Does anyone else suspect that Milo’s supposed gayness is an act designed to deflect criticism? I.e., “I can’t be bigoted, look how flamingly queer I am!” Which slots in nicely with Bannon and Trump’s “we can’t be antisemitic, look at these Jews we’ve got on staff!”
I think it’s the pearl necklace overload. A little too on the nose.
I have no reason to doubt he is what he says he is.
Probably his negative rhetoric concerning his own sexuality is at least in part driven by the pressure to appeal to his support-base.
He’s definitely a ‘useful’ person to have on team. He doesn’t want his philosophical contemporaries to stop their hateful behaviour towards non-straight people, why, he even indulges in it himself!
Ordinarily I wouldn’t question anyone’s self-identification but in his case it’s just too convenient, especially considering how performative, attention-seeking, and full of shit he is about everything else.
When was the last time you saw an actual gay man on a political panel show drape himself in pearl necklaces and bracelets?
Probably. But the point I’m making isn’t that he isn’t a sociopath, just that many of his affectations function as emotional hooks. In the video I posted above he fires out something like “I wish you’d invite more intelligent guests,” or something equally glib. The whole rhetorical device that his persona serves is designed to ensnare you into interacting with him with anything other than dispassionate criticism.
Of course, I’d go further and say that there is no real Milo underneath pulling the strings, this version of him is just a carefully designed exaggeration of his pre-media self, group tested by his detractors that shout the loudest and whatever gains most response gets amplified to caricature.
The internet amplifies the awareness and existence of trolls, a kind of virtualisation of intent insulates people who don’t even try and hide behind anonymity any more, so captured by the game of attack that they are all caught up in.
This isn’t new, trolls gonna troll, but maybe the amplification power of the net is so great that we need to consider having the censure argument all over again and take into consideration just how toxic the environment has become, not least because it is creating and enabling psychopaths.
This kind of vapid psychopath whose whole reality is dependant on the virtual persona they have constructed for the virtual game of attack is exemplified in Milo.
I am not arguing that he is not a psychopath whose every nuance is a veil of contempt, the point I was trying to make is that the specific things he chooses to amplify in his game of attack are exactly those components of his constructed persona that should encourage one to respond with dispassionate criticism. The article suggests a re-consideration of some form of censure and that wouldn’t be outside the wheelhouse of considered criticism.
And in fact, the specific point I was making in that quote was that just because he was wearing a shit load of beads doesn’t mean he is putting on being gay.
ETA:
Ugh, just re-read that and it’s not clear. I thought I might have previously sounded as if I was giving Milo an out by saying his behaviour was an exaggeration, and when you posted that article about censuring sociopathic trolls, I responded as if you were saying “but he is a psycho”. I agree. He is a psycho-sociopathic troll.
Does not seem to be a sympathetic defendant in any way, but it’s informative to pay attention to what he did – wipe his phone first, then voluntarily turn himself in – and what electronic info is still available and being used against him.
A potential attendant of a hatemonger’s event doesn’t exist in a vacuum. They have family, friends, clients, employers, co-workers, neighbors, and other associates who might for example be taking part in the protest.
Protests do not happen in a vacuum. While we are busy protesting, we are also making new friends, planning new things to do etc. All while observing as the hatemonger’s audience members execute their walk of shame.