SIO18: Milo’s Long Overdue Downfall

It finally happened. Milo said something that was horrifying enough for people who 5 minutes ago talked like it’s all about freedom of expression and it doesn’t matter how much we disagree, to say “nah never mind, let’s de-platform him.” In today’s episode I clear up what I view as SO much fallacious reasoning on this issue. People are actually viewing what happened to Milo as a reason that we should have been platforming him all along. To me, this is completely contradictory. Find out why in today’s episode!

Overtime Larry Wilmore

Detailed article about the Adelaide Kramer harassment

Current Affairs article

Conatus News interviewed Thomas

Black Bloc protesting

Leave us a Voicemail: (916) 750-4746!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com

 

Direct Download

Leave a Reply

27 Comments on "SIO18: Milo’s Long Overdue Downfall"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dan
Guest
Sunlight is what exposed Milo. You don’t get to remove the interviews that asked these questions of Milo and then say it wasn’t these interviews that exposed him. You should really give credit to the Drunken Peasants and Joe Rogan for those clips you played. They both took him to task for those views in real time. Let’s remember it was people having conversations with Milo that brought these ideas to the surface. This is a win for the people that have been saying to have conversations because that’s where this information came from. Not from riots and protests or… Read more »
Dan
Guest

I wish I could edit but I can’t.

I still support Milos right to speak and that will never change. I have also never been against deplatforming, I would prefer it didn’t happen but no one with a platform needs to give that platform to anyone.

I think Thomas just threw out another bullshit straw man.

Baller14
Guest
As usual, when it comes to this issue, he did just that. The people who were 5 minutes ago saying that dude should be allowed to speak freely are wrong because he spoke freely and said some controversial shit? Interesting how that works. Also fuck bill maher. Him taking credit for anything beyond his statements about ‘liberals not taking the bait’ is horse shit. For the record, if you watch the entirety of milos comments, as well as his apology, and also don’t act conveniently unaware of the depths that long form Internet conversations can get to, what he said… Read more »
kyle
Guest
I’m ambivalent on this. As Thomas mentioned in the episode, what we seem to be identifying as Milo’s “downfall” is that conservatives have embraced his de-platforming. Despite providing a constant, condescending chorus of “de-platforming and attempts to silence bad ideas only increasing their popularity,” people who assured us that we were only hurting our own cause are now taking a victory lap because “refusing to de-platform Milo ultimately worked to de-platform Milo.” I get that this isn’t inherently a contradictory thing (e.g., you could argue premature de-platforming in liberal spaces delays consensus building for unilateral de-platforming), but I’m having trouble… Read more »
Dan
Guest
I was never on the side that wanted Milo to go away or be silenced. I was always on the side of people engaging his ideas and exposing them as wrong, especially in regards to how he reached his conclusions. That never happened. I wanted to see more of what Larry Wilmore did on Bill Maher, that’s how I wanted to see him go away. Crush the ideas. No one ever engaged the ideas with Milo, they just called him names and thought that was an argument. Being ok with men and boys hooking up is a bridge too far… Read more »
kyle
Guest
Just in case I might have implied it, I didn’t mean to imply that you were arguing for something you weren’t arguing for. Apologies. I agree with you about Milo’s ideas still lingering. That said, I don’t think we necessarily gain anything by engaging Milo (or his successors) directly that we couldn’t accomplish by engaging their ideas and reporting on their actions in a more responsible way (e.g., engaging with trans people about how they’re affected by discrimination rather than some clown who has a backwards opinion on their mental health). I think there’s reason to believe that thoroughly discrediting… Read more »
Dan
Guest
In short, the Duluth assets that is domestic violence situations the woman is the victim and the male is the abuser. Police use premise when called to domestic disputes. Numbers indicate about a 60/40 split in who is the abused and who is the victim. Women/men. What happens is men are disproportionately blamed in those situations and if a male is the victim of violence they have no help available since the police are far more likely to arrest them than help them. If Thomas ever wants to touch this topic I would beg him to be a part of… Read more »
kyle
Guest
I think you make an insightful point about us being granted access to Milo’s audience by engaging him directly. A cynical part of me wonders if gaining that access is worthwhile, in so far as it too feeds into Milo’s schtick (e.g., “watch Milo expose and demolish a regressive cuck offering fake news buzzwords”), but I take your point that who’s on stage will change whose asses are in the seats. I do have to add though, that I am skeptical of this claim that winning the argument, winning his audience even, will result in the most preferable/efficient outcome. During… Read more »
Dan
Guest

That’s really long and I cannot read it all now. But you gave examples of people applying the law, no examples of the law itself being biased. I’ll hit all you points later but for this piece remember that the Law is the System, those that apply the law is the institution. Very different things. I will expand on that.

Dan
Guest
So back to this, I’ll hit as many points as I can. Gerrymandering is about getting favourable voting conditions for one party over another, that’s why Austin is broken into 6 districts. It’s not a race thing, it’s about who people vote for and how to suppress their impact. Yes the US has some messed up laws, the Muslim ban is not a racial thing it’s idealogical but that has nothing to do with patriarchy, it’s just bad policy. There are some local state laws that make certain restrictions but I would guess those would be unconstitutional if challenged. I… Read more »
kyle
Guest
When I was in grad school, there was this tradition of student groups making t-shirts with dumb insular academic jokes. One of the enduring t-shirts read “Sure, it works in practice, but what about the theory?” I take your point, I really do, that there are currently no laws with a preamble that reads “in effort to more fully infringe upon the rights and agency of women, people of color, and the lgbtqi community…,” and it seems that you agree with me in recognizing that the application of the law (for whatever reason) results in a practical reality wherein women,… Read more »
Dan
Guest

If you can’t show practical examples of patriarchy in the system then it’s not there. What is actually being described is something else entirely. Maybe a bias among individuals in the system but the system itself with a few noted exceptions is already extremely fair. What we need to do is help change some attitudes of some people to push better equal practices. There are ways to do this but people in the legal system are still in the 80s printing documents do I doubt modern analytics is on the horizon for that group.

Kyle
Guest
Sorry, I’m on my phone, so I’ll have to be brief (but maybe that’s better anyway). We disagree. My failing to give you a tailor-made example of a thing that you seem pretty invested in not accepting, given how casually you dismiss the examples I did give as “American problems,” “laws that will be found unconstitutional,” and “not about race” based on the flimsiest of pretenses the Trump administration has to offer, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that patriarchy doesn’t exist, in some form, in Western society. I’ll cop to being a poor translator, but I won’t accept that… Read more »
Dan
Guest
This is the definition of patriarchy. pa·tri·arch·y ˈpātrēˌärkē/ noun a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. plural noun: patriarchies The second definition is probably the closest to what we are talking about. In 1917 that was true but in 2017 it is no longer true. Women have no restrictions to holding any public office… Read more »
Jeremiah Traeger
Guest
This was certainly an instance of deplatforming winning out. We already heard out Milo’s terrible ideas and they were decidedly awful. However, no matter how awful they were there are people for whom his message resonated with him. We like to think that hearing out ideas on a large stage will automatically cause the bad ideas to weed out, but that assumes that all the people watching are capable of critical thinking and engagement. That’s certainly not the case. Bad ideas spread regardless of their ridiculousness all the time. Trump is our president because he said crazy stuff and the… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
Yes, Milo was/is a prototypical douche nozzle. But I’m not sure we’re entirely justified in our positive giddiness over him being “de-platformed.” First of all, he wasn’t de-platformed because of his callousness toward trans people, which was supposedly the basis for the self-appointed SJW Deities’ demand for his de-platformation. He was de-platformed for saying “shit” in church, or the Anti-PC Warrior equivalent thereof. If you “say ‘shit’ in church,” your point and its context are irrelevant—you’re out. What we’re doing is declaring victory because our arch wrestling rival stepped in front of a bus and was run over. Yeah, that… Read more »
Jeremiah Traeger
Guest
Every person with a platform has control over who uses that platform. That’s who is in control. CPAC didn’t unilaterally bar Milo from everywhere, just from CPAC. Same with S&S. If someone I like is deplatformed for reasons I perceive as bad, my qualm is not censorship, because as far as I’m concerned it’s not. Nobody is entitled to a platform. iTunes, for example, could decide not to play Thomas’ podcasts. If Thomas violated their terms of service, then maybe I would be less upset depending on what he did or how ridiculous a certain rule is. If I found… Read more »
Dan
Guest

Do you have an example of Milo sending anyone to harass anyone? I hear this charge often but when asked for evidence the tune changes to (inset person I don’t like here) has fans that harass people and they don’t stop them.

kyle
Guest

Leslie Jones. It’s why he got kicked off of Twitter.

Dan
Guest

Yes he personally harassed her if you use a liberal definition of harass. However, where is the evidence he sent anyone else to harass her?

That attack on jones by the masses came from a Chan site. Milo had nothing to do with inciting that, he joined in near the end. There is lots to critique Milo on without making things up.

Dana
Guest
If anyone wants to you can check out The Drunken Peasants Episode 330. They address this very issue (since the comments in question come from their interview with him) and I sort of agree with their conclusion. A thirty second clip from a 2-3 hour show doesn’t give you the whole story. There’s a whole interview on either side of the edited clip that went viral (that doesn’t even give DP their due credit). Milo is an edgelord troll with toxic ideas and I disagree with him on just about everything. But de-platforming someone just because we disagree with them… Read more »
kyle
Guest
I somehow doubt he’s capable of acting as a silent anything. More relevantly though, I think it’s important to distinguish between “de-platforming someone just because we disagree with them” and “de-platforming someone because giving them a platform endangers others”, “de-platforming someone because their ideas violate the standards set by a given institution”, even “de-platforming someone because their ideas are too ill-informed to engage in a meaningful way,” or any of the other reasons that might be relevant… in this case “de-platforming someone because not doing so will lose us money.” As others have said, Simon & Schuster refuse to publish… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
I listened to the whole original Drunken Peasants interview with Milo just because all I had ever heard were, like you said, clips of his comments that were several seconds at best. Milo is a strange dude. I think raw intelligence-wise he’s got most of his detractors beat by 15 to 30 IQ points. He’s linguistically super-fluent and very articulate. And he is resilient, which is just about my favorite human trait anymore: someone who can’t be seriously damaged by what other people are saying about him. But he is damaged. What kept coming to mind was “Stockholm syndrome” and… Read more »
Balled14
Guest
In my view, Milo was not ‘deplatformed by cpac in the same way that he was ‘deplatformed’ by violent protesters at Berkeley. The rioters did whatever they had to get a speaker with an opposing views event cancelled. This meant putting pressure on a third party, the university. Also keep in mind that the speech at Berkeley was imminent. The cpac ‘deplatforming’ is really just a business decision from them based on what is almost certainly a hit piece of an editing job on that video. He said controversial things, sure, but it made t look much worse. I don’t… Read more »
Balled14
Guest

And the cpac speech was days away…

trackback

[…] Thomas did a fabulous, full-length episode of Serious Inquiries Only about Milo; you should give that a listen. […]

Vladimir Krasny
Guest

So….sure, it was Milo talking that “caused” this (what he said caused it).
But what did it cause? Deplatforming? Others distancing from him? etc

Isnt that what ppl wanted? Of course they were those who would stopped him from talking if they could but many more people just wanted others to see what horrible things hes saying and wanted others to stop giving him platform to spread those horrible things.

And what changed is that now he said something that even these people dont agree.