching him turn from that over the last 2 years to what he is now is incredibly strange, when he was serious before he made some interesting points that, if you didnt agree with would make you think, make you look up, I genuinely like having my thoughts challenged so having someone like him who goes very much against what you know appeals. But what he has turned into is so far from where he used to be and it exists in a world where it feels like he is play acting, he feels anything but sincere, half the time when he makes comments like the above he laughs afterwards, he plays it off, reading it in text is obviously much more vitriolic but if I had a hunch I would legitimately believe that he himself does not believe half the things that come out of his mouth.

What he has done rather incredibly is use his status to exploit a gap in the media that Trump exploited wherein he is actually immune from criticism, in the sense that, you cant really hurt him, you outcast him he becomes more popular, you call him a racist his fans protect him, what he actually is is somewhat irrelevant now.

His talks have slowly evolved into pantomimes where the audience shouts back things at him, he posts funny images and plays the clown to a bunch of people who take it as gospel.

This. I remember seeing him a few years back discussing gender inequality, and thinking I may disagree with him at large, but he's well spoken, passionate and is willing to listen; the type of person that the right side usually lack, capable of challenging my own views. A shame he's basically in it for the money and fame now, providing a platform for the worst parts of the internet like RedPill

 

[MUnited83]

Can you elaborate please? Are you suggesting that their speech is more free than the US despite strict hate speech laws, or are you referring to citizens having greater freedoms in life than in the US?

If it is it the latter, then I certainly would not disagree or debate there. When it comes to speech itself though, which is my primary concern and what I was referencing, things seem far more restricted. The NY Times had an article earlier this year on the crackdown of free speech in various countries lately with one of their primary examples being the arrest of some puppeteers in Spain. They had a puppet hold up a sign that vaguely referenced two terrorist groups with a play on words. That was enough to get them arrested. Then there are the more obvious and common examples of denying the Holocaust in Germany being a criminal offense.

In that sense, I would not call that more free than the US, although I would certainly be open to hearing about other areas I may be less familiar with. And again, just to clarify, this is solely about speech and not referencing freedom in life as a whole.

As an additional side note, it is obviously abhorrent to go so far as to deny the Holocaust as with the example I mentioned above, but wouldn't you want to know WHO thinks that so that you can either challenge them publicly or know that they probably aren't someone to hang around with as a friend? I certainly would.

I'm talking about the latter.

The reason Holocaust deniers still exists is because they are allowed to fester and spread their disgusting propaganda. You can bet there would be less of them if it wasn't something you can just spout publicly.

 

[KRod-57]

A Milo defender on GAF

I'd say I'm surprised, but after the shit I've seen defended, I'm not shocked at all.

I'm not defending Milo, I am defending the college

Do you think this student who was harassed was completely unaware of what the world outside her campus is like? Do you think by being harassed by an outside individual she was "learning to live with people different than her"? Your vague, hippy bs isn't exactly inspiring considering the actual situation that just took place.

You talk about how college students need to learn to live in the "real world" yet seem blissfully clueless on to what a college campus is actually like.

No, and again I do not support what Milo did. He was completely in the wrong for what he did. What I am saying is the college was not in the wrong for allowing the person to speak on their campus and engage in a conversation. If the person abuses that privilege, then that person needs to be held responsible, not the college

I do not see any misconduct in the college, I see the misconducting being in Milo's behavior

People are trying to have a conversation with you and it isn't actually making much progress. How is anyone supposed to talk sense into this guy?

The university failed to protect this person. It should never happen again there or elsewhere.

I wouldn't call conversations like this useless, I've learned quite a bit over the years from conversations like the one in this thread, and I respect those who are challenging me. Also understand that my argument doesn't revolve around Milo specifically, but a general rule of thumb. I started this conversation by posting a video of Obama and college campuses, I'll post it again for reference sake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da2AhDCY&feature=youtu.be&t=241

So the point is, when we have a disagreement with someone, we shouldn't try to coddle ourselves from their views, but that we should invite them into our campuses to have a conversation and to have an argument. My issue with holding the school responsible in this case is it sets a poor precedents, where we do not allow these conversations to take place at all, not to mention taking money out of our schooling system

Now I agree that this person should not have been harassed, but I also don't think it is right to hold the school responsible simply for allowing this person to speak on their campus. If any harassment charges are to be held, it should be against Milo, not the school

This wasn't a debate, argument or conversation. It was hate speech from the only individual with a microphone.

You should learn geography before you pick which hill you want to die on.

Again, there was a 20 minute Q&A where members of the audience were given the microphone. I would agree that there should have been more to this event to encourage a debate, rather than a mere 20 minute Q&A at the end of an hour and a half long speech, but I also do not think the school should be held responsible for Milo's actions. Kind of like how I do not believe neogaf should be held responsible if I were to act out of line and threaten someone

 

[LilWayneSuckz]

Acting gay, but isn't? The way he talks no gay man would utter. Therefore I think he really isn't gay. Its part of his act.

Trust me as a gay man...we are not all pure and good. There are horrible assholes in the gay community, just as there are the same in all other aspects.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

And get charged with battery, give Milo a new talking point, and dramatically increase the likelihood that his followers will harass you and everyone you care about.

Great plan. At least whoever follows that won't look like a special little snowflake, right?

Alright, you're right, I was out of line. You're right that this was hate speech plain and simple. Hell, even Trump rails against bigotry, and this guy is the biggest bigot of all.

Look, the problem I keep coming up with, is, how do we fight back? Like it or not, we live in a nation primarily controlled by Republicans now, and this is going to give people like Milo, RIchard Spencer, etc. a lot of power and influence, and there's going to be a lot of people who support them at college campuses. These people, yes, are assholes, but we can't just keep running from them into "safe spaces", because that's what they expect us to do and mock us for. I was bullied from high school and into college for my mental disabilities, and there was no safe place for me to go outside of my dorm room. I tried to hang myself about 5 times. But I didn't give up.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Now I agree that this person should not have been harassed, but I also don't think it is right to hold the school responsible simply for allowing this person to speak on their campus. If any harassment charges are to be held, it should be against Milo, not the school

Do you agree with the factual statement "The school has a legal duty under Title IX to take active steps to prevent gender discrimination or harassment?"

 

[freethoughtbubble]

ACTUALY no, whose entire online shtick is bullying and publically outing trans people are TERFs.... like Germaine Greer whose last year thread was sadly different from this here, with most people being totaly ok that she speaks at some university.

Nice to know what change one year makes =D

I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here and that's probably my fault (late night at the office). Yeah I'm not for this "denying nasty people a platform" position because I think it's a slippery slope. However, you cross the line when it's targeted harassment of the kind Milo did here. That goes beyond speech; that's a full blown attack. People kill themselves over stuff like this =(

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I have to disagree, he is definitely a political opposition to my views personally, and to say he is not open to having a conversation is completely inaccurate considering that is literally the reason why he was there to speak on that campus. The people who are not open to having a conversation are the ones who believe he shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus

Opinions like these are why liberals keep losing. If you want to keep pretending the guy who hates you just wants to have a conversation, then I've got a whole fucking lot of bridges to sell you

 

[RM8]

Yeah I'm not for this "denying nasty people a platform" position because I think it's a slippery slope.

I'm not surprised, many people, like you, believe it's somehow super hard to tell hate speech apart from... regular speech. Today you call aggressive anti transgender speech hate speech, tomorrow we'll be jailed for saying we prefer dogs over cats. Where, oh where, do we draw the line?

 

[Psychoward]

I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here and that's probably my fault (late night at the office). Yeah I'm not for this "denying nasty people a platform" position because I think it's a slippery slope. However, you cross the line when it's targeted harassment of the kind Milo did here. That goes beyond speech; that's a full blown attack. People kill themselves over stuff like this =(

Nobody would be denying him a platform. He's still free to spew his hateful bullshit on his own terms.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Milo is the scum of the earth, and fun fact, a top choice for press secretary.

That said, Kramer's response didn't help matters. People like Milo, the rest of Breitbart, and Tomi Lahren love to paint liberals as melting snowflakes, and her response fell right in line with that. The best way to beat a bully is to stand up to them, stand your ground, and fight back, not yell about it to the newspaper and quit the school. I'm not saying she deserved it, but her response played right into his hands.

You must frequently read Breitbart - that's the only place the bolded even comes from besides one article in the Washington Post where he was floated as a way to "shake things up" if Trump really wanted to.

(It's also not true, by the way. Milo is not going to be press secretary. Or have any role in Trump's administration)

 

[freethoughtbubble]

I'm not surprised, many people, like you, believe it's somehow super hard to tell hate speech apart from... regular speech. Today you call aggressive anti transgender speech hate speech, tomorrow we'll be jailed for saying we prefer dogs over cats. Where, oh where, do we draw the line?

People like me? And, yes, categorizing speech is hard. I'm not sure what you think the rest of your post proves.

Nobody would be denying him a platform. He's still free to spew his hateful bullshit on his own terms.

I was just saying I don't accept the argument that universities should rescind an invitation on the ground that the speaker should be denied a platform because their viewpoint is unacceptable.

 

[Venfayth]

People like him aren't interested in logic or debate, they're interested in an audience. You can never count on them to do anything other than move towards their intended goal from the start.

 

[Frozenprince]

People like me? And, yes, categorizing speech is hard. I'm not sure what you think the rest of your post proves.

Using a slur directed at someone personally is hate speech.

Wow that was hard.

 

[Ketkat]

If Milo himself is calling it a "dangerous faggot tour," what was the college honestly expecting him to say/do that would make them look good in any way?

 

[Tubobutts]

I'm not surprised, many people, like you, believe it's somehow super hard to tell hate speech apart from... regular speech. Today you call aggressive anti transgender speech hate speech, tomorrow we'll be jailed for saying we prefer dogs over cats. Where, oh where, do we draw the line?

It's a slippery slope in the sense that the government would be defining what is and what isn't considered hate speech. Do you think the government we're about to have is more likely to be sympathetic to the transgender person being harassed or to shitheads like milo?

 

[KRod-57]

Do you agree with the factual statement "The school has a legal duty under Title IX to take active steps to prevent gender discrimination or harassment?"

Absolutely, but I also do not believe the college was in violation of this duty simply by allowing this person to speak on their campus. If we allow the school to be held responsible, then we set a precedents where our colleges are left vulnerable to countless lawsuits. Colleges wouldn't be able to invite anyone to speak on their campus without risking a lawsuit

Literally, any speaker could act out of line, and then the college would be held responsible. I do not agree with that

Opinions like these are why liberals keep losing. If you want to keep pretending the guy who hates you just wants to have a conversation, then I've got a whole fucking lot of bridges to sell you

That is definitely not why liberals are losing. I think you could learn a lot by engaging in conversation with people.

With that, I think I'm going to have to call it a night with this conversation. I appreciate everyone's insight, and I respect you all for challenging me. My general point is to encourage engaging in conversation.. and sometimes in doing this people are going to step out of line.. but we mustn't allow that to discourage us from general conversation. It might not seem like much at the time, but over time a conversation can go a long way.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Using a slur directed at someone personally is hate speech.

Wow that was hard.

That's a pretty narrow definition. I agree a slur directed at an individual is probably hate speech.

See my previous posts in this thread. I'm not down with inviting the Milos of the world to harass individual students on the school's dime. Fuck that.

 

[Media]

K-Rod, you are basically saying that people should be forced to sit and listen to someone who's only message is 'You're disgusting because of how you were born/what you believe/your gender and shouldn't exist, and here's why, please kill yourself.' because it's a conversation. I have no idea why you think this is the way things should be. This is not a matter of open dialogue and free speech. Until you get that and stop acting like you are the pinnacle of humanity because you 'engage' with harassment and hate, there isn't really a conversation I can have with you either.

 

[KRod-57]

K-Rod, you are basically saying that people should be forced to sit and listen to someone who's only message is 'You're disgusting because of how you were born/what you believe/your gender and shouldn't exist, and here's why, please kill yourself.' because it's a conversation. I have no idea why you think this is the way things should be. This is not a matter of open dialogue and free speech. Until you get that and stop acting like you are the pinnacle of humanity because you 'engage' with harassment and hate, there isn't really a conversation I can have with you either.

No I'm not, again I respect anyone's decision to not attempt to take part in the conversation. What I don't agree with is not allowing others on campus to try and engage in the conversation

good night

 

[Yagharek]

From the OP:

Yiannopoulos – who says he would ‘cure’ himself of being gay if he could

If he could "cure" himself he would.

Trans people have the option to undergo therapy and other treatment that can help them become who they would like to be.

If Milo genuinely believes he would "cure" himself then isn't he being disingenous by singling out trans people who want to do what they can?

It makes me wonder - is Milo for real? Is he a character? Or is he just incapable of empathy?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

No I'm not, again I respect anyone's decision to not attempt to take part in the conversation. What I don't agree with is not allowing others on campus to try and engage in the conversation

good night

How is sexually harassing someone part of a conversation?

 

[DedValve]

I give up. You're never done ducking the fact that he attacks people and nothing else. Unsurprising that you're never going to understand what a conversation actually is since you're not even trying to see things from the victim's point of view.

Bu bu bu unity guys!

 

[metalslimer]

Milo has a history of harassment. Why can't all you people whining about respecting all speech understand the difference between an idea and harassment?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Actually, conversation with our opposition has everything to do with. At least to me, I consider Milo to be in opposition to my views, and this event was literally him having a discussion with people of opposing views to his. Personally, I'm not afraid to have an argument with Milo, and I think I could take him to school on a lot of issues. If you're not willing to have that conversation, that is your own choice, and I respect that.. but as Obama said, college students don't need to be coddled, and we don't learn anything when we try to silence those we do not agree with



I don't disagree in saying there is a certain point of absurdity where it is time to disengage from the conversation. What I do not agree with is when we avoid any attempts to have a rational conversation with the person. If you're not willing to give it a try, again that is your choice and I respect that, but I would also urge you to respect those who are willing to accept that challenge. I don't think we need to go the route of preventing the conversation from taking place

The result of not avoiding attempts to have a rational conversation with Milo was a University giving him a stage to orchestrate a hate campaign against a specific individual. I have no concept of why you are making this point in this thread when the consequences are not only very evident, but very blatant too.

 

[Frozenprince]

No I'm not, again I respect anyone's decision to not attempt to take part in the conversation. What I don't agree with is not allowing others on campus to try and engage in the conversation

good night

Her humanity is not a conversation.

Nobody should be subject to their being and who they are being nothing more than a bubble to fill on the hate rhetoric spreadsheet.

It's not a discussion. Or a debate. Or a conversation. Or a dialogue.

Her. Humanity. Is. Not. Questionable.

 

[Kai Dracon]

It is equivocation to the point of concern trolling to define "conversation" as "somebody getting on a stage with a mic".

Since Godwin's law is dead at this point, how about those classic Nazi rallies? Those were some fantastic conversations. Hitler was a real considerate guy, always showing up to hear what people opposed to his ideas had to say.

 

[Media]

No I'm not, again I respect anyone's decision to not attempt to take part in the conversation. What I don't agree with is not allowing others on campus to try and engage in the conversation

good night

Again, you keep using the word 'conversation'. Screaming cuck at someone over and over is not a conversation. Neither is singling out someone and telling the entire school they are disgusting, with pictures, and reasons why. How the fuck is that a conversation in any sense of the word?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

My friend goes to this school.

He was in the audience.

He just wrote a length Facebook post about this.

Said that it was the most horrible thing that'd he ever seen, that Milo wasn't even trying to cover it up as "humor", that he was seriously just going after this kid and was disgusted that they would even be in the audience.

 

[Psychoward]

I was just saying I don't accept the argument that universities should rescind an invitation on the ground that the speaker should be denied a platform because their viewpoint is unacceptable.

They absolutely should. It's within their rights to do so (after all they invited the person in the first place!) and if the speaker is promoting bigotry and hatred that's as good a reason as any.

 

[Psychoward]

No I'm not, again I respect anyone's decision to not attempt to take part in the conversation. What I don't agree with is not allowing others on campus to try and engage in the conversation

good night

it's not a conversation, it's harassment

stop using that word

 

[Crayon]

This is so sad.

 

[Colin.]

Proponents of hate speech, harassment, and anti-intellectualism/facts should have no place as public speakers in places of learning.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

POS. Milo is an embarrassment to the LGBT community.

 

[Psychoward]

Proponents of hate speech, harassment, and anti-intellectualism/facts should have no place as public speakers in places of learning.

Milo is all three!

 

[The Kree]

I think we have a lot of conservatives in our ranks pretending to be open minded liberals; secret agents whose only goal is to further soften us up and guilt trip us into taking mercy on oppressors and harassers. They tell us we should be open to dialogue that will never take place and exhibit sympathy that will never be reciprocated because they know that we have the tools and numbers to effectively grind them into dust, but as long as we never have the balls to treat them the way they treat us, they can remain in control.

I hope you're not falling for it.

 

[Opto]

quit giving nazis platforms, unless they're there to get a standard drop

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Basically said that Milo was acting like his continual harassment of Adelaide would somehow either get them to grow a dick right then and there or have her just stop existing. He even wondered if Milo was trying to get her to kill herself.

 

[Psychoward]

Basically said that Milo was acting like his continual harassment of Adelaide would somehow either get them to grow a dick right then and there or have her just stop existing. He even wondered if Milo was trying to get her to kill herself.

Shameful. And that makes his implicit defense by some people here and the weak response from the President of the university even worse.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Absolutely, but I also do not believe the college was in violation of this duty simply by allowing this person to speak on their campus. If we allow the school to be held responsible, then we set a precedents where our colleges are left vulnerable to countless lawsuits. Colleges wouldn't be able to invite anyone to speak on their campus without risking a lawsuit

They were specifically told that gender discrimination and/or harassment was going to happen.
They did not dismiss it as non-credible, they simply cited that they felt they had a conflicting obligation to promote pluralism or whatever.
Gender discrimination and/or harassment occurred.
It would not have occurred but for their inaction -- not disallowing him from speaking specifically, but doing anything at all.

How would Title IX have any teeth if it did not cover this situation? You keep getting back to "should he be allowed to speak or not" but I am not interested in that question even in the slightest. This is a student who, by name, was harassed and her personal information shared by a speaker that the university was warned was going to be abusive. How could the victim not have recourse in this regard?