Can we have a sociological discussion about '#freemilo'?

Post Reply New Topic

So, initial impression was (I had not heard of him before last month, as it happens)... is this another Mandela? Is everyone working to break the shackles of injustice...?

No, of course... this is a movement that somehow sprung out of supporting a blatant sexist... what is the world coming to... he may have liked being controversial all he wants, but controversy isn't about taking away the rights of 50% of the population... I can always be 'controversial' myself (from his supporters' perspective) and opine that not only was the Twitter ban justified, he should actually go to prison for being so full of hate.

I understand all of these 'kind' of people have a granddaddy in the form of Trump to excuse every single word that comes out of even a drunkard's mouth, but actually, some sense and sensibility is sorely needed or strife isn't unlikely, and in warzones being sexist means little, as survival is usually the priority... but this walking paradox (an immigrant... was he ever xenophobic, I wonder?) - who apparently thinks he's a 'Wagner' (lemme see the operas)... I assume, has never mentioned the consequences of mindless discrimination in the form of death camps, which, if he was there 70 years ago, a pink triangle would be given to him.. I wonder if he'd think that was 'controversial', or would he like the item simply because others are, after all, indulging in the discrimination he himself loves to commit to? Alt-right, hmph... it's just Nazism (the original Wagner seems to be so aligned, but clearly he wasn't as blatant as Milo or they wouldn't have discussed the possibility since he died, besides the music being appropriated...)

Oh, and, apparently he lists himself right at the end of "Alexander the Great, Alan Turing, Freddie Mercury"... hah, what utter delusion.

Last edited by Mootoo on 28 Jul 2016, 2:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

What you're really asking is if we can have a discussion where we can all accept your take on Milo YiAnnopolous. The answer to that is no, though I'm sure many will agree with you.

He's a provocateur and every new discussion about him is in his mind another victory. You are reminding people of him and what he preaches by opening up a debate.

I myself find him to be a breath of fresh air in an era where social media is biased to a singular mindset and special interests (like Twitter) are doing its best to ultimately suppress or defeat real open discussion and free thought.

Ultimately if you want Milo and his critics gone you (unless developing in swift haste some serious debating points) have 2 options - to ignore him and his followers or to let them have a platform to speak so others (in your mind) could see the true nature of this for themselves. If you think someone is an idiot or a moron never deny them of a platform - it only strengthens them and fuels populism. Look at Trump for example.

Let them speak about what, how and where women should make his sandwiches? I would actually like to know if he has any redeeming qualities, but otherwise I really don't see how this is as much about free speech as it is about (ironically, as usual, about the likes of Trump) crushing individual rights exactly like they do in Saudi Arabia... they supposedly have a problem with terrorism (and its sponsors) and their religion, yet they are adopting the exact same mindsets...

Also, I suppose there is inevitably an air of publicity, especially due to the ban itself... but what I'm surprised with is this whole supportive sexist movement, like some KKK version of gender...

I'm sure if you met Milo in person he wouldn't throw you off a building, lynch you, or beat you up simply for being who you are.

It's no secret that Milo hates a lot of women, or rather what he feels many women have become. He fires the same vitriol towards men, though. In fact, very few are safe from his criticism.

Can't say I agree with all his views on abortion or some of the Trans and sexual communities, though. Even for someone with a hard stomach I find them to be awful.

Then I suggest you try listening to/reading what the man has to say with an open mind, free of ideological bias, and form your own opinions rather than pre-judging him based on what you read on tumblr.



Or you can throw irrational, unfounded accusations around, in lieu of any genuine arguments and in the vain hope that someone takes them seriously.

I really do try, but I can't exactly take seriously someone who says "so everybody prepare for Cody to whip his new tits out at the lesbian bar and demand that they allow him access to their bedrooms"...

That sort of statement Milo made is meant to be satirical of the rights and entitlement people seem to unjustifiably expect from others. You'll find Frankie Boyle can make the same jokes every night of the week but because he isn't a political pundit and is not conservative, no one minds. And therein lies the problem.

I also like to apply a filter to what people say rather than a person altogether. You can still learn from even those you deem the worst or an enemy. Ignoring someone altogether because you disagree with some statements is not a strong position in my mind.

I don't like a lot of political people but I follow them and their preferred media outlets on Twitter anyway as well as my own favourites. It helps keeps a balance. Painting everyone you don't agree with as the most evilest thing you can think of, being it the KKK, Hitler, Skeletor or Mumra, does not.

Except the latter two are fictional and Frankie is a comedian and doesn't try to dress up as the champion of hardliners... and while surprisingly the KKK does seem to have an account (with one hacked) it doesn't seem active, whereas this guy's ban seemed justified because someone else actually quit because of their harassment... with thousand of tweets I imagine that didn't happen just once, and so, in one sense, utilitarianism simply prevail... why would we want 'x' amount of people (even if only one) to quit because of one master harasser? IRL, what would he do, grope people just to be controversial? Would that be free speech? Should it not be the minimum the law can do to prevent anyone from picking on anyone else?

You're halfway there. The overt message is not meant to be taken seriously. It's a joke. But, as pointed out by TheSpectrum, the satire has a legitimate political point to make.



Precisely this. The Milo filter requires understanding that a large percentage of his speech is deliberately poised to dismantle identity narratives.



Your point being?



Which of Twitter's rules did Milo violate? Frankly, a Hollywood star having a public fainting fit is not justification for anything but mockery.



What did Milo do that you consider to be harassment?



Yes, but only verbally.



Are you suggesting the law infringe on an individual's rights because they say something a famous person disagrees with? Count me out of that brave new world, thanks.

Dismantle identity narratives? Perhaps if he was an academic... in reality he doesn't seem to be anything but a cheap celebrity who lashes out whenever things don't go his way... as if there's a shortage of those kind of personalities (oh, I wonder if he ever dismantled his own...)

It's not really satire, most of it is just opinion, it's only humorous when he makes an over-the-top comment... South Park e.g. could be offensive but only to everyone, which is the point of satire... if comedy is obviously extreme and biased then it's not comedy, but propaganda...

Which rules? I'd say the basic ones of common decency, but Twitter has: "Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others."
...and, I'd say, "Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories."

Sure enough, not every tweet, but I'm sick of seeing even the occasional (if not him, then his followers) "u shud b hanged!1!" - that should be protected free speech? Satire is also fundamentally funny, sometimes even if one is the subject of it (political caricatures e.g.) - very little is funny of this fundamentalist 'alt-right'...

And sure, verbally repeating most of what he says ('sugartits!') - would be considered harassment, at least under most legislation... he also blatantly called feminists ugly and, in an air of conviction, masculine, as if somehow the universe was made with him in mind when people simply subscribe to an ideology, as if somehow not a single feminine feminist exists... he's not deconstructing stereotypes at all, his words are just unfunny memes.

Also, from Wikipedia:
"Yiannopoulos also threatened, via email, to release embarrassing details and photographs of a Kernel contributor who sought payment for their work for the site and he also accused the contributor of being behind the "majority of damage to The Kernel". The unnamed contributor told the Guardian that the emails had been referred to the police."

People are seriously defending this immaturity with revenge porn? Well, unless his followers do so themselves, would make sense...

Also, what's fame got to do with it? The law is supposed to, simply, protect one from each other in case all chaos breaks loose. There's already legislation not to murder (although, of course, we're dealing with at least one individual who would love to do what Putin has been doing...) - so, if you consider that Brave New World, then the reverse would be Lord of the Flies...

In other words, your mind is closed tighter than spandex on an elephant. You're simply not worth my time, so good day.

Lawl... and your immaturity is through the roof if, as mentioned, people are simply defending him because they might like revenge porn themselves...

This is precisely the response I would expect a troll to give. As I said, good day.

Yeah - I'm done with this topic, too.

The definition of what you're after - "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas" - is not what you really want and so it's not what you will be granted.

What you want is a fore drawn conclusion to be agreed by other like minded members in the forum. Or bias confirmation perhaps.. and I'm sure someone else will gladly oblige.

In the mean time, consider how you open "discussions" in PPR and have a good day.

Well, that is new, being called a troll by someone mentioning spandex on an elephant.

TheSpectrum, I'm not requesting anything... feel free to disagree with any of my points.

They're logical fallacies, ad hominems and name calling, not points. Regardless, I disagree almost 100% and so there's no middle ground we can reach here which is the ideal outcome. Means I cannot really contribute or be of much use to this topic.