If you mistake derision for your irresponsible choice to be ignorant while expecting pre-chewed answers prepared for your tastes specifically, as personal, I submit that you are the one with any entitlement issues you see in others. It’s a tough world and you’re asking truly, and I don’t say this easily, stupid questions.
Go do your own research once you finish patting yourself on the back for your own grace and humility. Friend, this isn’t your sociology project.
A bit of a false dichotomy here. You can criticize ideas, you can criticize people’s character. You can also criticize people’s behaviour/words.
I’m going to attempt to answer the question you say hasn’t been answered:
I’ve read what you’ve said and I’ve read what other people said and to me it looks like your question has been answered. So I’m left to think the problem is either:
If you want to know why other people think he is worth protesting and blocking, I think it comes down to the fact that you can easily find many people who have been harassed and attacked by his proxies. Twitter banned him because he was part of a very consistent pattern: he says something negative about someone, suddenly that person is the target of a huge harassment campaign. That pattern is a thing that really happened. I believe he incited those actions on purpose, or at the very least was completely indifferent to them, either of which is terrible (though only one of which is criminal).
Now you know why I think protesting him and preventing him from speaking was a good idea: because he uses public platforms to incite harassment (intentionally or recklessly) against other people and that causes real harm that ought to be prevented.
If you are looking for criminal court level burden of proof that he committed a criminal offense then I think we can all agree that none exists*.
If you think the kind of harassment that people experience after being mentioned by him doesn’t cause real harm, I think you are wrong. If you think that the example given of a trans woman who was harassed after being mentioned by him, or the very public Leslie Jones incident don’t look like criminal harassment then that strikes me as a factually incorrect opinion.
* I actually think this level of proof does exist and that in a sane world he would be charged under existing law. I don’t think you could convince an American jury, though.
If the first time was accidental, then the third time was not. Thats plenty of proof for rational adults.
Yeah, the crazy thing is that my brief reading of the law is that I don’t think it’s enough for courts. I genuinely think total indifference would work as a criminal defense against incitement:
“You wanted her to be harassed!”
“No, I honestly didn’t give a flying fuck whether she was or wasn’t.”
There’s laws against certain kinds of intentional expression. There don’t appear to be laws against negligent expression.
Except that I, and others, have told you specific and articulable information, which you rejected as not being good enough.
[quote=“anotherone, post:388, topic:94219”]Yet never an answer to the question I kept asking.[/quote]You did. I posted four different answers to your questions immediately following the questions.
Question: “What has Milo done to incite violence?”
To which you responded by claiming what you are looking for is justification for the violence of the Berkeley protests, that the repeated doxxing and public mocking of people wasn’t enough to meet that standard, and that everyone was immediately insulting you by saying you are naive (a shocking disparagement I know).
[quote=“anotherone, post:388, topic:94219”]I was/am looking for specific and articulable information regarding his causing or directing harm on others which might justify violent protest. When someone presented information that lead towards that aim, I replied that it was good information or something I would internalize. But yes, I kept asking for specific and articulable information instead of the vague “whipping to frenzy” or “I find it hard to beleive” type of replies which while interesting don’t help as much. There were 2 people who posted 3 links to information. One was about his twitter account and the other two had some good stuff and I said as much.[/quote]Actually, you kept changing the framing of the question getting more upset each time you did. If you reread what you wrote maybe you can see that if your intention was to ask for specific videos or quotes you failed to communicate that effectively, and since the response to your question gave multiple examples (including sourced ones) of how he gained a large following and then used them to directly target Milo’s political opponents - such as women speaking out against gamergate.
Your question has been answered, you just didn’t have it answered the way you wanted. I know your friends on the chans are telling you that UC Berkley was a warzone when the reality was much less so (not condoning, I’m framing against the propoganda). About 150 people showed up to a peaceful protest being carried out by a couple thousand people, and the police arrested 3 people total from their carnage. The system literally worked in an ugly situation.
[quote=“anotherone, post:388, topic:94219”]That day I had spent the morning on image boards and the topic came up. Those on the right were adamant that no one has anything on Milo and the left was creating a false narrative. Since the topic came up on BB, I thought I’d ask the folk here if they has something specific I could point to. That’s when people decided to pile on and accuse me of being a Yinnapoulos supporter and the ad-hominem began in earnest because I kept asking for something specific which might justy violent protest.[/quote]That’s not what happened, that’s what you feel like happened. You need to realize that.
I am amused by your use of entitlement here. As I have said, I have googled and asked and no one seems to have any real answers. I admit my ignorance and attempt to dispel it through online discussion when my google fu fails and you call my ignorance an irresponsible choice.
I tend to agree with the former. Unfortunately that leaves me with
I suspected (hoped?) that level of proof might exist as well and it is what I was hoping to get to. Unfortunately I can’t find any strong argument that it does and I guess unless he trips up, I won’t.
I think it can and does (though likely not in all cases). But it’s so very subjective to a person looking for concrete arguments.
Of course, therein lies the rub. Thinking that it looks like criminal behaviour won’t get someone arrested and may only be a strong argument for the empathetic.
Thanks for the rational discourse. I’m glad so see there are still some people here who can behave with some grace and civility.
~someone answers~
~another person answers~
You are not attempting to communicate, just shut down people you don’t agree with.
This is why people may actually start to believe that you’re actively attempting to support Milo.
You seem to be fishing for examples of people attempting to justify violent protest.
This too, apparently a fishing expedition to match his model of what someone who opposes gamergate should respond like.
Since nobody has responded as he expects, nobody has “answered him” though others have, at length.
The folks on the right who are Milo apologists will deny absolutely undeniable facts presented to them, so there’s really no point in arguing with them. It’s really damn hard to get a ban from Twitter, but he managed to because of his targeted harassment, he’s targeted students for harassment in campus talks, and in the GG days was involved in a number of incredibly ugly incidents you can look up if you feel like it. He’s got a bullhorn, and the only thing he uses it for is to spin hate and misinformation about groups/people he loathes to foment misguided rage against them. But no matter what you say, his supporters won’t care because their epistemology is tribal. Truth is what is good for the tribe, false is anything that isn’t.
I’m reminded of someone asking on a Mac forum why their machine seems to be setup like a 96 DPI OS and getting told the documentation says the mac is a 72 DPI OS. So the person says, I am looking for info on why it acts like a 96 DPI OS and everyone sends documentation on 72 DPI and how to also do 96 DPI. Then getting told they are a Windows fan boy for not knowing the answer already and driving trollies the Mac forum.
I’m not so sure everyone is that way on the right and the idea that there is some tribalism is true for all partisans.
Can you tell us what is so undecipherable here?
Then why on earth do you need our guidance to argue with the many reasonable people that exist in Gamergate that you’re actively not discussing things with, I’m sure for very good reasons.
I specifically said, “the folks on the right who are Milo apologists.” Not everyone on the right’s a knee-jerk authoritarian, but the people who are are hopped up on the fear and rage he peddles are not exactly receptive listeners.
you were the muse for it.
Agreed which is why discussion is still something worth while
You’d have to read things in order to discuss, which is the problem here.
Naive equivocation is one of the serious problems in our political discourse since it ends any deeper evaluation of issues.
Well, here’s the counterpoint. If we demand that level of proof, then there also isn’t any proof that the protest was violent. Violence may have been conducted entirely by infiltrators trying to make the protest look bad, or police trying to make arrests.
If that’s goes too far, even if we accept it was done by people there to protest, we’ve got one fire and a dozen broken windows. That’s hardly evidence of more than two or three people committing vandalism. There were at least 1,500 people at the protest. As an individual, the choice of whether to go to a protest is a choice about whether to express your own first amendment rights.
So we are comparing:
The anti-protest argument is that in case (1) the individual has a responsibility to self censor and in case (2) they do not. The only way to make that case is to dismiss harassment and say it actually isn’t a bad thing at all.
A person can choose to think there ought not be a law against harassment because they don’t think that harassing people is bad. That there are laws against harassment is a matter of fact, whether any act constitutes harassment is a matter of fact. The reason there are almost never any charges is because it’s hard to track down Twitter eggs, not because laws weren’t broken.
Using my attempt to understand what you are saying as a way of putting down other people makes me regret doing it.
Way to make the entire conversation into something personal, when it wasn’t ever about you.
Personally, I never said or even implied that you were a “horrible person,” nor did I see anyone else make such an insinuation; so that seems just a wee bit “persecution complex-y” - just sayin’.
Also, I thought you were “done?”
