Should Milo Yiannopoulous and People of His Ilk Be Ostracized?

So let me preface: I wholeheartedly believe in free speech, and I love civil discourse. I think both are necessary for a thriving society.

But on to my question.

My premise is simple: I think Milo Yiannopoulos and people of his ilk (as in people who troll/are seriously incapable of having civilized discourse) should be intellectually ostracized. I think he's nothing but a troll, and his theatrics scream it.

But it seems a lot of people think that it's unacceptable to ostracize Milo. Despite his indecencies and shittiness as a person, he still deserves to have his voice heard.

I disagree because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He's a troll, a hypocrite, and just a disingenuous person looking for fame or money. Or maybe to just piss people off. Giving him a voice allows people to see him in prime time and have more people be swayed by his "arguments".

Now, before people ask, I'm not advocating shutting him down from being allowed to talk. I'm not. I'm simply stating people who genuinely believe in free speech and rational discourse should be wary of him. People like Bill Maher, Dave Rubin, and Sam Harris (I don't believe Sam Harris has ever had a conversation/debate with him) shouldn't give him the time of day. It's antithetical to their position.

 

Your statement is a total contradiction in itself, which is exactly what's wrong with liberals today.

"I wholeheartedly believe in free speech and I love civil discourse. I think both are necessary for a thriving society."

Right below the above statement you assert that one should be ostracized based on their opinions and being. One should question the media shedding light on these right wing political commentators. The likes of Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulous are public figures that spew the mainstream mentality behind the right wing. I personally find it amusing how conservatives stroke their own egos watching youtube videos on Yiannopoulous and Ben Shapiro meanwhile they focus their arguments against regular people instead of political commentator opponents.

Just a question, but isn't the true belief in freedom of speech respecting the opinions of all? Interesting how you think he should be ostracized based on what he says regardless of his intention/purpose..

 

You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for him to be silenced. However, it's clear he's one giant troll, attention seeker, you name it. If I'm someone who truly cares about truth, I wouldn't give him the time of day. It's antithetical to my mission.

Fuck no, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to respect your opinion. It just means I think you have the right to say it. And people don't quite understand freedom of speech. It just means the government can't come after you for what you say. It doesn't mean you have freedom of consequence.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

If you don't like it, don't listen to his content or participate in his events. I think it's as simple as that. No need to even have much a discussion here.

 

It's not about "liking" his content. It's about the ramifications discourse-wise to take him seriously. He's disingenuous, he doesn't bring anything to the table.

I don't like Ben Shapiro's content, but he's still is an effective intellectual at times. He doesn't yell, "Cuck!" or call his tour the Dangerous Faggot tour because he's a provocateur.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said there; however, the question proposed to us is should we, collectively, ostracize the man. Familiarize yourself with the definition and let me know what you think.

 

Opening statement supports freedom of speech; thereafter condemns it.

If you don't agree with them, don't watch them. If people chose to, so be it. Argue your position and allow reason to influence your way of thinking and convince others to think alike.

 

Everything he says on feminists is true based on facts.

 

Then I definitely explained it wrong. I mean should the intellectual community ostracize him because he's just a troll. No original thoughts.

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without the government arresting/censoring you. It doesn't mean they can be on any show.

I'm saying people who want an open dialogue shouldn't have him on because he's a troll. Any position he holds that's based on reason isn't a unique thought. No nuance, just regurgitation.


It doesn't constrict his freedom of speech. He can go host his own show, or go on a likeminded person's show.

 

Well, it depends what sort of dialogue you're looking to produce. If his name even comes up, you're looking for a controversial figure to create an argument of sorts. If that's the case, Ben Shapiro is a better choice because not only is he well educated, he cites his sources and has evidence to back up his claims. Mr. Shapiro also encourages an open dialogue where both sides can agree on common grounds and discuss where they disagree. Milo is indeed a troll of sorts. He tends to give commentary and explanations without much evidence to back up his claims. He does what I like to call a "Trump." The "you know it, I know it, we all know it." It's just fillers with no facts we can discuss, just positions. So to give you a clear cut response: I don't believe he belongs on any intellectual panel unless he brings with him actual evidence to discuss.

 

Ehhh... Ben Shapiro is just collective and an academic individual as opposed to Milo, but at the same time he's no better. If you notice, when these two political commentators specifically are reflected in media it's always against regular everyday people. They dodge their political opponents.. I remember even watching an interview between Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro and even Morgan was giving him a run for his money. These guys like to flex their "intellect" against your average joe but, for the most part, dodge their political intellectual opponents.

I've seen Ben Shapiro's arguments for different controversial legalities in our society, and he's wrong and clouded on so many levels. He even comes off as a libertarian, completely disregarding the loopholes and nuances in many problems we're having today. I really don't bother listening to either of them, just egotistic arrogant assholes. If you want to put yourself in the real political sphere break down the scholarly articles behind modern day problems, American corporate media has become so diluted and distorted, it's unbearable to watch and read on.

 

Sorry, but the amount of mental gymnastics you've gone through to justify something that is so incompatible and hypocritical to what you supposedly believe, I find it hard to even understand why you made this thread.

It doesn't matter how wrong you think someone is (when the reality of the matter is his arena for debate is more opinion based and a reflection of society and the differences between men and women than anything else), free speech implies the ability to voice opinion no matter how "wrong."

The irony behind your regurgitated SJW-esque arguments is that nothing you stated is a real legitimate argument as for why he should be ostracized.

• Troll
• Indecent
• "Shittiness"
• Disingenuous
• Hypocrite
• Looking for fame/wealth

Literally none of these are arguments, hence, the irony in your own suggestion that someone who supposedly brings no intellectual discourse to the table be ostracized is you did just that.

Question... have you ever actually watched any of his videos regarding feminism? I don't follow him at all, I only caught onto him during all the SJW raging during gamer gate. Everything he's said for what I can recall from memory was sound and accurate regarding the lunacy of modern day "feminism." Interestingly buyacc already brought that topic up, but I guess you didn't want to touch on that subject because if you're like MOST sane people, you'd agree with everything he says about SJW's/feminists.

Perhaps the person that should be ostracized from intellectual debate is you.

 

I'm curious: what's your stance on equal rights?

 

I'm not saying he's right, I only say that he brings facts and then commentary on those facts. In terms of a debate, he's a better choice over Milo.

 

Could you clarify please?

 

Sounds like your typical basement dwelling antifa liberal bullshit

 

Are you for or against equal rights? And why? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position on this topic

 

............ asked you to clarify, but it seems like you won't, so i'll just happily assume what you're asking.

With regards to feminism, we already have equal rights. There are no discriminatory laws to inhibit anyone of sex/ethnic background. What i'm guessing is you're trying to associate my comments with it being against the traditional form of feminism which fought for things like women's suffrage.

Modern feminism is a farce and is nothing more than a niche group of women screaming for "equal rights" in areas of society and government that aren't inhibited by legitimate laws.

 

I'm not attempting to associate your comments with anything. I feel like what I asked is pretty clear: if you can't state your position on equal rights I'm not sure what else to say. I'm not asking you to prove there is no institutional discriminatory laws. I'm not asking you to discredit feminism. All I asked is do you support equal rights. I'll try to break it down further I guess: do you support every human having the same rights as one another?

 

Why wouldn't I?

You asking that question implies something I think you already know the answer to.

"Institutional discrimination"

I love it when I hear that phrase because it's often used by pseudo-intellectuals on the Left that like to force the meme that racism is somehow existing on a conspiracy theory level akin to all Jews being in on a global conspiracy to run the world, all without any legitimate proof that either conspiracy exists.

I support equal rights for everyone, and everyone does have equal rights.

I only find it abominably hysterical that people think we don't, when Asians are a minority that has succeeded beyond every other group, yet no one bats an eye. Must be that institutional racism. lul