Yes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
University ignores warnings about Milo, leaving him free to bully trans student
- Thread starter Anarky
- Start date
- Status
Yes.
It looks like it.
Right wing organizations, which are a minority within universities, have co-opted the victimization argument from minority groups that actually were the victims of things like literal slavery and attempted genocide. Unsurprisingly, these organizations cynically abuse this as a political cudgel. College administrators such as the one in question look the other way out of moral cowardice or political expediency. This is the result.
NeOak
Member
You already picked your side if you think that hatred of fascism and indifference to it is the same as hatred of minorities.
Do you think that the humanity of minorities is up for debate? Is "Are Jews People?" (thanks, a lot, CNN) a debate worth having?
These are yes or no questions.
I don't know if you noticed, but love lost across the board. Russ Feingold ran a campaign totally based around that, and he ran behind Hillary. The Democratic National Convention was overflowing with positive emotions, and what happened? They got clobbered in the election.
Also, Democrats allowing the humanity of minorities to be questioned would be the ultimate losing strategy. If the next Democratic presidential nominee were to say anything less forceful than "They're human, end of story, it's not up for debate" the party would never win another election ever again. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Excellent post.
It's both infuriating and terrifying. One of the worst parts is, our so-called liberal mainstream media is helping them every step of the way (CNN chyron: "Alt-Right founder questions if Jews are people").
Angry Puppy
Member
Why is there even an argument about silencing political opposition when it's about silencing harassment. The attempt to silence him isn't because his views are different, it's because he actively harms people with his platform.
The college has fault in this. The speaker wasn't someone who did this out of the blue, there is a clear history behind it.
If a college invites someone to speak who has a prevalent history of committing a crime (you can come up with one yourself) and he goes on campus and commits this crime, the college has some responsibility.
This isn't some safe space bullshit. The idea of protecting students from actual harm isn't coddling.
You keep talking about enabling a conversation but you are just enabling harassment. I'm all for the conversation part.
The college has fault in this. The speaker wasn't someone who did this out of the blue, there is a clear history behind it.
If a college invites someone to speak who has a prevalent history of committing a crime (you can come up with one yourself) and he goes on campus and commits this crime, the college has some responsibility.
This isn't some safe space bullshit. The idea of protecting students from actual harm isn't coddling.
You keep talking about enabling a conversation but you are just enabling harassment. I'm all for the conversation part.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I assume you're against the existence of criminal negligence laws as well?
nelsonroyale
Member
So obviously mentally deranged. Needs to be on a long term course of therapy.
show me your skeleton
Member
I'm gonna hone in on one thing that always makes me laugh in regards to the role of government and conservatives.
he states that liberals used government to 'weasel' their way into female locker rooms, suggesting a cowardly approach and a dependence on big government, yet the right often want to impose control over marriage rights, abortion rights etc.
he states that liberals used government to 'weasel' their way into female locker rooms, suggesting a cowardly approach and a dependence on big government, yet the right often want to impose control over marriage rights, abortion rights etc.
benjipwns
Banned
Conversion therapy?!?
I would have to imagine Milo and his audience are more liberal on those issues than the standard conservative however.
I thought that story was far more complex than simply "straight males" in the end?
Dog Problems
Banned
...I would attend that speech.
ClosingADoor
Member
I am all for different viewpoints being able to share their thoughts at universities. But this is just hate speech and bullying. Who is inviting this guy and is he getting paid for it? Because if university money goes to this, that should be stopped right away.
Also amazed nobody has walked up to him and punched him in the face at one of these things.
Also amazed nobody has walked up to him and punched him in the face at one of these things.
In real life I'm quite left wing, when it comes to the issues that matter, but I'm quite sure I'm a minority conservative when it comes to GAF.
GAF liberal thinking as of late is to impose restrictions on what I can say, who is allowed to speak, micromanaging my thoughts and voice to a certain criteria that they have deemed safe.
To be fair, I think this is a fault of the internet, not just this forum.
GAF liberal thinking as of late is to impose restrictions on what I can say, who is allowed to speak, micromanaging my thoughts and voice to a certain criteria that they have deemed safe.
To be fair, I think this is a fault of the internet, not just this forum.
I mean if all you want is insult, harass and stalk, you will be rightfully banned from most forums. Those are good fucking restrictions to have.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Then just go to 4chan, where free speech "blooms and blossoms" without consequence and restriction.
I mean, I'm not seeing what restriction has been imposed on you that doesn't include insulting language that would've broke ToS anyway.
Are you responding to something or just declaring that you are afraid GAF is trying to control your thoughts? What a weird post.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Who's micromanaging your damn speech?
This is a free and open liberal democracy (emphasis on liberal - freedom of speech is a liberal value, and don't you forget it. It's the right wing authoritarians who might actually force your mouth shut if things get worse). You can say whatever you want! Who's stopping you?
But what the Miloverse alt-right anti-"regressive left" world has done is dupe you into conflating other people's freedom of speech - when they tell you to shut the fuck up for being hateful - and make your think that is infringing on your freedom of speech.
This is a free society and everyone is open to say whatever they want. But if people use that speech to say "get that annoying alt-right troll off the stage or I won't contribute to your organization", you've got to deal with the consequences.
The left is the real "freedom of speech" team. The right is tricking you into thinking some freedom of speech is unacceptable by crying when you object to hoisting their message onto a private platform.
For the last time, the identity and humanity of transpersons is not up for fucking debate
HER LIFE IS IN DANGER SOLELY DUE TO HER IDENTITY
DO YOU NOT GET THIS
ARE YOU THIS OBTUSE
TRANSPERSONS LITERALLY GET KILLED FOR STANDING UP TO TRANSPHOBES AND SOLELY FOR BEING TRANS
Palette Swap
Member
Dude, you're complaining in a low energy, passive aggressive way that people think a college shouldn't give a platform to this kind of harassing:
Do tell us the truth of Matthew Shepherds murder why don't you?
NeloAnjelo
Member
Say hello to the next POTUS
He is, to my eternal shame, British and so not eligible to be president. He failed over here, moved to the states and found his niche unfortunately.
Pretty sure the poster is complaining about gaf moderation.
To re-iterate: one of the many reasons you're not supposed to use deadnames or out someone who transitioned to other people, even if they've outed to you personally, is you never know who will do what with that information, including stalking and killing the person solely for being trans.
benjipwns
Banned
Here is the university's statement in response to a pretty amazing eight page rant from Kramer:
And others have to take it extra far:
20/20 did a story years ago well after the case that suggested it was potentially drug related and that the attackers knew Shepard and it wasn't a random drunk guys thing. I think the prosecutor suggested the same at the time.
Neither case makes it justified, I'm especially not sure why the "straight male" angle would. Which is what I was responding to. If Shepard did know his attackers in terms of being friendly or more that makes it even worse in my mind as to what it suggests.
http://mediamilwaukee.com/top-stori...sgender-lockerroom-policy-breitbart-alt-right
And others have to take it extra far:
How can I tell you the truth about something I didn't witness? I merely mean that much like the Lawrence fabrication there may have been some "simplification" of the story in favorable media.
20/20 did a story years ago well after the case that suggested it was potentially drug related and that the attackers knew Shepard and it wasn't a random drunk guys thing. I think the prosecutor suggested the same at the time.
Neither case makes it justified, I'm especially not sure why the "straight male" angle would. Which is what I was responding to. If Shepard did know his attackers in terms of being friendly or more that makes it even worse in my mind as to what it suggests.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Seriously. Saying that trans people should stand up for themselves (and put themselves at risk) reminds me a lot of people who say that victims of rape/sexual assault should have fought back harder. They don't understand just how in danger victims in these situations are of reprisal if they respond to the perpetrators of the abuse.
So the university is comfortable allowing blatant hate speech and targeted verbal assault against its own students and offers nothing but comfort to students instead of a defense of said student and other students affected? How does that make any sense? We won't protect you from someone trying to shoot you, but we'll do out best to patch you up real good afterwards.
Yes, it's his 'thing'. He uses it like a weapon to prove to his right wing followers that gay people make a choice to be gay, and that political correctness is unnecessary and oppression. Anti-gay stuff is a common line he runs with.
benjipwns
Banned
It's sort of a legal thing.
If they blocked the student groups, they'd be open to a lawsuit as a public university. Which administration wishes to avoid simply because it's a hassle more than anything.
So they go to we can't block student groups from bringing speakers in, but we'll condemn them after.
As long as the person is just giving a speech/presentation they're given a wide birth. Obviously they would err on the side of caution in terms of student groups that wish to bring in people to shoot students.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
There is nothing to defend retroactively the damage has already been done. The lest they could do is to unanimously denounce Milo and lobby for him not to get a gig at a university again.
benjipwns
Banned
http://mediamilwaukee.com/top-stori...sgender-lockerroom-policy-breitbart-alt-right
Chancellor issued a statement condemning in addition to the lower level one I quoted above explaining why the university allowed Milo to speak.
Chancellor Mark A. Mone said:
the email from Kramer is pretty great (in terms of an epic rant, not the reasons for it):
https://www.scribd.com/document/334197323/Adelaide-Email
Alcoremortis
Member
Oh wow, he's scheduled to show up at my alma mater, UC Berkeley, in two months.
And there's already plans to block him from getting to the building.
And there's already plans to block him from getting to the building.
Reminds me of that article on Wash Po about a week ago. The right's version of speech police is just as insidious if not more so than the left's. When the left wants to protect human decency the right uses it as a cue that you are in the tribe. And if you don't conform, you are kicked out.
At any rate, Milo shouldn't have been allowed to speak if his only objective was to stalk, harass, and incite violence against one specific person. Hell, if that was even just one of his objectives he shouldn't have been allowed to speak.
A Link to the Past
Banned
The issue though is that with proper research, it is easy to determine that there is serious risk of something like this happening if Milo is given a platform. At the very least, they should have responded by acknowledging the risks created by a lax response to the Milo situation, both in how they determined whether it was acceptable to invite Milo specifically and the fact that they did not include a strict, clear condemnation of Milo's statements and a ban of Milo from their campus.
Every time I see your avatar I think it's Viewtiful Joe
benjipwns
Banned
The student group is a conservative one, they invited him. Student groups can invite anyone, and to an extent, the administration will find any reason NOT to block those invites.
To a point, Milo is still a relatively harmless speaker. From the universities point of view. Compare to Salmon Rushdie which requires rather extensive security precautions and thus is why schools feel free to turn him away despite never saying anything half as interesting.
I didn't watch the whole video, but from what I did and the articles, apparently this was the opening of his act and only because it related to the university specifically. (Much like a comedian will crack some lame jokes about famous things in whatever city they're in that night.)
He went on for a further two hours regarding the Lieberal's Race War against America.
A Link to the Past
Banned
According to the email, Milo has specifically targeted individuals in the way that he did at this University, so it can very easily been argued that not blocking him either demonstrates a lack of care to research or a lack of care that he may.
benjipwns
Banned
Also, in regards to some earlier posts in the thread, Milo has definitely upped his act, especially as Trump rose and he took credit for it.
He was for a time just an openly gay/British (same thing right?) conservative-libertarian who didn't care for "PC culture." And this was mostly his schtick and he had a background as a tech writer, so he covered gamergate which led him down this path to the alt-right as a whole. He actually wrote a fairly good piece summarizing the alt-right a year and a half plus ago right as it started to really get going as a thing since they were willing to talk to him openly unlike regular media.
He has definitely shifted to both being overly aggressive on the anti-PC stuff as well as playing up his homosexuality to major stereotypical extents. It used to be little jokes here and there, now he's like a demented later seasons Jack from Will and Grace intent on trolling everyone he can as long as the money comes in.
I don't even know if he still actually writes tech stuff for Breitbart anymore.
He was for a time just an openly gay/British (same thing right?) conservative-libertarian who didn't care for "PC culture." And this was mostly his schtick and he had a background as a tech writer, so he covered gamergate which led him down this path to the alt-right as a whole. He actually wrote a fairly good piece summarizing the alt-right a year and a half plus ago right as it started to really get going as a thing since they were willing to talk to him openly unlike regular media.
He has definitely shifted to both being overly aggressive on the anti-PC stuff as well as playing up his homosexuality to major stereotypical extents. It used to be little jokes here and there, now he's like a demented later seasons Jack from Will and Grace intent on trolling everyone he can as long as the money comes in.
I don't even know if he still actually writes tech stuff for Breitbart anymore.
Shadowhelper
Banned
I prefer the bigots like Milos to the more dangerous bigots like Sam Harris or Maher, who normalize racism among the mainstream much more, imo. Milos just plays to a base of bigots who have pretty much always been bigots.
I wonder how much damage did the Islamaphobic and racist views of Dawkins, Harris and Maher help Trump to victory? On this issue, they are all pretty much one.
I wonder how much damage did the Islamaphobic and racist views of Dawkins, Harris and Maher help Trump to victory? On this issue, they are all pretty much one.
Comfort Jones
Banned
Never mind the fact that Harris openly denounced Trump and supported Hillary lol.
Shadowhelper
Banned
I don't think it matters much, when he did so much to normalize hate and Islamaphobia. His brand of 'intellectual' racism is exactly what Trump supporters live and die by. Trump supporters tend to really love Dawkins and Harris, for those views.
benjipwns
Banned
A certain segment maybe, including the one Milo appeals to as it's more socially liberal within a certain conservative framework, but I doubt that's true for like well, all the other 55 million.
Comfort Jones
Banned
So they love him while ignoring what he's actually saying and that's his fault.
Got it.
Shadowhelper
Banned
Oh man, it's a lot.
It's the Joe Rogans of this world. He is a huge Milos fan and supporter, and literally said ' I love this guy.' And finds his sexist views hilarious, and has had him on his podcast.
He also has had Harris on his podcast many times, and is best pals with him too. There is an absolutely massive crossover of Harris and Dawkins racism and Islamaphobia with, Milos and those types. Sam Harris and Dawkins have been feeding that the people who support trump, and I would say creating far more Trump supporters than Milos probably did.
They are dangerous, and more liberals should stand up to them, imo. Aethism should not be a tool of hate.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Please don't summon Harris'/Dawkins' flock of zealots. There's no getting through to them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked