I am going to go so far as to say this article is being actively and intentionally intellectually dishonest, as the author seems to understand enough of the issues surrounding violence and speech and yet wrote an incipiently long article whose first sentence admitted that some speech could be violent but did not once attempt to analyze Milo's speech to see if it even met the author's own test for violence; not a single time here am I seeing quotes from Milo designed to make his speech look OK not at any point does the author note the actual reasons why protestors claimed Milo's speech is violence: there is just a banal assumption drawn to the length of being what I will again call out as a dishonest straw man :/.
So, the reason that people I know are so horrified by Milo is that he was calling out undocumented and transgendered students by name; not just talking about what he dislikes about these groups, but calling them before the mob of his audience on an individual basis, knowing full well that many of his audience members would go find that person and take out their issues on that person, all while not even trying to hedge the situation to demonized his own followers who turned to such levels; and, for the undocumented, essentially turning a microscope on them and making it highly likely they could find themselves deported.
This, to me, fits a usage of the term "violence". Maybe you disagree. Maybe the author also disagrees, but I don't know, as I will now again say that as the author didn't even ask this question, which let them respond to a weird philosophy piece that also didn't seem to care to ask anyone involved, which I find so ludicrously questionable in their position and with their clear understanding of other issues as to be outright dishonest. This is an article talking with another article about a group of people, and yet those people were not consulted? This should not happen.
Regardless, with this information, you now get to do what the author should have done: discuss whether you think this speech is violent--not just any speech, and not the perfect speech that this author might hope you are expecting, but the specific speech involved in the incidents on college campuses which are used in the author's examples and that are required to claim the reactions are incompatible. In all seriousness: even if you still disagree that Milo is violent, I hope we can at least agree that this article sucks.
I agree with you that cases of doxxing and/or incitement are different than broadly- or generally- offensive speech and there may be cases where it shouldn't necessarily be protected.
I haven't heard those charges leveled against Milo before but that may not too surprising since I don't follow the news surrounding him too closely.
I don't mean to be obtuse if the answer is obvious (I am ignorant of what actually happened), but how did Milo know these students he called out were undocumented, etc.?
"he was calling out undocumented and transgendered students by name; not just talking about what he dislikes about these groups"
This was a controversial case where a transgender person gave her name while she was on Milwaukee's TMJ4 News to talk about how she felt she was discriminated against.
She was kicked out of the sauna. She said "At this point I don't look very female", and that her drivers license reflects a male identity and she hadn't started hormone therapy.
Milo disagrees with her view and included a screenshot of that news clip to give some context of what someone's reaction may be when encountering her in an private setting.
I would not call taking a critical stance on a controversial news topic as violence. If you are undecided, it's not hard to find the presentation on YouTube and make your own judgement about what he said instead of reading other people's opinion.
It's not doxxing unless you believe TMJ4 also doxxed her when it displayed her name as she told her side of the story.
For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of him. But I like to correct the record when other people give a misleading spin.
The author links the term violent speech to speech that induces stress, thus creates a physical and mental toll on the organism. The term has a huge room for abuse compared to, what you described, insighting violence. Insighting violence at least coneys the spirit of invoking people to commit violent acts. Violent speech in itself is violence against me because the room for its abuse stressed me out.
I think calling such speech "violence" may be a straw man. By calling it violence, people are intentionally equating his words with physically hurting someone. Since everyone knows that physically hurting someone is unacceptable, they are more likely to reject the speech. I think calling it violence is an intellectually dishonest smear
This article is written as a direct response (although it isn't explicitly stated) of NPRs interview with Milo that was just released.
Turns out Milo was completely reasonable in the interview, so NPR kept pushing back the publication date of the interview, so Milo published the whole thing on his own.
Do we need to listen to that interview before judging him? He's done enough repulsive things outside of this one interview that it doesn't matter much what he says (unless he regrets all of it and vows to change his ways).
Your thinking is similar to that of the German people during the 1930s.
"Do we need to listen to the Jews before judging them? They've done enough repulsive things that it doesn't matter much what they say (unless they renounce their faith and vow to accept Christ as their saviour)"
> Adelaide Kramer was in the audience during an event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where she used to be a student, when the speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, projected a photograph of her on the wall. He then launched into a hateful tirade against Kramer, calling her a "tranny." The photo had been taken early in her transition, and the audience—a room filled by her classmates—laughed as Yiannopoulos degraded her.
Second, your comparison doesn't work because this isn't about Milo's membership in some vulnerable group. It's about dismissing him for being a detestable individual based on a history of personal statements and behavior.
... At least, I'm assume you do not mean that group-identities such as "liar" or "attention-seeker" merit the same kind of consideration as minority ethnicities or religions.
"Jews" are a culture. They're a category of people. Milo is a single person.
Germans in the 1930's didn't know what Jews "had done" because they were fed propaganda and because Jews had not "done" anything as a group. They were many individual people.
Milo is one person, and I've seen videos of him saying disgusting, unacceptable things. He advocates persecution and preying on vulnerable people, like the trans student he accused of being a pervert.
If you're arguing that one shouldn't judge someone else with incomplete evidence, that's fine. But that means I can't judge him either before or after seeing the video, because it's impossible to have 100% of the evidence about anyone.
I know what Milo's goals are. I know that he's a troll. I've decided what I think about that, and unless he changes his M.O., a new video isn't going to tell me anything.
It's arrogant to suggest that people are under-informed or ignorant just because they disagree with you.
First, thanks for the more lengthy and well thought out reply.
Second, all I did was take your words and transpose them from being about Milo to being about Jews. Take a second and think about how easy it was to misrepresent your ideas and motivations based on one comment taken out of context, then please realize that that is what has happened systemically to Milo and others over the course of the last few years.
You seem like a reasonable individual. Why is it so hard for you to see your own hypocrisy!
Please take the 45 minutes and watch the NPR video.
I disagree with Milo and think that a lot of what he says and does is pretty awful but he's not just some raving lunatic and he's pretty savvy when it comes to media
This is what I love about Milo, he calls out the media.
He always records the interview because the media does have a kinda agenda, it's not written down, it's not talked about it, just kinda a 'known' following.
NPR have not done the right thing as a media organisation. If nothing else this is what Milo brings to the world.
I'd like to see a quoted source that the reason NPR pushed back the publication was because he was too reasonable. I read that on the web this morning, but only found Milo himself saying that's why he thought it was delayed.
I'd like to see a quoted source showing that the reason NPR pushed back the publication was because he was too reasonable. I read that on the web this morning, but only found Milo himself saying that's why he thought it was delayed.
I'll bite. I gave it a listen. The first 15 minutes, anyhow.
Liberal college students definitely need to sit down and listen to him without interruption. He's wrong about everything, and it's important to understand just how he pulls it off. Universities ought to be inviting him to speak. This is a huge teachable moment, and it's being squandered.
Here's my read on his technique:
1. At all times, remain calm. This makes you look like the reasonable one, even when you're making outlandish statements like, "conservatives have nowhere to go for news."
2. Talk fast. Move from one point to another and then circle back to reinforce the first point before your interlocutor can get his feet under him.
3. Use a posh accent. Americans eat it up, and it takes them a split second longer to process what you've said. This reinforces (2) by giving you more time to move on from your outrageous claims.
4. When confronted about saying something false, qualify your statement with irrelevant statements or equally false claims. Keep talking fast and calm, so it sounds like you're engaging in rational argumentation.
He's loathsome and brilliant. He has the upper hand and he knows it. Those of us who find him objectionable need to understand what he's doing.
Interesting. your comment uses Milos tactics exactly as you have written them, step by step, but never actually addresses his points but instead casually dismisses them with one sentence asserting that he is wrong.
You provide no counter point, but instead follow up With a tangential analysis of his technique instead of refuting his ideas or points.
> He's wrong about everything, and it's important to understand just how he pulls it off.
Why not address his points and his ideas if they are so dangerous and wrong? Why not debate the meat of his argument?
> Why not address his points and his ideas if they are so dangerous and wrong? Why not debate the meat of his argument?
Because I'm not here to have that discussion. I don't think the Internet is the right forum for political debate. I'm here for the other discussion, which is about how universities are failing to teach children to think, ultimately undermining the Enlightenment principles upon which they were founded. Universities should be teaching their students to recognize and understand Milo's rhetorical techniques, how to pick apart his arguments and decide whether they hold water. This is what they ought to be doing instead of teaching that words are violence. Leave that to Depeche Mode.
I put my analysis of Milo's technique in my comment so it would be clear that I did, in fact, spend 15 precious minutes of my life listening to his sophistry, and to illustrate the kind of analysis we should be teaching. I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas.
> I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas.
And yet here you are, trying to explain a rhetorical framework that you believe should be used to debate his ideas.
It is FASCINATING that you seem to be unable or unwilling to address and debate his ideas directly and have instead switched to meta debate tactics that attack his rhetorical style instead.
Again I ask you, why not debate the ideas themselves? They are the important part
The article was about universities and the misperception of words as violence. That's what I came here to talk about. Why are you trying to get me to persuade you to change your opinion? If you've formed a different opinion than me, that's fine. I don't care what you think.
He's trying to change the subject because he knows you are right in what you are saying about what universities should be doing, but doesn't want to admit it.
Andrew Bolt (an absolute piece of crap as far as I'm concerned), was feature in a video on twitter the other day being randomly attacked by two masked "antifa" people. Since when did we decide using the tactics of the people were fighting against is acceptable? :(
"anti"fa uses violence in an attempt to terrorize people into not speaking about things they disagree with. They're effectively a violent terrorist organization. It's just a great reminder that extremism can form regardless of political or religious labels.
> She was kicked out of the sauna. She said "At this point I don't look very female", and that her drivers license reflects a male identity and she hadn't started hormone therapy.
As a non-American, I don't understand. Do you mean that any male can claim to be a trans-female at any time and therefore expect to be allowed to use women's sauna? And this is how it should be? I mean, isn't there possibility for abuse? And not agreeing with this labels you a terrible person?
While at the same time, feminists scream abuse when someone looks at them inappropriately on the street.
Even if we consider Wikipedia credible source (which is already a stretch) then the article you linked says nothing about gender being "not biogical" and "changing anytime".
> Is that your response to this? "Lol"? Nice way to have a discourse.
Sorry for a little childishness, but you're making preposterous claims ('gender is a spectrum'), so you have to support them. Can I claim to be a female today and use girls' shower? Would you personally be ok with that? Can I declare myself an apache attack helicopter then?
> The claim that this creates abuse potential.
Seriously? Feminists demonize men for inappropriate looks, but you think that shared locker rooms are not a problem?
"Gender is a spectrum" isn't a preposterous claim. You may not understand the difference between gender (a social construct) and sex (a physiological issue).
There's proof that genders exist because society has concepts of "male behavior" and "female behavior". That's easy.
There's proof that sexes exist because people have different genitalia, and reproduction isn't possible without two sexes.
If you're talking about a spectrum, a gender spectrum is obvious. Some people don't behave in totally traditional male or female ways (and don't want to).
No one is arguing that sex is a spectrum because it's a physiological concept -- hence the difference between transgender (people whose behavior doesn't correspond with their genitals, according to social tradition) and transsexual (people whose brains don't correspond with their genitals).
This is widely accepted among doctors[1]. Neuroscientists have also observed physiological differences in trans brains:
> "Imaging studies and other research suggest that there is a biological basis for transgender identity"[2]
Honestly, it's frustrating to have to prove these things to you when you've clearly not spent any time looking at research. It doesn't take long to find it.
> Can I claim to be a female today and use girls' shower?
Yes, if you absolutely believe you are a female then yes. I don't believe you using a girl's shower means you're abusive. I don't think I have the right to take away your freedom to be who you want.
> Seriously? Feminists demonize men for inappropriate looks, but you think that shared locker rooms are not a problem?
Do you not think this is a blanket statement? Who do you see as the manifestation of feminists?
Feminism is a vast movement. Judging an entire group because of a vocal minority is kinda like saying muslims are terrorists because of 9/11, London, etc (this isn't my argument, but I'm just saying how absurd it sounds to make a blanket statement against an entire group)
> Sorry for a little childishness, but you're making preposterous claims ('gender is a spectrum')
Almost nothing is black and white in nature. The claim that something as complex as the brain would result in a single binary value for something as intricate (and pervasive) as gender identity seems significantly less likely than their claim.
Yes this is what the left has been pushing in America. The whole issue, having never really crossed the minds of most people, suddenly became front and center with the help of a coordinated push by most of the liberal media.
I don't have anything against transgenders, nor do I really care what bathrooms or changing rooms someone decides to use. And I roll my eyes at the typical fear mongering by all the 'what about my little girl having to share a bathroom with a pedo tranny guy' on the right.
The issue I have is that the left doesn't understand science with regard to gender, nor do they realize all the negative consequences their own gender-less policies are going to cause.
We're already seeing biological men, claiming to be women, dominating women's sports. The Soviet bloc countries used to cheat at the Olympics, dosing their women with large amounts of androgens. Now shady teams will just use men who've decided they're women - how dare you tell me what gender I am - and sweep up the golds.
It won't be long until men start taking advantage of all the female scholarships, hiring quotas, and every other benefit feminists have pushed for women. And the minute these cases go to court, the same tactics the left used to push their agendas are going to bite them in the ass due to case precedence.
And now we're moving into to the idea that race can be 'decided' by the individual.
Personally, it's about time. As a white cis male, I'm tired of being the punching bag due my so-called privilege. I'm looking forward to my new job at Google @ $250k / year and masters at Harvard. Cause now, as I've decided to be an African-American female engineer, it appears the barriers to entry have just been lowered.
> The issue I have is that the left doesn't understand science with regard to gender
That seems to be the right's problem with all three of sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity. Heck, even more basically than the science around those, simply understanding the difference between the three concepts seems problematic.
> And now we're moving into to the idea that race can be 'decided' by the individual.
Actually, race in the US has generally been officially been about identity and not strictly governed by ancestry or non-identity ascribed status [0] for much longer than trans rights have even been a visible issue. And, despite that, the idea that someone can have a racial identity out of line with externally ascribed race is nonetheless not remotely widely accepted on the left, despite it being the long-standing official case; see the Rachel Dolezal case.
So, the idea that transgender rights, is the leading edge of a liberal scheme to impose acceptance of trans-racial identity is deeply disconnected from the facts.
[0] except that in some contexts Native American / Alaskan Native identity requires confirmation by ascribed status from a recognized group, because it operates somewhat like a nationality rather than other races.
There's considerable science around them and there interrelationship.
> "Gender studies" and such are not science in any form.
Gender (and, likewise, ethnic, etc.) studies is an interdisciplinary domain that includes both science and non-science elements; the science around sex, gender, and gender identity, though, is found in human biology, psychology/neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, and other fields, though it is, of course, often of interest to gender/women's/queer studies.
Gender studies is probably not what GP had in mind. People who do gender studies don't generally consider their work science, from what I've seen.
In contrast, people whose work is more generally accepted as scientific, such as psychological and medical researchers, have certainly studied both gender identity and sex characteristics. I imagine (but might be wrong) that ascribed gender is more a topic for sociologists and other social scientists that empirically study social behavior or legal structures, but they definitely do study it.
Of course there's science around biological response to stimuli and its correlation to what person thinks of themselves, I wouldn't doubt that. What I'm sceptical about is "sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity." being so separate scientifically. I remember how about 10 years ago, everything seemed to be "a social concept", and I mean everything, including math and physics. Nowadays, it's all about 'identity'. Duh, I guess humanities "scholars" need something to write papers about.
> What I'm sceptical about is "sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity." being so separate scientifically.
Scientifically, they are (or, rather, gender identity and sex-correlated biological traits) are actually, apparently, fairly related, in ways which seem consistent with the idea that trans and non-binary gender identity is an expression of an underlying non-binary (if strongly bimodal) biological reality, and that ascribed gender based on a binary conception of sex is as poor a match for biology as it is for gender identity.
> Nowadays, it's all about 'identity'.
The three-way divide between objective traits, externally ascribed status, and identity or self-ascribed status, and it's generally importance a in uunderstandinghuman social interaction, is decidedly not a new thing.
There's a possibility for abuse one way or the other; the idea that segregation by sex or otherwise ascribed gender not aligned with gender identity is a prevention of abuse rests on a (usually, not explicitly stated) combination of beliefs that does not hold up to scrutiny, to wit:
(1) Abuse occurs only in the direction of sexual preference,
(2) Sexual preference is universally heterosexual based on sex or socially ascribed gender (rather than gender identity) of both the actor and the object of potential desire.
I'm completely baffled why people care where others go potty. But then I'm also baffled by the fixation we have on sex separated public facilities. If it were up to be, we'd have a large unisex facility and one or two individual + family restrooms. That's it. Take your pick, but it's not separated by sex.
Transgendered have been using the facility of their choice for decades with no problems.
The controversy is just a recent phenomenon, manufacturered from the right wing Christian camp. To me they are fake Christians, a pseudo Christian cult, because they are not in any meaningful way Christian, they're just jerks who want to be vindictive, and use the government to punish people whose behavior they merely disagree with but otherwise cause no harm. These cultists see the U.S. as a Christian nation under threat, and they go on the attack to assert it as being properly a white Christian nation. So in my view, they can keep trying, but their ridiculous dying culture is a losing proposition. The more vindictive they are, the more people get tired of its pointlessness, and obsolescence.
Sexual assault and lewd public behavior are already illegal. I see no reason to sanction people who are just peeing, pooping, and primping.
Haidt and Lukianoff are saying that universities should be places where students learn to engage in reasoned debate and discussion, instead of being indoctrinated in a particular ideology. I agree.
If you like what they are saying, check out their organization at heterodoxacademy.org/
So, the reason that people I know are so horrified by Milo is that he was calling out undocumented and transgendered students by name; not just talking about what he dislikes about these groups, but calling them before the mob of his audience on an individual basis, knowing full well that many of his audience members would go find that person and take out their issues on that person, all while not even trying to hedge the situation to demonized his own followers who turned to such levels; and, for the undocumented, essentially turning a microscope on them and making it highly likely they could find themselves deported.
This, to me, fits a usage of the term "violence". Maybe you disagree. Maybe the author also disagrees, but I don't know, as I will now again say that as the author didn't even ask this question, which let them respond to a weird philosophy piece that also didn't seem to care to ask anyone involved, which I find so ludicrously questionable in their position and with their clear understanding of other issues as to be outright dishonest. This is an article talking with another article about a group of people, and yet those people were not consulted? This should not happen.
Regardless, with this information, you now get to do what the author should have done: discuss whether you think this speech is violent--not just any speech, and not the perfect speech that this author might hope you are expecting, but the specific speech involved in the incidents on college campuses which are used in the author's examples and that are required to claim the reactions are incompatible. In all seriousness: even if you still disagree that Milo is violent, I hope we can at least agree that this article sucks.
reply