Some Final Remarks On Milo Yiannopoulos

"Controversial, critical, confrontational, and challenging speech is an essential part of any successful college education. Without it, institutions of higher education cannot truly be said to be preparing students for the world outside of the ivory tower."

- Lee Rowland, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project


Some time before, I wrote an essay defending the right of Simon and Schuster to publish Milo's terrible book Dangerous. Given how much has changed has since then, from his pedophilia comments, to Milo losing his book deal, to the revelation he's a Nazi sympathizer, I think that I owe it to everyone to comment on the recent events.


I) It shouldn't have taken affiliations with Nazis and flirtations with pedophilia to exile Milo from the public discourse.

Despite clearly being an asshole, whose only ideology is to piss off liberals, Milo had a near unstoppable rise. From courting disaffected gamers during the "Gamergate" controversy, to courting conservatives annoyed with "political correctness" in college campuses. No matter his repeated insults towards transpeople, feminists, Muslims, and black activists, he still had an active fanbase who treated him as a valued intellectual mind. Only when it came out on the Drunken Peasants podcast that he found consent an oppressive concept that prevented older men and young boys from having healthy sexual relations that the first major blow to his reputation was made. The few who stayed around him after that were made all the more embarrassed when Buzzfeed revealed that he referred to child abuse victims as "whinging brats" and sang "America The Beautiful" to Richard Spencer and his white nationalist loons. Nazism and pedophilia are still taboo enough to merit widespread ostracizing, but it also reveals how shamefully low our standards are for moral outrage. That his popularity persisted for so long lays bare how much bile people will permit in the name of defeating their political opponents.


II) Publishers have the right to refuse book deals to aspiring authors and to cancel their contracts.

A publisher is not obliged to publish the works of any writer who comes to their door. Being a private business, they are free to be selective about whatever they wish. So just as S&S was well within their rights to publish Milo, they were also well within their rights to refuse him as well. Books get cancelled all of the time for all kinds of reasons, some clever and others stupid, what S&S did was not outside of the norm. As terrible as it is to lose a book deal, there are always other publishers negotiate with, and there's also self-publishing.


III) That being said, S&S still should have published Milo's book out of principle.

S&S's initial defense of publishing Milo's book was that they did not approve of his views, but that the publication of his book was in defense of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Of course, Milo's regressive ideas weren't worth any exchange, but much the same could be said for a great deal of garbage that gets published online and off. S&S knew full well how harmful Milo's views were, but they sponsored his book anyways in the name of free speech. You live and you die by that principle. If a publisher wishes to go about printing books which contain inflammatory and offensive views, so be it, if that's their nature, but to then cave to pressure once Milo's colorful views on consent came out reveals that S&S had no principle to begin with. It reveals that their tolerance of offense was reserved only for child abuse victims, but not feminists, black activists, or transpeople. Were they truly acting out of the principles of free speech, they would've printed his offensive speech and weathered the consequences of criticism and boycott.


IV) It's also disturbing that many liberals tried to stop the publication of a book, however ugly the content.

I am opposed to all forms of book burning, even those which seek to set fire to the presses that publish them. A truly free society should allow publishers the freedom to release any text, no matter how hateful we may find its contents. It isn't in the place of anyone, be they liberal or conservative, to police which books they are or aren't worth publication. Those who don't like Milo's views have the option of either refuting his claims or ignoring his idiocy. People who read Milo's gobbledygook with any enthusiasm or agreement are afflicted with a moral rot that no book ban can cure. They have multiple venues for reading such pestilence and being in Milo's corner, will certainly find them. The book ban campaign was also a gift to Milo's narrative that he's being victimized and silenced by the Left. S&S only cancelled the publication of Dangerous because they didn't want to be associated with a pedophile. Had Milo's comments never come forth and had the deal been cancelled out of pressure alone, Milo's case may have been only further empowered. Dangerous, of course, was eventually self-published online, but self-publishing, it should be said, is a very limiting and superficial means of getting your word across. This is not to say that one has a right to get their book printed by a publishing house, but that the overall effect is censorious to a significant degree. The Left should dispose of these tactics, lest they spread to the other side of the political aisle, and lest they be used against offenses far less damaging than anything Milo's written. In fact, there are books in publication by people who have done acts far worse than Milo. Dick Cheney, for instance, is responsible for instituting a torture program of waterboarding, and yet he has books in publication to no loud outcry. Nor do I believe that Cheney should have his books removed or be prevented from publishing, as they wouldn't solve the root causes that led to Cheney's actions in the first place. In light of all this, it is no surprise to me that the organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Index on Censorship, and the National council of Teachers of English all wisely opposed any measures to prevent the publication.


V) People need to stop blindly aligning themselves with those who are "politically incorrect." 

Emboldened by they heavy criticism that Trump has been receiving, it seems that many conservatives have embraced the opposition politics of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Christina Hoff Sommers, who professes herself a "factual feminist" had no problem speaking with Milo at a university, and neither did talk show host Dave Rubin, who cheekily refers to himself as a "classical liberal." Even the "liberal" anti-Trump late night host, Bill Maher, whose smugness grows more obnoxious by the day, was so impressed by Milo's antics, that he compared the pretentious provocateur to the late polemicist Christopher Hitchens. This was an insult so vacuous that it makes me question Maher's reading comprehension abilities. Needless to say, Maher's own views on consent between women and boys are just as troubling as Milo's, so perhaps they've found a common kinship.

A common strain in these three alliances, and others, wasn't an explicit support for Milo, but to portray him as an inevitable consequence of the Left's "illiberalism". It is certainly true that many responses Milo received from the Left didn't help, but the blame for Milo's rise is first and foremost on the Right. College "Republicans", if they can be called such, were always the first to invite him on campus, as it appears that the new conservative ideology is less about fiscal responsibility and more about "triggering liberals." And it wasn't only college students. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a meeting run by the American Conservative Union, which hosts presidents and congressmen, saw it fit to have him represent their philosophy, and only relented at the low bar of pederasty apologia.

If Milo is the inevitable consequence of anything, it's our Manichean discourse around the term "political correctness." The basic critique of "political correctness" refers to the overreach of liberal sensitivity that either prevents needed discussion of controversial ideas or trivially threw around the claim of bigotry without any regard to alternative explanations. "Political correctness" is real, though marginal, problem, and both sides of the political spectrum indulge in it. We should able to discuss controversial ideas without fear of causing offense, and we should also scrutinize accusations of bigotry that hold little merit, but in the consistent efforts to lash out against the excesses of "political correctness" have fostered a collective amnesia over what the term had originally meant. Ideally, the concept of "political correctness" refers to an evolving awareness and sensitivity to other groups whose humanity had not been fully considered in the past. When people focus only on the excesses of this ideal, they not only deny themselves productive conversation, but also allow others to hide their bigotry under the veil of "political incorrectness." Simply because a statement is offensive or outrageous doesn't make it a concealed truth or a provocative argument. It's akin to shouting obscenities in a church and masquerading as Voltaire. As libertarian feminist, and former Milo ally, Cathy Young, has said of the Breitbart bete noire, "First, taboo-breaking "ironic bigotry" will inevitably serve to normalize and spread real bigotry--which, while much rarer than it once was, is hardly extinct. Second, the effort to destigmatize racist, sexist, or homophobic (let alone neo-Nazi) speech is likely to boost "social justice" extremism on the left, feeding a vicious cycle. It will lend credence to leftist claims that "political correctness" is simply basic decency and respect toward women, minorities, and gay or transgender people," (The Observer).

Those who would utilize the wicked the attack their opponents, dirty their own hands and degrade their own principles.


VI) De-platforming, in any context, is a tricky matter, but it is usually preferable to err on the side of allowing speech.

Of course, no one has a legal right to speak on a university campus. The university faculty as well as the student body are free to de-platform or dis-invite whomever they deem inappropriate. That's the legal dimension, but there's also a moral dimension. Simply because you can de-platform whomever you want, doesn't mean you should. The university, especially, should be a place where diverse ideas come to wander, whatever we make of their value. De-platforming, oftentimes, adds to the perception that dissenters are unfairly silenced or persecuted, which often only adds to their popularity. Things of value can be learned even from speakers with whom you disagree, if only to understand how people of their persuasion think, and why they have influence. This isn't to say that you are obligated to hear them, but I don't think it wise to deny others to ability to hear critically what you yourself ignore.



VII) Universities are justified in banning speakers on the basis of protecting their students from harassment or bullying.

Milo harassed and humiliated a trans student, Adelaide Kramer, at one of his talks in the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. On this basis alone, he should be banned from their campus. Universities have a priority to keep their students safe and are obligated to take any measures necessary to quiet these threats. Free speech comes with responsibility, and one of those responsibilities includes not threatening, harassing, or bullying someone with words. Other universities are further justified in proactively defending their students by banning him before he arrives. This applies to any and all speakers. Speaking at a university is a privilege. Those who use their platform to attack the students should be subject to punitive measures. There's no excuse.


VIII) Students have the right to express their displeasure through protest and boycott, so long as the speaker is still allowed to say their peace.

Free speech goes both ways. It allows the right of controversial speakers to make their case, but also of dissenters to express objection to them. Allowing all manner of repulsive speech is only the first step, and a small one at that. When bad ideas infiltrate the discourse, it is the responsibility of good people to challenge, condemn, and most importantly, present alternatives. One of these ways is by protest. Protest can be angry, disruptive, and uncomfortable, as it should be, but it shouldn't go off to the point where speakers are unable to complete their thoughts. By all means, let them know how you feel, make your disagreement known directly during the question and answer period, but don't protest to the point of silence. Doing so only adds to the strength of the speaker you wish to challenge, and further encourages other students to be more intolerant of controversial speakers, some of which you may not find controversial.



IX) Rioting or other forms of violence are not an effective or desirable means of opposition.

In an interview with The Washington Examiner, Noam Chomsky, the most influential intellectual alive, once referred to Antifa as "a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right who are exuberant," (Nelson). He further added that their tactics, such as "blocking talks" was "generally self-destructive" and "wrong in principle," (Nelson). Free speech leftists of Chomsky's stripe, who once defended the free expression of Robert Faurission, are probably seen as too docile in some circles. Some ideas are so dangerous, they argue, that violence is the only effective means of stopping them. We saw these actions on display when Berkley was set ablaze over a talk that Milo had planned to give. The result was only to further strengthen his popularity as a dissenting thinker under siege by intolerant snowflakes. If Antifa did not exist, Milo would need to invent them. They smear us all as maniacs who would rather burn down our own institutions than ignore a stupid speaker. By no means is Antifa equivalent to the Neo-Nazis, but not being an acolyte of Hitler is hardly a high bar for those whom you would call allies.


X) Milo and others like him are dumbing down our political discourse, it's time to let them go.

Milo may be gone, for now, by others like him still have great influence on political discourse, provocateurs who are more interested in annoying liberals than productive conversation. You know their names: Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich, Alex Jones, Chuck Johnson, Dinesh D'Souza, Ann Coulter, Roger Stone, Ian Miles Cheong, David Horowitz, Paul Joseph Watson, Tomi Lahren, Tucker Carlson, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Hannity, et cetera.

These "Milos" have done great damage to the way we speak with one another, where any concerns about racism, sexism, homophobia, or Trump can all be safely dismissed as "politically correct" and "virtue signaling." Never is liberal complaint the outcome of any real grievance, but rather, the result of delusional hyper-sensitivity. We can far better representatives of conservative viewpoints: Bill Kristol, David Frum, David French, Ben Howe, Michael Steele, Megan McCain, Bethany S. Mandel, and others, who are far more willing to engage with their differs rather than adopt any act of depravity to insult them.

Let's leave the children in the playpen.


Bibliography

Nelson, Steven. "Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a 'major gift to the Right.'" The Washington Examiner, August 17, 2017. Web. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right/article/2631786

Young, Cathy. "Anti-PC for Anti-PC's Sake." The Observer, September 6, 2016. Web. http://observer.com/2016/09/anti-pc-for-anti-pcs-sake/