How trolls like Milo Yiannopoulos monetize your hate, and what to do about it

Originally published at:



a countermeasure: show up, listen respectfully, then devastate them from the floor with counterarguments. Don’t let them be the underdog darlings of reactionary manbabies.

What about that time the Ark Encounter got funded because so many people showed up to watch Bill Nye debate evolution?


Milo himself gave advice much like this.

How to Beat You (Spoiler: We Are!) - US Citizens


I don’t know about this. You’re suggesting applying reason to an unreasonable situation. You’re not going to “devastate them from the floor” regardless of how solid your arguments are. They don’t acknowledge the existence of logical fallacies and will not recognize being caught in one.

This is an intractable problem and engagement isn’t going to make it go away. I believe the only solution is to promote education and specifically, critical thinking skills. It’s a difficult, long-term solution but I don’t see anything else. Shouting is ineffective, ignoring is dangerous and engaging provides validation.


“At the core of Holiday’s theory is the idea that young men with disposable income will do anything so long as someone tells them that they’re forbidden to do so.”

If there’s one thing I forbid - it’s James O’Keeffe blowing a goat on national television.


I always thought that the best protest would be a huge crowd of menacing silence.


Am I right in thinking that Milo Yiannopolis is a legal alien, or at least just in the U.S. on a temp visa? If so, take a page from the conservative playbook and assert that he has no rights in the United States. Start agitating to have him deported.


Started Robert Cialdini’s new book Pre-Suasion today and thought, “Hmmm, somebody should arrange a conversation between Cialdini, the expert on influence, George Lakoff, the expert on framing, and Drew Westen, the expert on the political mind to ask them about how to remain sane in a world of propaganda and ‘alternative facts’ and, possibly, give us some techniques to reserve the process of obfuscation and doubt.” Maybe an idea for a Boingboing podcast?


David Irving used similar techniques with the press and publishing industry in the 1970s. It’s nothing new, it’s just new to social media-age internet.

Tucker Max didn’t do quite as well as Ryan suggests: the movie was a flop, and it kinda killed his career.

Ryan’s “theory of Milo” as a Tucker-esque figure ends at the point where Yiannopoulos shifted from provocations to calls-to-action (singling individuals out for abuse, starting a campaign to turn in undocumented immigrants, etc). That shift corresponded with a shift in the protests against him from campus feminists to black bloc types. So between Yiannopoulos and his adversaries, we’re way beyond the Tucker Max playbook.


uhm, but he does. You’re asking for dirty work to be done. No thanks.

I mean, definitely deport him if he breaches the terms of his presence by committing or inciting a violent crime, for example.


I’d go with:

What are you on about? (Spoiler: never heard of you) -US Citizens


I agree completely. The substance of the arguments themselves don’t matter as we’ve clearly seen during this campaign. Support for Trump hardly wavered no matter how provably wrong he was.

Even now, his spokespeople are just blatantly lying to our faces and calling it the indisputable truth, but he still has the support of nearly half the country. As long as he says what his supporters want to hear, our disputes with what he says only seem to increase his support among his base, even as he’s apparently preparing an autocratic takeover that would render their opinion meaningless.

What would kill his support is the feeling of betrayal among his base. If you could convince them he’s actively worked to ruin their lives, they’d turn against him.

Unfortunately, that could be countered handily by a false flag. Everyone supports a war president. Even W.


Giving him constant coverage does not seem to be working but by all means carry on. I certainly know a lot about him that I didn’t before, sad!


After looking into the guy a while back, he seems to have taken a page from the Fox News playbook.

Which is to say that for his target audience, it “destroys” liberal’s arguments because he is a gay man making hyper-conservative talking points against minorities.

Not unlike how Fox News likes to hire Asians to say racist things about other Asians (Michelle Malkin), or Atheists to present conservative talking points (S.E. Cupp). The latter often literally gets labeled, “S.E. Cupp, Atheist”, to remind you if you just turned in that her point is more relevant somehow.


The book “Trust Me I’m Lying” was recommended to me earlier this year.

So become what you hate?

Hey, what could go wrong?


Gaining riches by creating volatile us/them engagement has been going on for years. The Sex Pistols used to call the cops on their own shows to gain publicity and the ensuing uproar made them famous. There’s big money in stirring the pot as long as you can simultaneously generate a loyal fan base and fierce opposition. Anne Coulter, Michael Moore and Milo Yiannopoulos know exactly what they are doing and they fool people into thinking that they are genuinely concerned about the issues they discuss. In short, it’s a money grab. Some, I believe, may be genuinely off-kilter who can’t be reasoned with (Alex Jones). But others would gladly engage in calm debate (Ben Shapiro) but those who have attempted to debate Shapiro seem unable to match his debate skills and research ability. So regarding the author’s point, yes, absolutely show up and engage these people; they aren’t expecting it! But be sure to back up any claims with statistics because you can be sure they are doing the same.


And yet it never occurred to me this is simply a tactic, despite the dozens of times I’ve seen it. But so many things suddenly make sense.

Also, I had to look up Milo Watsisname last week, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of him before maybe once?