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.
Give it a listen before judging him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmQe1tWVBk8
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
Being knowledgeable alone is reason enough, you won't get the exact story second hand from the media which it sounds like you have.
I've read his tweets, I've watched him speak, and I've read explanations of his value to society.
Like most humans, I still don't like him. Many people are much better at protecting free speech without advocating dangerous, regressive ideas.
I'm not a sheep just because I haven't drawn the same conclusion as you after reviewing the same evidence.