The editors notes for Milo's book are amazing.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

For those that don't know who Milo Yiannopoulos is, he is an alt-right "political commentator" and provocateur. In February of this year he had a book deal with Simon & Schuster cancelled, so Milo filed suit.

As a result of the suit Simon & Schuster released an early copy of Milo's book along with notes from the editor: and those notes are glorious.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/milo-book-editor-notes?utm_term=.vrJ7ZJ4Oy#.ac2G5pjV8

Some of my personal favourites:

"Don't make fun of school shooters-and certainly don't compare them to liberals"

"Pepe warrants a fuller explanation."

"No need to drag lesbians into this! And DON'T use lesbian as a slur!"

"The use of a phrase like "two-faced backstabbing bitches" diminishes your overall point."

"Are you seriously telling your reader that you advocate SMEAR CAMPAIGNS?"

"Paris Hilton is NOT the best authority to quote here. Stick to Camille Pagila."

"NO MORE REFERENCES TO YOUR BOOK ADVANCE OR THE PUBLISHING PROCESS."

"You can't say ugly people are drawn to the left. Have you ever seen the people at a Trump rally?"

And in the final wrap letter, this quote about the ambiguous nature goobergate says it all really.

"The Goobergate chapter: You must explain clearly and concisely for people who don't understand (a) what Goobergate was; (b) what transpired before you got involved; (c) what the Gamers did (d) how the press responded; (e) how the Gamers responded, including detailing any doxing and online harassment (f) how you got involved (g) what you have been accused of doing that you did not do."

(Any transcription errors or corrections are my own.)

My favorite is "you can't say all ugly people are liberals. Have you seen a Trump rally?"

I kind of hope that this will be the true closing seconds of the fifteenth minute. Dude doesn't need a book deal, he needs help.

I too am amused by the notes and will echo others in asking exactly what the fuck were they expecting. However I must side with the takes calling out Simon & Schuster for essentially trying to make Milo's vile bullshit more palatable. It's easy to make fun of Milo for being a constantly owned, drivel-producing trog but his being a useful dunce for the alt-right allows their brand of acidic, destructive rhetoric to flourish.

This Twitter thread does a decent job of breaking all this nonsense down. Fuck everybody involved in this sham, seriously. https://twitter.com/surfbordt/status/946418402867912704

Oh my god this is gold, every chapter is a heading to the effect of 'this is why X hates me', it somehow reads as both every angsty 14 year old 'emo kid' from the early 2000's self pitying manifesto AND is toxicially self satisfying and narcissistic. I especially love how eventually the editor clearly loses his/her patience and just unloads their frustrations onto Milo incredibly directly towards the end, frankly they've earned a sainthood for putting up with that crap. Though it might be revoked for the fact that they saw all this blatant fascist propaganda and decided to try and teach him to make it all palatable for mainstream audiences rather then just say 'fuck off' and burn the thing on sight.

As Beetlemaniac said above I hope this is the end of Milo's fifteen minutes, because this manuscript shows how hollow, vacant, and vacuous he actually is. One decent thing about this manuscript being released, beyond the hilarity of how dumb his points were at the frustration of his note taker, is that we get to see him in his raw unedited form. No where for him to hide, no careful choosing of language to avoid accusations of racism and basically no chance for him to do the old tactics of 'controlling the conversation' or 'never taking the defensive' or even just sneering and upsetting people to try and get a rise out of them. Instead he has to explain and defend his position and well, he sucks at it.

How bad he is at expressing his views when he can't just turn the conversation into a series of smug sneering insults at his opponents expense and has to actually defend his position on its own terms kind of highlights how bad he really is at coming up with ideas or anything beyond smug ad hominems and 'trolling'. He's nothing but a preening smug self promoter who happily latched himself to white nationalists because they will embrace anyone who can help get their message out and make it look appealing. Thankfully between this and the expose of the Daily Stormer recently in regards to codifed language and making really fascist ideas palatable for mainstream audiences we now have a pretty good framework both to how these people like to use codified language to hide their ideas in plain sight and in turn how idiotic and vacuous and weak their ideas actually are without editing.

Hell even just showing frustrated editors pointing out over and over again that things like 'feminists are just ugly sexless cat owners' isn't actually a strong argument does a lot to weaken that image of inflexible unshakable conviction and strong posture that the far right has invented for years now solely because of its efforts to never take the defensive and use short quippy answers designed to piss off the opposition and make them look irrational while the far right gets to look confident. Seeing Milo put in his place for making short quippy arguments and never taking responsibility for his actions and seeing him ACCEPT that criticism actually could do a lot to damage the alt right's playbook. In theory anyway.

But yeah between this and the pro child molesting thing don't be surprised if his career is on its last legs. Reading the shit he wrote unedited is a very daunting journey into his psyche and all it really comprises of is 'please pay attention to me'.

But yeah bottom line as a fan of the world of literature, I'm very happy this turd won't be stinking up any book stores any time soon.

Vrex360:
But yeah between this and the pro child molesting thing don't be surprised if his career is on its last legs. Reading the shit he wrote unedited is a very daunting journey into his psyche and all it really comprises of is 'please pay attention to me'.

Don't hold your breath. Who is the current PotUS again? This might be a hiccup for Milo, but unlikely to be a career ender.

Thaluikhain:

Vrex360:
But yeah between this and the pro child molesting thing don't be surprised if his career is on its last legs. Reading the shit he wrote unedited is a very daunting journey into his psyche and all it really comprises of is 'please pay attention to me'.

Don't hold your breath. Who is the current PotUS again? This might be a hiccup for Milo, but unlikely to be a career ender.

Yeah except this also makes his look weak. The far right will embrace a guy who rapes passed out teenage girls on a rug made from the skin of endangered mammals as long as he can look 'tough' and sell their image. But if he crumbles and looks weak, like say making a bunch of bad arguments in a book, have his editor call out that they are bad arguments and ACCEPT the criticism of them being bad arguments, he looks 'weak' and that they have a problem with. Milo faltering and constantly getting called out and made fun of and more specifically his arguments being torn apart may actually do a lot of damage.

But it is true, we live in a post reality world so anything's possible.

He should be spending his unearned time and wealth on various therapies, not scrambling to regain some semblance of relevancy within crowds that are evidently willing to use and abuse someone as damaged as him for their archaic personal sociological slap-fights.

A mild curiosity however is whether he elaborates on the condoning of sexual abuse towards minors, seeing as it ruffled some feathers before, yet with the power of God almighty of all bloody things, that's not such a bad thing for republicans anymore. Soooo...where we at on that cat, chumbro?

The entire manuscript with edits (also known as "Exhibit B") can be found here: https://iappscontent.courts.state.ny.us/NYSCEF/live/EXHIBIT_B.pdf

I read the entire thing in a single sitting. It is fucking delectable. It's just so god damn bad. Milo seems to think of himself as a master troll (BTW, the first rule of trolling is that if you claim to win at it then you have lost, I thought this was something we already agreed on at least a decade ago) who everyone on the left is terrified of, but watching this bloviating assclown shout incoherently for 200 pages was just funny.

It's just page after page of shit like this.

image

BTW Simon and Schuster, the copyright owners, have put the work in the public record, so posting it here is within fair use.

renegade7:
The entire manuscript with edits (also known as "Exhibit B") can be found here: https://iappscontent.courts.state.ny.us/NYSCEF/live/EXHIBIT_B.pdf

I read the entire thing in a single sitting. It is fucking delectable. It's just so god damn bad. Milo seems to think of himself as a master troll (BTW, the first rule of trolling is that if you claim to win at it then you have lost, I thought this was something we already agreed on at least a decade ago) who everyone on the left is terrified of, but watching this bloviating assclown shout incoherently for 200 pages was just funny.

It's just page after page of shit like this.

image

BTW Simon and Schuster, the copyright owners, have put the work in the public record, so posting it here is within fair use.

If you needed an answer why he's a twice university drop-out...

Maybe the DeVry Institute or Trump """University""" can give him an honorary?

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why people give a fuck about this guy?

Adam Jensen:
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why people give a fuck about this guy?

Might want to ask the people who disrupted his college speaking engagements, and even trashed one or two of them violently if I recall correctly.
If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared? Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book, doesn't speak at engagements?

Also, might as well admit. Bought the audiobook, was a delightful listen, since it's read by Milo himself. Especially the part where he outlines exactly how to defeat him.

Adam Jensen:
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why people give a fuck about this guy?

Because he works very, very, very hard to get everybody's attention, and he is willing to call you a cuck in order to do it.

The guy is an attention seeker. Stop giving him attention. If it wasn't for all the people condemning him, nobody would ever have heard of him.

renegade7:
BTW Simon and Schuster, the copyright owners, have put the work in the public record, so posting it here is within fair use.

Not that I particularly care, but if the book deal in which the book was being written is still the subject of a court case, one could argue that it's not technically Simon and Schusters to release for free.

I mean, I am not a fan of the guy, but for a company to not only renege on a book deal but to make what was written freely available seems a little unprofessional.

Catnip1024:

I mean, I am not a fan of the guy, but for a company to not only renege on a book deal but to make what was written freely available seems a little unprofessional.

Milo's claim is that Simon & Schuster "canceled in deference to pressure from authors, bookselling accounts, business and special interest groups." Simon & Schuster claim that they cancelled because the book was unpublishable. To prove that the book was unpublishable the 1st draft and editors notes have been entered into evidence. If Milo didn't want that to happen he shouldn't have sued Simon & Schuster. Once he did that: the release of the 1st draft was inevitable.

RikuoAmero:
If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared? Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book, doesn't speak at engagements?

Might as well ask Milo the same thing about Linda Sarsour.

It's almost as if he doesn't care about free speech at all!

RikuoAmero:

If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared? Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book, doesn't speak at engagements?

The mistake both you and Milo make is that you assume people's disgust and loathing are fear. When you are as offensive as Milo is you will piss people off and angry people are seldom rational. Milo is not so much dangerous as he is a provocative showman. While he can be attributed for spreading the message of the alt-right (whether he intended to or not) that does not mean fear him. This should be obvious by the fact that the only reaction he elicits from people that oppose him is apathy ("He's not worth our time") and anger. He's an excellent provocateur, but he's also been consistently unable to do anything other then provoking people. Which makes him different from Trump who also provoke people, but also has the actual capacity to act on what he says (even if his actions are stupid).

Catnip1024:
Not that I particularly care, but if the book deal in which the book was being written is still the subject of a court case, one could argue that it's not technically Simon and Schusters to release for free.

This is court evidence, which makes it publicly available material (as obvious by the fact that Exhibit B is publicly available from NYSCEF, the New York State Court Electronic Filing System). Since on-going and finished court proceedings are to be accessible to the public, this is what happens when the publisher decides to use your manuscript as evidence that you're a terrible writer and that's why they backed out of the contract. Basically, don't go pressing charges of discriminatory practices if you don't want your manuscript publicly released as an exhibit to prove that your own inability is the reason you got dropped.

RikuoAmero:

Adam Jensen:
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why people give a fuck about this guy?

Might want to ask the people who disrupted his college speaking engagements, and even trashed one or two of them violently if I recall correctly.

The people who disrupted his college speaking engagements had fuck all to do with "why people give a fuck about this guy." People gave a fuck about this guy because of the hateful rhetoric Milo spewed (all done well before the first college speaking engagements) which energised and encouraged the alt-right.

If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared?

He wasn't "feared." His rhetoric was being normalised. When Milo got kicked off twitter many of the people that I followed saw a dramatic decrease in harassment and abuse. That isn't a bad thing. Marginalising hateful people who spew hateful things is not a bad thing.

Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book, doesn't speak at engagements?

There are thousands of worthy books written every year that don't get published. The book that Milo wrote was a piece of shit (and we know this because we can read it)and he earned $80,000 for it even though it didn't get published. Goobergate hates click-bait. Milo wrote click-bait and Simon & Schuster were enabling him. What you saw was a consumer revolution in favour of ethics in book publishing.

Also, might as well admit. Bought the audiobook, was a delightful listen, since it's read by Milo himself. Especially the part where he outlines exactly how to defeat him.

He's a person: not a comic-book character. There is no "defeating him." Society can marginalize him: but in a free society he will always have a voice.

RikuoAmero:

Adam Jensen:
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why people give a fuck about this guy?

Might want to ask the people who disrupted his college speaking engagements, and even trashed one or two of them violently if I recall correctly.

Sure, once your done asking his fans who deliberately tried to incite violence so they could justify shooting someone, didn't matter who so long as they are a leftist: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/25/milo-yiannopoulos-event-shooting-couple-charged-seattle

Milo's ideas sure do seem to be appealing to particularly violent criminals with a particular hate of liberals and people of different ethnicity, say you don't think that could be the cause do you?

If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared?

He is not feared. He is hated. There is a difference.

People hate him because he's a smug preening self promoter desperate for attention and of whom will happily align with the worst of humanity to get his attention. He doesn't believe in anything, value anything or want anything except for people to notice him and he mistakes people groaning with annoyance and disgust (especially people who he has either personally attacked or people of entire ethnic groups and cultures who he's slammed case in point most recently Aboriginal Australians https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/05/milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-australia-respectable-racists-howl-approval) for fear and claims that makes him scary and 'dangerous' and it gives him """""power""""""""" which is laughably pathetic on its own. He's not actually 'edgy' or 'shocking' or 'controversial' in the slightest because he just says whatever his audience wants to hear and all they want to hear is 'the opposite of things the people on the left life'.
Christ dude being an Alt Right mouthpiece would be the easiest coziest job in history, people give you money to say the opposite of the left wing view which is somehow 'cool' and 'edgy and shocking'.

Milo is one of many kings of an old trick the far right love called 'never take the defensive'.

Most people will accidentally make more valid arguments then Milo will in an entire lifetime's worth of trying to make them, but that doesn't matter. As long as he never backs down, tells dumb jokes, shifts the focus to insulting his opposition and never looks like he's on the defensive and holds a seemingly strong composure he can APPEAR more 'right' then he is, especially if he surrounds himself by syncophants who just lap up all his words and never criticize him.

In regards to 'weakness' it's more the fact that this manuscript shows his arguments constantly falling apart under scrutinity from his editor, and his editor clearly losing his/her patience with him and demonstrating how faulty these points actually are, and Milo accepting those criticisms are valid. That means he's acknowledging his ideas are shit and don't hold up to scrutiny and he can't actually defend his position nor can he just sneer and smugly try to provoke a reaction from his editor who in turn is being paid to not just laugh along and act like he's some huge genius, so as well as all the poorly worded garbage Milo is proving how poorly put together his own political position is. That's my point.

Now there is something to fear about Milo but it's not the man himself, it's the ideas he helps popularize and normalize.

Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book,

That wasn't anyone's fault but him and his weird pro child molesting stance. Shame he said it for boys, had it been for girls he might have had a chance at Alabama.

doesn't speak at engagements?

Here we come to the 'fear' aspect. See while I stand by my belief that Yian Nipples is just a shallow vacuous turd the problem is that what he's doing, trying to do at least, is allow extremely hard right and some might even say 'alt right' ideas and make them mainstream and acceptable. Starting with 'trolling' in the form of mean spirited sexist and racist remarks towards political opponents to more overt accepting of extremely racist and sexist views. Right now Yian Nipples can claim 'oh I'm just joking around' (even though really it's just bullying) but its effect can still be bad enough if certain ideas are allowed to spread and given Milo has been documented palling around with actual fucking Nazis and other 'white nationalists': http://www.anews.com/us/p/77798106-here-s-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism-into-the-mainstream/ and Breitbart, the gross arsehole Milo was shat out of in the first place, several of whom's journalists were recently caught in an expose of being a member of a facebook group of other far right nationalist groups who were/are coordinating to try and find ways to make their ideas more palatable and hide the whole 'Nazi' thing from public view: https://hopenothate.com/2017/12/05/exposed-breitbart-writers-vile-racist-group/

This shit's been going on for quite a while to the point where outright Nazi ideas are more and more becoming considered part of acceptable discourse and you know if you were a minority student at one of those universities, maybe the thought of a guy who's peddling crap that ultimately is designed to make society at large view you as less then human mgiht make you react strongly? Food for thought?

While I grudgingly acknowledge the shithead has a right to free speech I also don't think he's entitled to a megaphone and people shouldn't keep giving him one, I hate that people rioted and gave him the perfect narrative but I also understand why they did. Also A. If you think it was just 'leftists' in that mob your fooling yourself (gee where did the 'violence on many sides' discussion go when it's leftists in the hot seat, hmmmmmmm) and B. The next time a feminist activitist, black activitist, LGBT community spokesperson or whoever gets scared off through excessive harrassment, death threats and threats against their family and ends up cancelling a speaking engagement I will be sure to note your (you as in the right leaning folks generally) complete lack of a response about 'free speech under attack'.

Honestly Milo's time will pass, I worry more about the next 'professional provocateur' that replaces him, the next shiny mouthpiece for this generation of Nazis's. I just hope people will be smarter and not lash out and give them what they want as much.

Also, might as well admit. Bought the audiobook, was a delightful listen, since it's read by Milo himself.

Hey man your money.

Me? I'd rather dissolve my genitals in acid then listen to that man talk.

Especially the part where he outlines exactly how to defeat him.

The way you defeat him is expose him as a weak willed attention seeking coward with a pathetically thin skin and no strong legs to his argument and then to deny him the attention he wants.

RikuoAmero:
Might want to ask the people who disrupted his college speaking engagements, and even trashed one or two of them violently if I recall correctly.

More useful to ask the sort of people who did things like invite him to college speaking engagements. After all, they're the ones who lapped his bullshit up and asked for more.

starbear:
Milo's claim is that Simon & Schuster "canceled in deference to pressure from authors, bookselling accounts, business and special interest groups." Simon & Schuster claim that they cancelled because the book was unpublishable. To prove that the book was unpublishable the 1st draft and editors notes have been entered into evidence. If Milo didn't want that to happen he shouldn't have sued Simon & Schuster. Once he did that: the release of the 1st draft was inevitable.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I'd still have thought that there'd be some restrictions on publication of evidence submitted in court, but I'm not a lawyer, so whatever.

starbear:

Milo's claim is that Simon & Schuster "canceled in deference to pressure from authors, bookselling accounts, business and special interest groups."

Yes, a business declined to publish a book which would may well have a negative impact on its profits. You'd think a capitalist and on-off businessman would get that... although I guess some are too shameless to not seek a payday from it anyway.

Simon & Schuster did an awful lot of work to make gross far-right extremism palatable before ultimately declining to publish.

Seanchaidh:
Simon & Schuster did an awful lot of work to make gross far-right extremism palatable before ultimately declining to publish.

Yes, this. I agree with the OP and others about the editor notes -- they're amusing from the standpoint of watching someone absolutely shred Yiannopoulos' writing (which isn't even his) and "arguments" (some of which aren't his).

But after having a laugh over it, I realized 1) Simon & Schuster paid this guy a huge advance for this "book" and 2) rather than walking away from this bigoted trash heap, the publisher and editor tried to make Yiannopoulos' crap more digestable while ignoring the litany of red flags around him and the alt-right BEFORE his comments on pedophelia brought him down. That's pretty unbelievable.

Also, for reference: Simon & Schuster is one of the most respected U.S. publishers in the market today. Unlike other publishers over the last couple decades such as Harper Collins (of O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It" fame), they've largely avoided major controversy and missteps. But for whatever reason, they saw an opportunity to cash in on Yiannopoulos' fame and were willing to put up with just about anything to make that happen.

That editor has way more patience than I do.

After three chapters I'd be like, "Forget the paragraph. Delete yourself. Preferably off a tall building."

RikuoAmero:
Also, might as well admit. Bought the audiobook, was a delightful listen, since it's read by Milo himself. Especially the part where he outlines exactly how to defeat him.

So, you're one of those. You can't see me, but I'm facepalming really hard. Now I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

Tried to read it but I couldn't get past his giant ego.
The insults towards anybody and everybody that disagrees with him seem very childish.

RikuoAmero:
If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared?

The people who "fear him" are the same people who claim to have PTSD from reading Twitter posts.
They're even weaker than him.

It would be cool to see that editor stop wasting his time trying to change Milo Yiannopoulos into something he's clearly not (a "serious" Establishment Commentator who shares "serious" Establishment Concerns with the "PROBLEMATIC" everything) and do something useful with it. Like, say, go over this thread and make some constructive suggestions to the good people of The Escapist Community who are having trouble articulating their no doubt pertinent critiques with any operative standard of decency distinguishable to its advantage from that which they apparently find so deeply offensive. To wit:

"Please don't think a racist slur like trog that suggests a lower form of evolutionary advancement is sufficient to dismiss someone's written work as it stands."

"Re: 'shitheads' being 'shat out' from a 'gross arsehole', do you think this is the time and place for another faecally obsessive anal metaphor?"

"Your suggestion that the individual being criticized ought to commit suicide by jumping off a tall building is a little PROBLEMATIC. Even if you refuse to acknowledge the value of the human life of someone whose writing you find not to your taste, what about the innocent passersby who might be jeopardized by the falling body? Or those who will be traumatized by the sight of the violent impact on said body?"

In other words, this kerfuffle has only made me see Milo Yiannopoulos in a better light by the illuminating comparison. If you have a problem with mocking people by calling them ugly or silly, maybe don't go around screaming for the spectacularly messy deaths of "subhuman pieces of excrement" and expect to hold the deed to the High Ground? Could we have that much consistency in our alleged Principles at least? Anyone in the current year recognize the responsibility of setting the tone anymore, or should we all just go #full ape for our respective teams? Asking for a friend.

And let's have none of the pretending that people weren't really terrified of this guy. They had plenty enough freaking designated Safe Spaces for the urgent coddling of hysterically shaking kidults at Institutions of Higher Learning of some repute to refute such revisionism. But it wasn't of course for whatever ideas Mr. Yiannopoulos might somehow implant in the minds of his audience, it was because of the ideas previously implanted in indoctrination classes that he might uproot just by shining an unflattering light on them. That's the real threat he represented.

As for the work in question, well, I decided not to bother with it after reading the "Gamergate" chapter in some Dark, pirate-infested Corner of the Internet. Because frankly it just wasn't any good as a serious exposition of the events and issues, lacking a coherent thread for the uninformed reader to follow. Not that I expected much better at that point. Gethsemani is right in calling him a "provocative showman" (a jester as I believe some handsome stranger has previously called him on these very forums), as opposed to a lucid explicator of tangled histories and intellectual frameworks. And like many People of Show, he is clearly largely driven by some need for attention that borders on the pathological. I seem to recall Cathy Young, who met him at the SPJ "Airplay" event, describing him as "an adolescent", and that seems more accurate than most assessments. It's kind of tragic on an individual level really, and I'm sure a competent psychologist could have a field day analyzing his obviously conflicted life for causes of such deferred maturity.

"But why did teh Gamergate allow him to represent them if him being that was so obvious?", you may cry, flush with the excitement of a classic Gotcha moment. Well, a couple of points. First of all, "GamerGate" was a scandal within games journalism, and the attendant protests that ensued. The latter were by just random regular people, not some shadowy organization in a position to exercise an employee code. Second, such was the sorry state of the Public Sphere in the year 2014 that nobody in the media biz but a jester would give the shocking totalitarian creep evident in the coordinated media attack on the gaming audience a single fuck (which I believe is the official unit of measurement) of attention, because they had yet to experience the wider manifestations of the same totalitarian drive affecting things they knew or cared about. In that sense, "Gamergate" was the "canary in the coal mine", a poor captive bird choking on the advancing SocJus toxin, regrettably dismissed by the more competent end of the commenting classes not high on the fumes themselves as some irrelevant "troll" altercation. So something about beggars and choosers would make an apt analogy.

StatusNil:
Asking for a friend.

Ha ha, now we know you're lying.

StatusNil:
It would be cool to see that editor stop wasting his time trying to change Milo Yiannopoulos into something he's clearly not (a "serious" Establishment Commentator who shares "serious" Establishment Concerns with the "PROBLEMATIC" everything) and do something useful with it.

TFW an alt-righter admits that doing things such as "give an objective overview of an event"[1], "avoid personal insults that actually diminish the point you're trying to make"[2], "use a wee bit of self-examination"[3], and "don't use vapid airheads as authority sources simply because they tell you what you want to hear"[4] would make someone a member of "the Establishment(tm)" and no longer an alt-right darling.

I mean I've wanted to come out and say something along those lines, but it's actually rather pleasant to have you come out and admit it instead. Now if only we can get you to realize that the things advocated by the publisher's comments are actually good things.

[1] goobergate comment
[2] bitch comment
[3] ugly people comment
[4] Paris Hilton comment

Avnger:

StatusNil:
It would be cool to see that editor stop wasting his time trying to change Milo Yiannopoulos into something he's clearly not (a "serious" Establishment Commentator who shares "serious" Establishment Concerns with the "PROBLEMATIC" everything) and do something useful with it.

TFW an alt-righter admits that doing things such as "give an objective overview of an event"[1], "avoid personal insults that actually diminish the point you're trying to make"[2], "use a wee bit of self-examination"[3], and "don't use vapid airheads as authority sources simply because they tell you what you want to hear"[4] would make someone a member of "the Establishment(tm)" and no longer an alt-right darling.

I mean I've wanted to come out and say something along those lines, but it's actually rather pleasant to have you come out and admit it instead. Now if only we can get you to realize that the things advocated by the publisher's comments are actually good things.

I will keep screaming about it until it stops being relevant, but the alt-righters who like to keep screaming about wrongthink (which I really hope isn't meant to be a 1984 reference) and thought police really need to actually read 1984, because there's something in there that sums them up nicely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Bellyfeel

[1] goobergate comment
[2] bitch comment
[3] ugly people comment
[4] Paris Hilton comment

Exley97:

Yes, this. I agree with the OP and others about the editor notes -- they're amusing from the standpoint of watching someone absolutely shred Yiannopoulos' writing (which isn't even his) and "arguments" (some of which aren't his).

But after having a laugh over it, I realized 1) Simon & Schuster paid this guy a huge advance for this "book" and 2) rather than walking away from this bigoted trash heap, the publisher and editor tried to make Yiannopoulos' crap more digestable while ignoring the litany of red flags around him and the alt-right BEFORE his comments on pedophelia brought him down. That's pretty unbelievable.

Also, for reference: Simon & Schuster is one of the most respected U.S. publishers in the market today. Unlike other publishers over the last couple decades such as Harper Collins (of O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It" fame), they've largely avoided major controversy and missteps. But for whatever reason, they saw an opportunity to cash in on Yiannopoulos' fame and were willing to put up with just about anything to make that happen.

If I had to guess, (and i really don't, but nobody's stopping me... ahaha!) then I would hazard his particular privileged position allowed him to get some acquaintance to talk to somebody within the publisher enough to wangle him a 'chance' to have a go (had on old friend of mine given the option to have their first advance based purely on contact). And he couldn't help but fuck up that too, due to whatever ego fueling his fanbase instinctively encourages.

Just a guess...

All this is proving to me is that anyone that still idealizes or thinks Milo was intelligent or insightful should never be given the benefit of the doubt.

Vanilla ISIS:
The people who "fear him" are the same people who claim to have PTSD from reading Twitter posts.

Okay, so unless we're talking about totally different things.. I don't think you understand what PTSD is or means.

PTSD is when a person goes through one or more traumatic events which their conscious mind is completely unable to process, so in order to be able to survive and live a relatively normal life, they develop defence mechanisms which prevent them from having to do so. Essentially, the emotion or even the memory itself associated with the traumatic event goes into a box and gets buried so that the rest of the mind doesn't have to deal with it.

A "trigger" is something which, for whatever reason, suddenly and without warning reopens the box. For example, let's say a military veteran with combat related PTSD is walking down the street and a car backfires. A normal person might be startled or alarmed, but they quickly realise what is going on. The veteran, however, might suddenly experience very vivid regression to something traumatic which happened to them in a combat situation. Because the event cannot be processed like a normal upsetting memory, the recollection is incredibly vivid. The person literally feels as if it is still happening now, and the emotional effects can last for several days as it takes a while for the experience to be repressed again.

What's interesting about this is that if you sat the veteran down and told them "you're going to hear a loud bang now", they will almost always be able to handle the subsequent noise. The reaction only happens when their guard is down. This is, incidentally, why trigger warnings can be very helpful to some people when it comes to some very common causes of trauma. The veteran is not "afraid" of loud noises, the reaction is entirely involuntary and has nothing to do with the emotions they are feeling in the present, but rather than emotions they were feeling in the past but cannot process or resolve.

Now, this is a very simple example, but it already illustrates perhaps some of the problem with what you've said. The veteran here isn't claiming that the car backfiring gave them PTSD, they had PTSD already. The event which caused the PTSD may be years or decades ago, or they may not even consciously remember it. They're not "weak", in fact they're often far more emotionally resilient in some ways than people who have not developed the defence mechanisms which someone with PTSD has. Any of us, exposed to sufficient trauma, would either develop the same symptoms or else be unable to take it and kill ourselves. The people with PTSD are the people who, through their own emotional resilience, survived. Declaring that such a person is weak is akin to declaring that someone who has survived having their legs blown off is a pussy for needing a wheelchair to move around.

It's also worth remembering that PTSD is the least serious condition which can be caused by trauma. Someone who was subject to long term violent or sexual abuse as a child, for example, may well have far more complex symptoms than this imaginary combat veteran (who probably had a fairly normal life prior to the traumatic event). Obviously, we can't account for every possible scenario and the impact which everything we say might have on someone, but absurd terror of exercising trivial degrees of compassion in this case is..well.. if I was going to call anything "weak.."

RikuoAmero:
If this guy is so weak as everyone else is saying, so not worth one's time...why is he so feared? Why all the effort to make damn sure he doesn't sell his book, doesn't speak at engagements?

Well, because being "weak" in the sense of being unreasonable and being "weak" in the sense of being harmless are not the same thing, in fact, contrary to the expectation of moderates who believe they have nothing to fear from Milo and his followers (because they're not a person of colour, or a woman, or a queer person who hasn't chosen to live as a performing monkey on the internet) unreasonableness and harmfulness kind of go together pretty well..

This has been going around a lot lately in terms of understanding alt right rhetoric, but I think it applies especially well to the way Milo (and his fanbase) operate so I'm just going to link to it:

http://abahlali.org/files/Jean-Paul_Sartre_Anti-Semite_and_Jew_An_Exploration_of_the_Etiology_of_Hate__1995.pdf

Start at the paragraph break on page 12, and read to the one on page 15.

Okay, done?

So, here's an interesting reverse question for you to kick off. Why would someone who was weak, unreasonable and had no genuine arguments to make, someone who is supposedly not meant to be taken seriously and only has any semblance of recognition or importance because they "trigger the libs" have college speaking engagements?

I mean, I can make absurd arguments and insult people I don't like. I can shitpost on the internet. Why aren't conservative political societies at US universities inviting me to speaking engagements? I feel like my free speech is being a bit oppressed here, I mean if university conservative societies are so motivated by the principles of free speech that they will give literally anyone a speaking engagement just so that person has a platform to exercise their right to free speech, then where's my invitation?

I mean, there's lots of cool things I could say. I could pick on random people in the audience who I didn't like or who had political views I disagreed with and tell them they only disagree with me because they're closet paedophiles. That would be funny, right? It would also have a serious point because I'd be promoting debate. I mean, sure, I'd have no evidence that these people are paedophiles, nor indeed do I have evidence of anything really (except perhaps a single source or two which I pulled off a quick google search but will be intimidating enough to put off anyone who poses a serious threat to my academic credentials) but debate doesn't need evidence or reason. It's just a bit of fun, I'm just playing around. No need to get politically correct about it.

But come on, we're not that stupid, are we?

Like, we would see what was going on in that situation. We would see that the people in the audience who were laughing weren't laughing because it was absurd of me to suggest that the only reason people disagree with me is their insatiable hunger for child penises and that makes me an unreasonable and terrible person who deserves to be laughed at for their poor grasp of basic argumentation. They'd be laughing because they share my contempt for reasonable debate. Those "paedophiles" in the audience are the ones who have to come up with solid reasons, they're the ones who have to substantiate their opinions with facts and research. They have to do it, not because they need to persuade me (I can't be persuaded after all, I'm just having fun and "asking the questions noone else will") but because if they don't defend themselves then I'm just going to keep saying that they fuck kids while everyone in the audience who doesn't like them, or who already agrees with me and shares my contempt for the whole debate, laughs along. My goal isn't to persuade those who disagree with me, to me, persuasion only indicates weakness and a lack of moral fibre. My goal is to intimidate them, to remind them that they are vulnerable, and that any respect or acceptance they have earned can be taken away.

Now, in this situation, I would likely know that my arguments weren't good. After all, I'd be the one who ripped them from a cursory google search or built my entire world view around a single short article by a discredited evolutionary psychologist. The strength of my argument doesn't come from reason, but from posture. I am absolutely certain (or can sound absolutely certain) in what I am saying, even if it is absurd. I never admit that I am wrong. If confronted with evidence or a reasonable argument, I simply ignore it, or rather I ignore the bits which I cannot counter and instead always focus on a small, incidental part of the argument as if it's the entire thing (moving the goalposts). I equate the value of people's statements and arguments with my assessment of who they are as people, and then use insults and mockery to lower the latter. I fit people into stereotypical boxes, so that their opposition to me can be dismissed with a knowing wink to the "right people" in my audience that "these sorts of people" would say that, wouldn't they.

Because, let's be honest here, those "right people" are why I would be there. It's not the oversensitive, soy-eating libs giving me my career or inviting me to universities, it's not a sincere desire to assert free speech in the face of left-wing overreaction, it's the people who want me to denigrate people they don't like so that they can feel secure in not having to listen to reasonable arguments from those people.

Bad faith arguments can win, heck, it's much much easier for bad faith arguments to win than good arguments, because good arguments are boring and complicated and afford no easy answers. It takes literally years of intensive training to be able to even partly get rid of the biases which can make bad (but strong sounding) arguments more persuasive than good (but weak sounding) ones. Ultimately, the anti-Semites Sartre was writing about won the argument, their asinine and ridiculous antics resulted in the murder of millions of innocent Jewish people. So forgive me, but when someone argues that gay people need to be forced back into the closet (presumably by more extreme means by the regular bullying, violence and murder which gay people already face and which has not been enough to stop them coming out of the closet) but some of us can't get aboard the lulz train and just accept that it's high end top bantz to shake the libs out of their oversensitive PC cage, because we're not that fucking stupid. We know you take your incoherent arguments and paper thin facade of ironic detatchment seriously, that's why we take them seriously too.

Milo has no idea how to "defeat" himself, he's not actually self aware enough to know that. The way to defeat him is not to leave him and his braindead fans to harass people online or personally insult unrelated students at university talks out of fear that condemning this will lose sympathy from the "normies", because who the fuck cares? Why on earth would any thinking person accept playing by the "rules" of a debate which is fundamentally dishonest to begin with? You know what would defeat Milo (and I'm not advocating it), cripple his legs. Let him wheel himself into convention centres in a wheelchair and then try to defeat people in argument without being able to rely on a rhetorical posture of strength, because that's not going to happen. Given that I'm not totally down with crippling people though, we can probably get away with just enforcing better standards of political debate, so that people who have nothing to say don't get to spend public money saying nothing at the expense of people who do.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here