World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[prfsnl_gmr]

The way you destroy a guy like this is to suck the air out of the room and not give them attention.

I agree with this. The other possible response is to engage him in a civilized debate. The man is not exactly an intellectual giant, and making him look like a babbling, idiotic bigot should be a fairly simple task for anyone that actually knows how to frame arguments.

[jp1]

Stuff...who knows what it is supposed to mean at this point?

I was going to ignore you altogether. You know, how you do, and then I thought it might be better to respond.

Then everyone else pointed out how your posted Tucker Carlson interview was with a bigot.

Well, there is little left to say at this point....isn't there? Think about your argument and then the reality of your counterargument. You have now argued against perceived bigotry, and for actual bigotry.

[TSTR]

To clarify, I don't think Milo is necessarily a bigot. He might use bigotry as a gimmick, but I think his real intentions, as previously stated, are simply to get himself over.

And you'd have to have balls/nerves of steel to try and engage the dude in a civilized debate. He seems to be a master at triggering people, which of course gives him the automatic win.

[marurun]

I don't see this as a poor reflection on university leadership, I see it as a poor reflection on some of the student body (and whatever outside agitators there were).

It is definitely a poor reflection on the violent agitators, certainly, but there were other protesters. There were students there to protest, and protesting is important. Speech to counter speech. Most news stories seem to assign the violence to a local anarchist group which seems to be primarily non-students (though I'm sure its number includes some students from the university, given the size of both). I don't think this should be seen to reflect poorly on the student body of Berkeley, either.

[prfsnl_gmr]

And you'd have to have balls/nerves of steel to try and engage the dude in a civilized debate. He seems to be a master at triggering people, which of course gives him the automatic win.

In my line of work, I have had to engage with much, much worse...Thankfully, I have a new position now; so, I don't have to deal with those sort of shenanigans any more. If you know how to deal with them, however, you end up making your opponent look stupid, petty, and vindictive (i.e., really, really bad).

[TSTR]

Oh I'm sure, dude. You've probably come across a few Judge Dredds in your time—"I AM THE LAW."

Yeah, it's definitely possible someone could take the dude down. It'd likely be entertaining as hell, too. Wouldn't be an easy task, though.

[Sarge]

Yeah, that is his shtick. I do wonder how much he actually believes. In a lot of ways, he's much like Ann Coulter. With Ann, you can see it coming, when she's going to say something that she herself might not believe, but she knows it's going to tick some folks off. That sort of smirk, that look at the camera. She knows she's tweaking people. So does Milo.

The thing is, though, it does expose a bit of hypocrisy from some on the far left. People that have championed free speech, and particularly controversial, potentially even hateful, free speech, are shutting down that kind of speech. That, I believe, is the real point of his actions.

Well, that, and sell lots of books and make money.

I don't see this as a poor reflection on university leadership, I see it as a poor reflection on some of the student body (and whatever outside agitators there were).

It is definitely a poor reflection on the violent agitators, certainly, but there were other protesters. There were students there to protest, and protesting is important. Speech to counter speech. Most news stories seem to assign the violence to a local anarchist group which seems to be primarily non-students (though I'm sure its number includes some students from the university, given the size of both). I don't think this should be seen to reflect poorly on the student body of Berkeley, either.

I can certainly see your point on that. I do wish some of that reasoning were applied to bad actors on the other side of the aisle. There was no end of reporting during the election from Donald Trump rallies painting the entire contingent based on the actions of a few yahoos. So I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. (Honestly, I'd be worried for my own safety to step in myself to stop violent protestors once it got to that point.)

[marurun]

The thing is, though, it does expose a bit of hypocrisy from some on the far left. People that have championed free speech, and particularly controversial, potentially even hateful, free speech, are shutting down that kind of speech. That, I believe, is the real point of his actions.

Well, Berkeley is one of the origins of the academic free speech movement, so it does sting a little. But at the same time, there have always been exceptions to free speech, legally speaking. But universities pursue academic freedom and free speech with somewhat different goals in mind. The letter that instructors wrote to the Berkeley administration requesting Milo's speaking arrangement be canceled referred specifically to his targeted mocking and harassment of a trans student at U of Wisconsin during his visit there. What if he targeted students for harassment at Berkeley, putting their pictures up on the screen in the student center during his speech and mocking them mercilessly? Is that a legitimate expression of free speech? I don't believe in censorship of ideas, but that's not an idea. That's a direct attack against someone who is essentially a bystander. It's in those spaces where universities have obligations that conflict with their lofty ideals. Sometimes a little practical hypocrisy is unavoidable.

[TSTR]

I also think that sometimes people forget "free speech" doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of said speech. Students unhappy with Milo coming had every right to protest his appearance. Becoming violent and destructive makes them look like fools, but still.

[Blu]

I mean the mocking is putting it lightly. He was saying how he'd have sex with the Transgender student because she was "passing" as female. He had plenty of dehumanizing manners of speech that I felt crossed the line. The students' scathing response due to the University of Milwaukee taking a virtually neutral stance on the matter really is a dropped ball too.

She was in the audience allegedly during his presentation. She became quickly fearful, in the midst of Milo's remarks, that what if she was recognized? She's already being de-legitimatized for her gender and gender expression, who's to say members of the crowd wouldn't threaten her physical safety. I think those are very rationale fears.

Milo really does take the pillars of higher education -- intellectual thinking, making college suitable for everyone and free speech, and pits them against one another in dubious, questionable, and harmful ways. TSTR and Marurun are spot on.

If it were me, I'd take the flak for not having him on campus. His thoughts, though they may be held, do pose a risk to campus security. There's examples of his behavior overriding the content of his speech and therefore refuse him. You can expose him for what he is, a self-hating gay man who really is just selling a message that deep down I don't think he buys into. And one who's not on steady ground to begin with.

Or just invite prfsnl_gmr to slay his arguments. I'd pay to see that.