3 HOURS? Are you fecking kidding me? 3 hours of listening to right wing, misogynistic drivel? Im not sure I can deal with that. I think I might need something shorter.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Do you have a garden? I found it the perfect soundtrack for hacking down invasive ivy/brambles. Basically getting rid of unwanted immigrants. Not sure I listened to the whole thing. Got very same-y after a while.
Have a listen to the youtube link I posted on the other page. It's Milo's podcast with the (frankly brilliant) Douglas Murray. Only 30 minutes long and very interesting.
@evra I started listening to the Douglas Murray one linked above but I got bored after 5 minutes. Mainly because it was more about Douglas Murray who Im already very familiar with (a QT regular). So I am now listening to the Joe Rogan one.
Interesting so far. The scariest thing is when he says something you agree with.
He reminds me of Geert Wilders. What is it with the right and that haircut?
I know, right? How did that happen? Is it our personal politics that changed (getting old) or have the goal-posts moved?
I think it goes back to the question you asked yesterday (?) when you bumped this thread. So yeah, the goal posts have moved a bit. Though obviously agreeing with him on a specific point is not the same as agreeing with him generally.
Last edited:
The big idea of his I agree with is that there's a lack of appreciation from woman/minorities about how well they really have it in Europe/America compared to the rest of the world. He thinks there's no work still to be done (I don't agree) but the left often seems to lack perspective about how lucky we all are to live in such enlightened times/countries. The constant belly-aching about the establishment just shifts the electorate out to extremes and gives a fecknut like Trump a shot at the biggest job in the world.
Think I've seen this guy somewhere before but can't recall where. Seems like someone with self esteem issues who struggles with the fact he can't make everyone like him and so instead tries to make people hate him. Possibly a bit stunted, as that sort of reaction is not uncommon in adolescent men.
Don't think he's from the Katie Hopkins breed of 'trolling for money'. Seems much more personal, to me.
Don't think he's from the Katie Hopkins breed of 'trolling for money'. Seems much more personal, to me.
See this echoes what Pogue said and I picked up on this morning. At that point I hadnt actually heard a word of this guy's opinions directly, now Im an hour and a half into this marathon podcast. But I still think its a bit dangerous to assume he's not sincere. I can see where you are both coming from, especially, as Pogue said, when he goes "a bit too far" and then laughs and backs off... But yeah, I cant help but think he absolutely does believe what he is saying.
That sounds like he's happy with the status quo as things are, and doesn't want to encourage any change that could affect that.
I also find it bizarre how those who aren't women/minorities seemingly like to talk from the perspective of whichever group, as if they understand - even though they've never lived a day never mind an entire lifetime as someone from either group.
It's quite condescending really, added to the guilt trip of "well there's plenty of people worse than you" basically, you should be happy with what you're given.
The only thing missing is having the token black friend agreeing with him.
Thinking about it, I think the issue he has is he is making serious points (that, I assume, he does believe sincerely) while simultaneously trying to be funny / light-hearted. Which presumably is also a way of maximising his accessibility. But also means he says things he doesnt actually believe - caricatures of things he does actually believe. we all exaggerate to make a point. (Though usually that is more useful as a mechanism for arguing against something than arguing for it.)
I dont know, I havent really thought it through.
I dont know, I havent really thought it through.
There are different levels of 'believing' what one is saying though. There are times he is saying things and he give the impression he feels they are absolutely backed up with logical argument and science and there are times he is saying things when he gives the impression he knows he is just stating an 'I reckon' as fact - and the latter tend to be the more extreme attention grabbing things he comes out with.
Just finished writing when I saw this post. I agree very much with that.
Like I said. I disagree with him. There's a lot of work still to be done. It's just that the fact that here and now is a really great time to be a minority (compared to the past/elsewhere) that gets lost in the left-wing rhetoric. This, in turn, allows people like this guy (and Trump) score easy points/votes from people that might not typically have conservative views.
I would add that I think people like him can be useful. Most of what they say is ridiculous nonsense but every now and then their lack of restraint enables them to find valid points others do not.
Yeah I think that's what is going on.
One of the ways what he's saying falls down is that he talks about "feminists" as if they are a homogeneous group. Ignoring the fact that the feminist movement seems (from the outside looking in) to be in the midst of civil war. There are a lot of contradictions within feminism but that is why many feminists spend a lot of time arguing among themselves, and a lot of the vitriol thrown around at feminists (not a majority by any means, but a considerable amount) comes from other feminists.
So individual feminists can have entirely consistent views, even as there are contradictions within the movement at the broadest, umbrella level. Sorry this might seem a bit random, but Im listening to him talking about how the trans gender debate somehow "disproves" feminism because it acknowledges differences between men and women....
So individual feminists can have entirely consistent views, even as there are contradictions within the movement at the broadest, umbrella level. Sorry this might seem a bit random, but Im listening to him talking about how the trans gender debate somehow "disproves" feminism because it acknowledges differences between men and women....
Yeah I wasn't aiming it at you of course.
I agree with the basic premise, it's great to be a minority in comparison, no more slavery, segregation, racism is bad now etc.
But guys like that in turn wouldn't want to be treated the same way minorities, or women are treated just for being who they are either, so there's disparity there.
The left do often race bait too much, which I don't agree with, but at least they're trying something.
Yeah he gets quite muddled there. Although I do agree with him about the contradiction in the way we've been told for years that gender is an entirely social construct but the recent focus on transgender rights means the consensus has completely changed to an acceptance that people are born with male or female brains (that don't necessarily correlate with the gender of their bodies)
EDIT: Ah. That's the bit you were talking about.
Last edited:
There's barely any argument that justifies him being given a public platform. We're not exactly short of big-mouthed egotists who'll say anything to achieve prominence - this is a major reason why people like Trump get ahead, even though he has the demeanour and deep thinking of a WWE wrestler feigning conviction and anger. Increasingly, our newspapers and other media outlets are dominated not by reportage but by opinion, no matter how reckless or insincere; it's often merely playing to whichever gallery guarantees reaction, pay and fame. This isn't a good thing.
Besides - irony alert - would Milo have such prominence at all if he didn't conform to that old 'acceptable to the masses' niche: the 'entertaining gay guy'?
As for the "they've never had it so good" point...well, I'm only surprised that he doesn't follow that up with the inevitable "so why won't they shut up?"
Besides - irony alert - would Milo have such prominence at all if he didn't conform to that old 'acceptable to the masses' niche: the 'entertaining gay guy'?
As for the "they've never had it so good" point...well, I'm only surprised that he doesn't follow that up with the inevitable "so why won't they shut up?"
It contradicts a strand of feminism for sure. But I feel like - and I admit I am not close to this debate (partly because, as he says early on, I am scared shitless of it, and it doesnt seem like a debate you can be "casually" involved in, as when youre in for a penny youre very much in for a pound) - feminism has evolved to acknowledge that point. Or many feminists have. Which is why there is this so much in-fighting going on.
I know a few feminists, a few fairly hardcore people who post nothing else on their FB timelines other than this stuff. And it seems among the people I know there is an acknowledgement that there are inherent differences between the genders. That is also implied by the whole "if there were more women in politics we would be able to clear up most of this mess overnight" line of thinking that seems to me to be pretty mainstream. The argument doesnt seem to be about there being no difference between the sexes, but that they should have equal rights and representation regardless of (or maybe even precisely because of) those differences.
Then you get into the whole debate about whether women naturally / genetically gravitate away from politics, and that is the real reason they are underrepresented. I dont believe that. Or if there is an element of truth in it, its only because they are turned off of the way politics is now, so you have to overcome that hurdle to make it more balanced. He dances around this at the beginning but his implication seems to be properly old school - women arent in politics because it doesnt suit their temperaments, they are better off sewing or looking after children, kind of thing.
Oh he does. Despite being self-evidently wrong. It's ludicrous to claim that things have improved over time for minorities, while simultaneously arguing that they can't improve any more. Not when all the available evidence points towards there still being a way to go. What I think is reasonable, though, is the idea that a bit more effort to put any current challenges they face into a bit more context would make the argument more compelling. You can see how many Americans are put off by arguments about a racially defined glass ceiling when the person who currently holds the most powerful position in their country is black man. Like I said, the danger here is that refusing to acknowledge the many positives in the way woman or people of colour are able to live their lives in the West in the modern era just sets up wankers like Donald Trump to score a load of easy points.
They do seem to be horribly confused and fragmented about the whole thing. In a way, this comes back to what I keep harking back to. There's not a whole lot left for feminism to achieve. When women didn't have a vote there was a simple issue for everyone to get behind. Now that there's (relatively) little to feel aggrieved about, feminists seem to be wasting all their time and energy arguing about semantics. Which make it harder for people (like you or me) who would typically be on their side to continue to feel much sympathy for their cause(s).
So liberalism / freedom (of speech and others) / democracy contain the seeds of their own demise.
Take the media. What do newswpapers do when information is ubiquitous? Editorialise and give opinions. What do you do when there are thousands of opinions competing for attention on the internet? Say things that are more extreme than what others are saying, doubling down on whichever side of the political spectrum you are on. So what's the solution? Who gets to decide who should be given the public platform? This is obviously an age old debate. But I do think there's a truth in there. The fundamental problem with democracy is eventually it leads to Trump. Its the modern day version of the collapse of the Roman Empire.
But then he (Milo) is back in the old 'white privilege' trap of condescendingly telling oppressed people how they should behave/protest.
And if people are going to resort to tabloid thinking on serious subjects, then Trump and his kind are going to win the day no matter how an argument is expressed.
I read a couple of days ago that the reason why this whole racial thing is flaring up at the moment despite the black president and the fact that, on the whole, people do tend to get on with their black neighbours ("Im not racist, some of my best friends are black") is because last year the number of non-white babies being born in the US overtook the number of white babies for the first time. And that is some kind of sociological tipping point that triggered all sorts of shit, apparently. Seems a bit simplistic but an interesting factoid.
Yesterday this person I speak of posted something on FB which was a picture of some people sitting on a tube in London, a guy with women either side of him. And he was taking up a whole load of space, his legs were apart, invading the women next to him's leg room. It was just this photo. Like it was an analogy for all gender relations.
So yeah, it does come back to what you said earlier, we're hardly talking about FGM here. And does it even actually represent a broader point at all, no matter how trivial? Do men generally take up more space in the tube? Or was this just one inconsiderate guy?
"Manspreading" is one of those ridiculous non-issues that both sides use as ammunition. The idiots among the feminist movement use it as an example of "male privilege" while reactionaries use it as one of the justifications for vilifying and/or ridiculing feminism in its entirety.
I'm biased towards my own opinion and believe it to be the sane and rational one: shitty and inconsiderate people take up a lot of space on public transport while decent people don't.
I actually think your accusation that it's "tabloid thinking" to have an opinion on how the left might campaign more effectively is kind of condescending. And it's this type of condescension that is turning so many young people away from the left. Any difference of opinion you might hold could only be because you're too stupid to understand what's really going on. Like I keep saying, my main concern here is that we're seeing a political stance that should appeal to the young but seems to be doing the exact opposite. I'd be really interested to see some data on politics of the young now vs a decade or two ago. I'd imagine it's fairly grim reading.
"Man-spreading" is a meme that's picked up a bit of traction on social media. It's infuriatingly trivial though. And yet another example of well-meaning people taking to their high horse about inconsequential nonsense. Which makes it feel like hard work going in to bat for them on more signifcant stuff. Whinging about "mansplaining" is another new low. This stuff just gives the impression that feminists have nothing important to worry about, when the well informed amongst us would agree that this impression is false. Of course, for a political movement to succeed they can't just appeal to the well informed while putting everyone else off.
This sums up Milo and the alt-right for me
Another thing I've noticed them doing, especially online, is when someone (usually a man) comments on something they have shared with a well meaning comment that doesn't fit their highly complex views which don't always make immediate sense to most people, the person gets shouted down and abused for it. What they don't seem to grasp is they had someone there that they could have gotten on their side, who now thinks they're lunatics and total bellends for going off on one when he had no idea what the issue was, instead of them actually explaining their viewpoint.
I also have many on my Facebook who are proud about being angry, I don't care what oppression you've faced, being angry and acting the bellend does nothing but turn off the people you want to get on your side.
Too many turn it into a closed off and hostile community which is just harming the cause for all the sensible people out there with a valid cause.
Manspreading. Mansplaining. You know what popped into my head when I was reading that? Sheeple.
Word fusion has gone mad.
Makey uppy words seems to be another hallmark of the new left. Have you got to the bit of the podcast where they talk about all the made-up pronouns being used to discuss gender issues?
Yeah I finished.
If anyone wanted to watch this but cant be arsed to dedicate 3 hours to it, if you want to watch half, watch from an hour in and stop about half an hour from the end. Seems like that is the most interesting / controversial section.
I thought the most interesting bits (that bit) was when they were talking about religion and homosexuality. He starts off fairly gently but warms to his theme, then they seem to hit peak controversy and it calms down towards the end.
But I also felt kind of guilty while watching this. 1) I should be working. That's the most obvious point. But 2) I am only watching it because he got kicked off Twitter (and so I heard about this guy). Which reinforces that truism about their being no such thing as bad publicity. For the part he played in this whole Leslie Jones business, he got more attention.
On that though, Im still a bit hazy on the details. Did he actually racially abuse Leslie Jones? Im assuming he's more subtle than that? So he stands accused of being a ringleader, or encouraging others to be abusive, rather than being one of the people telling her she looked like an ape or whatever? Is there an actual Tweet or series of Tweets he was banned for? I should do a bit more research on that. But also, I should do some work. Havent decided which way Im going to go yet.
Edit - OK I read up on that and get it now.
If anyone wanted to watch this but cant be arsed to dedicate 3 hours to it, if you want to watch half, watch from an hour in and stop about half an hour from the end. Seems like that is the most interesting / controversial section.
I thought the most interesting bits (that bit) was when they were talking about religion and homosexuality. He starts off fairly gently but warms to his theme, then they seem to hit peak controversy and it calms down towards the end.
But I also felt kind of guilty while watching this. 1) I should be working. That's the most obvious point. But 2) I am only watching it because he got kicked off Twitter (and so I heard about this guy). Which reinforces that truism about their being no such thing as bad publicity. For the part he played in this whole Leslie Jones business, he got more attention.
On that though, Im still a bit hazy on the details. Did he actually racially abuse Leslie Jones? Im assuming he's more subtle than that? So he stands accused of being a ringleader, or encouraging others to be abusive, rather than being one of the people telling her she looked like an ape or whatever? Is there an actual Tweet or series of Tweets he was banned for? I should do a bit more research on that. But also, I should do some work. Havent decided which way Im going to go yet.
Edit - OK I read up on that and get it now.
Last edited:
This appears to be the most of his tweets towards her. Also, he retweeted some tweets with images of Jones being bigoted, which were false, altered.
There's an interesting link between him and 4chan that I only recently became aware of. That whole conservative libertarian thing. Which seems to be really appealing to nerdy white males and adds a layer if tech savvy to his online bullying campaigns.
Yeah this was what I read that cleared it up for me:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained
Which does go into 4Chan.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained
Which does go into 4Chan.
Simply put, the 'I say what I like & I like what I say' crowd don't appreciate critics being equally blunt in their criticism. In many cases, yes, there's condescension but we can't and shouldn't ignore the obvious (and expedient) anti-intellectual trend; it should be called out for what it is.
I try not to even think about that. I know women must be treated completely equally and transgender people have to be treated as the gender they want to be and can't understand how I can do both so I'd be terrified of ever talking about it in public. I honestly find it confusing but I don't think most people will ever understand it.
I read an article the other day in the Guardian that argued that the Republicans were now a vehicle for white power and African Americans live under white supremacy. The story of the boy who cried wolf is in my head for some reason.
Ideally they would restrict the debates to the most qualified people. I try to find academic sites about things like foreign policy, politics or the economy. The issue is that I often don't understand some of it (especially the economic stuff) and can't trust how impartial the source is. I think a newspaper which works as a platform for the most qualified people while helping to make it easier to understand and trustworthy woud be perfect but unlikely.
I've tried a few times in the past to learn about feminist arguments and get around the things I don't get/don't agree with. What I've noticed is that plenty of feminists have gotten tired of explaining things to people outside of their circle. I've seen a few arguments where people would be told to go 'educate' themselves rather than derail the conversation and there are very few places where feminists actually get into calm discussions with people who disagree with them (though that's partially because they get so much abuse online).
They actually have a word for what you just said: 'tone policing'. Again feminists seem to hate it regardless of how what you said makes sense. It's a tactic used by concern trolls apparently (read about them, it's great). I was surprised by how many articles there are on feminist blogs and sites where arguments are made that dismiss whole categories of criticism.
Now I normally just avoid discussions about feminism (at least discussions with actual feminists). They get so toxic (because of both sides). I've basically decide that I won't agree with them on many things but I'm generally even more against the alternative so why bother arguing with them?