Any sort of fascistic racism is bad, even when couched in polite terms (as Jon Ronson chronicled of his time with a KKK leader). The fact is that Milo celebrated violence and harassment, Milo targeted females and trans folk for harassment, and Milo explicitly condoned #Gators for their actions against special snowflakes. I mean, against women and people of color. He doesn’t get a free pass on that. David Duke is rightly seen as a monster. Duke’s rhetoric inspired Dylan Roof to shoot a church of color. Milo and his gamer gang encourages stalkers to go after Brianna Wu with guns.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: he and his followers cannot be reasoned with.
The only argument you will win against his kind are in the fighting ring. Of course, he’s too cowardly to put his face on the line like Brazeau did. I would gladly pay money to watch Trudeau go another round with another anti-women asshole.
Hell, I’ve been the target of a haeassment campaign, once. Called out a racist gaming clan for being shitbags. They sent twelve year olds to harass me on Skype and by email. Was an absolute pain in the ass. In lucky I didn’t get swatted though.
If five or six unhappy people with drinking problems and poor impulse control can be called an “army” and they very much do have your personal information, it can be very unpleasant. The collateral damage from everyone else looking away thinking it must be ‘both sides’ is shocking all by itself.
We may need new incitement laws. I was raised to believe freedom is derived from responsibility. It’s not a ‘catch me if you can’ proposition.
My friends used to jokingly call me “paranoid” because I was wary about using my real name online or in any of my email addresses (back in the mid-90’s when the internet was “brand-spanking new” to us) and I’ve always been careful about protecting my meat-space identity.
20 years later, it seems that paranoia has served me well.
ETA:
I’ll own the use of hyperbole, since I don’t know how many actual people were harassing her, as opposed to single individuals with multiple accounts.
I know that one is still too many, especially if they are publicizing private personal info.
That she was doxxed not that he doxxed her. I suppose if we convince those who think these protests are a matter of people not wanting him to speak because he has “different views” of @nungessers point i.e. the Manson argument, then we can say Milo was responsible for the doxxing. That’s a long road but it can be travelled.
Sure. When we speak of harm, we can take the loose view and say anything that causes us fear is harmful or we can go with a more concrete view that harm must be demonstrable before it becomes actionable. While I might not like or may even detest him for what he did, those on the right are going to just laugh as say there was no demonstrable harm. This is what I’m trying to get past and the sort of counter arguments I’m seeing.
Well, I read the article and she said she was afraid immediately. I simply stated that she imagined what might happen and was scared. I never pretended to know what she was thinking. I only spoke to what she said had happened. Honestly, I don’t see how that is me saying I know what someone is thinking.
Agreed. I won’t support it. But I will defend anyones right to be wrong. I may mock them, I may try to reason with them but I will not attempt to silence them if it is only speech. I will not defend calling for harm to others and that’s what I’m wanting to get at. That Milo called for or caused harm to another person.
I didn’t see any! I think it’s fair to say that even one person with questionable impulse control is quite scary enough, and that’s from a not disadvantaged guy - I can only imagine what being doxxed in front of a room full of cyberbro’s would feel like. I never had to move. The nature of my work meant that it wasn’t really something that could be messed with but I’ve seen that in people firsthand.
There is no such thing as hyperbole when dealing with the truly unhinged - and all it takes is one of those in that room of cyberbros.
When you say “[A] happened, as opposed to [B],” you’re saying that [B] didn’t happen.
So, when you say that her “her imagination was the source of her fear, […] as opposed to the fear you get when someone is actually trying to bring you harm,” that implies the fear she had was not the fear of someone who “is actually trying to bring her harm,” which, in turn, implies that she didn’t think he was actually trying to harm her.
That is how you are saying that you know what someone is thinking.
To stand idly by and allow others to incite and inspire violence is a far greater moral wrong than judicially punishing said incitement. Which is why it is always OK to #PunchANazi
When a person is afraid, I don’t see how the intentions of the person causing the fear can have any bearing onto what kind of fear is being experienced.
Right enso. No matter what you decide to say, I will defend your right to say it unless what you say is a call for harm to another. I’d do it for you or anyone.
Obviously not. He started in earnest in 1923 and his anti jew campaign was in full swing by 1934. You know, around the time he was ‘Man of the Year’.
Someone told me that if someone says they know what another was thinking, then that person is tricking you. I think they are right.
So then you and she know what Milos was thinking?
I’m done with this topic. There is no help to be had here in trying to learn to discuss this with the right. You guys have fun
You know, instead of attacking someone who agrees with your position and wants a better understanding to help with discussions about this topic with those who think differently, you might want to go engage those people directly instead of trying to use me as a proxy and paint me as his supporter.
I’d like to think that the onus on a campus speaker is to make sure they’re not going to get anyone hurt. Same as a musical act or a circus on campus. I was at a 45 second Green Day concert once at a public venue. The safety officials called it that quickly, and many people were sad, but really, someone was about to get hurt. A lot of someones, out of overexuberance, youthful bad boundaries, and probably just a tiny bit of misplaced malice.
All this “did he mean to be terrible” or “is it a matter of perception”, rather misses the point.
Did he take reasonable steps to be kind? Not formal steps, not arguable steps, human steps.
There’s nothing to be gained from engaging idiots and internet Nazis, save bruises knuckles and sore arms. And a sore head. And a broken desk. Logic and reason, do not by any measure work on extremists. I’ve tried. It doesn’t work.
You made a comment about how you don’t see “how is me saying [Y].” My interpretation of the meaning of that is “I don’t know how me saying is being interpreted as [Y].” I turned that exact wording back towards you, to tell you why your words are being interpreted the way that they are being interpreted (at least in my case).
I’m not saying that I know what you’re trying to say, because, as you say, that would be telling you what you’re thinking, which would be stupid. I’m telling you how what you’re saying is being interpreted.
Unless you want to correct me in what you meant by “Honestly, I don’t see how that is me saying I know what someone is thinking.”
