We Need To Talk About Milo

The University’s decision to cancel its commemorations of International Men’s Day has been met with mixed reactions, and an onslaught of discussion, both on campus and nationally. This came to a head on the day itself when Milo Yiannopoulos – a journalist due to speak at an event hosted by the University of York UKIP Association – entered into a vicious and ugly spat with several members of the student body.

For those of you who don’t know who Milo Yiannopoulos is, he’s a right-wing, self-described ‘cultural libertarian’ who currently works as the Technology Editor for Breitbart. He is mostly known for his social commentary, particularly his critiques of mainstream feminism and social justice. He’s been fairly well-known among alternative right-wing circles for the past few years, but shot to fame during the #GamerGate saga, during which he emerged as one of its strongest proponents.

He cultivates a very shrewd and calculated persona. Milo is openly gay, though extremely critical of the wider LGBT* movement (going so far as to argue that it should drop the ‘T’ entirely), and plays up to every stereotype of campness and effeminacy that there is. His conduct seems almost deliberately modelled on now-aged notions of stereotypical homosexuality; hedonistic, chauvinistic, histrionic peacocking with very little regard for the role or company of women. Think more David Starkey than Peter Tatchell.

Given his status as a caustic yet charismatic speaker who occupies an almost uncharted niche in the national debate, it’s no surprise Milo has fans. He’s followed by over 26,000 people on Facebook and 95,400 on Twitter, and his articles generate a phenomenal amount of buzz, both from his ardent supporters and from those who find him reprehensible. Like him or not, his political positions (combined with his flamboyant persona and expert cultivation and use of social media) make him a formidable online presence.

I feel it is this facet of his enigmatic personality, not his bear-baiting of feminist campaigners, nor his exhausting extroversion, nor his incendiary attacks on other political commentators, that brought him into conflict with elements of York’s student body. The death of a male student last Monday has been used by Yiannopoulos and others as evidence that the University either does not care about, or does not do enough to raise awareness of, mental ill-health among males. This student’s death came before the announcement that IMD’s commemorations were to be cancelled, and the claims that his death was in any way linked to IMD, or that societal attitudes towards masculinity forced him to suffer in silence, have been emphatically denied by one of his housemates. Regardless, it is not the place of other students, much less those unconnected to the University, to engage in baseless speculation about the events that took place or why they took place.

Yet this has not stopped some – including Milo – from not only asserting that this death was undeniably caused by the University’s attitudes to mental health, but that specific students, namely Ananna Zaman, one of YUSU’s co-Women’s Officers, were directly responsible. Such accusations – which are utterly baseless – were made by Milo and followed up by dozens of his followers. There is no justification whatsoever for this behaviour, and it is extremely frustrating to see someone who claims to care profoundly about issues around mental ill-health encourage nearly one hundred thousand people to target a young Students’ Union officer because she’d said some stupid things on Facebook. He mined the Facebook of this individual and used it to make a series of ad hominem remarks which served no argumentative or constructive purpose, other than to mark her as a target for his fans. It is extremely disheartening to think that a professional, high-profile journalist should think that this is a remotely acceptable course of action. It was targeted, spiteful, personal abuse at someone who was, frankly, a banal political figure even among the student body. It’s harassment, it’s bullying, it’s intimidation, and it’s absolutely not on. It’s not a bit of banter gone wrong, or a joke that’s been taken too far, it was a deliberate attempt to send the mob after an innocent person, and to exploit someone’s death for hollow political points. This sort of behaviour is what contributes to the image of men on the alternative right being awkward, introverted, and venomous keyboard warriors, with a burning hatred for women and wider society.

So, given that we’ve established he’s perfectly okay with releasing the hounds on those with whom he disagrees, and with using male victims of suicide as political footballs, why on earth should the University give Milo Yiannopoulos a platform?

Milo was – and should have been – invited because he represents a very large section of young British males who do not feel as though they have a voice elsewhere. As societies change and old orthodoxies fall out of step with new times, reactions emerge. Milo, and the wider movement he is part of, is an example of that reaction. In this case, it’s a reaction to feminism, to the changing role of men in society, and to very important issues regarding gender relations, such as the dramatic change in the academic attainment of males and females, or the flipping of the gender wage gap for those under 30. Whether his views are right, and heralding the start of a new dramatic social shift, or whether they are wrong, and out of step with reality, is irrelevant. What matters is his place in the national conversation.

Like him or not, he gets around, with frequent TV and radio appearances, as well as the previously mentioned huge followings on social media. He often posts the Google insights related to his Twitter (@Nero) which show he has an enormous reach and audience. The things he says resonate with a lot of young people, and many of these young people would be otherwise completely disengaged and apathetic. He is part of a new, radically-right wing social movement that is emerging in response to the largely left-wing facets of youth politics for the best part of the last fifty years. It is for this reason alone that he is important; Milo is not a deranged lunatic shouting from a cardboard box-cum-pulpit on a street corner; he is a prominent figure in a legitimate and diverse new political grouping. In denying him a platform, even despite his ambivalent attitude towards misogyny and casual transphobia, we are shutting out someone who represents a side of the cultural debate that is often ignored outright. The fact that he has so many fanatical defenders at this University shows that he’s not an insular figure appealing to a tiny minority. For this reason alone he should be welcomed with open arms, and invited to speak on the issues in which he specialises.

It is important to stress that the event opposing Milo’s appearance is an attempt by the Socialist Society to raise issues surrounding mental ill-health among males, not to prevent him from speaking. In the event description, it is explicitly stated that it is not a no-platforming event, and high profile members of many liberation networks have spoken out in favour of allowing him to come and speak. This is a perfectly reasonable response: just as those wishing to hear him are entitled to go to his speech, those opposed to his views are entitled to voice their anger, and to encourage others not to take part. Having two opposing groups present two different sides of an argument is an important part of a healthy pluralistic society, and this is not, as some are claiming, an effort by a bunch of disgruntled radical left-wingers to shut down campus debate.

So we should celebrate the fact that Milo is being invited, and we should equally celebrate the efforts by students to create an effective initiative for dealing with mental health out of the ashes of this scandal. All credit should be given to the students affected by refusing to sink to the level of censorship or allowing this intimidation to silence them. I will personally be attending Milo’s talk, both to hear him speak and to ask him how he can justify the caustic and inflammatory facets of his public persona. I urge all those affected by this incident to come to his speech, whether you intend to sit in awe, or whether you intend to ask him hard-hitting questions about his actions and views.

The University of York has a nationally-renowned reputation for on-campus free speech and engagement. Let’s keep this tradition going strong this year.

105 comments

  1. Excellent article. Bravo!

    Reply Report

  2. Those seeking to no-platform Milo are not afraid that he will harass people. They are afraid that he won’t.

    Reply Report

  3. This article was pretty gay

    Reply Report

  4. Oh it’s the old ‘YOU SENT YOUR HATE MOB’ garbage.

    Get a new line.

    Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 1:29 pm

      Ciarán Morrissey

      Did you even read the second half of the article?

      Reply Report

      • The damage-control,-we-still-stand-for-all-voices-heard-after this-poisoning-the-well-article-especially-since-we-can-say-it-safely-knowing-he’s-not-going-to-be-heard-now-anyway part? yeah, he probably did.

        Reply Report

        • 24 Nov ’15 at 8:38 pm

          Ciarán Morrissey

          Poisoning the well?

          “Milo is not a deranged lunatic shouting from a cardboard box-cum-pulpit on a street corner; he is a prominent figure in a legitimate and diverse new political grouping. In denying him a platform, even despite his ambivalent attitude towards misogyny and casual transphobia, we are shutting out someone who represents a side of the cultural debate that is often ignored outright. The fact that he has so many fanatical defenders at this University shows that he’s not an insular figure appealing to a tiny minority. For this reason alone he should be welcomed with open arms, and invited to speak on the issues in which he specialises.”

          Are you literate?

          Reply Report

          • “it is extremely frustrating to see someone who claims to care profoundly about issues around mental ill-health encourage nearly one hundred thousand people to target a young Students’ Union officer because she’d said some stupid things on Facebook.”

            He encouraged a lynch mob, what a horrible man! Kerplunk, a drop of poison. Citation needed tho: Evidence of encouraging others to take actions required.

            “He mined the Facebook of this individual and used it to make a series of ad hominem remarks which served no argumentative or constructive purpose, other than to mark her as a target for his fans.”

            wow, he went that far out of his way searching for dirt? That’s an intentional dedicated attack! what a horrible man! Kerplunk.

            Citation needed. Did he “mine” it? or did someone pass it along to him? Did he stumble upon it in his investigation of the story and people involved? Is he following her on social media and it showed up in a feed? Do you have any evidence of how he came upon it? or are you judging, assuming, or intentionally casting him in a certain light.

            “and he did it to mark her as a target for fans.”

            Mark? wow, that’s almost sounding like some Mafia crap! what a horrible man! Kerplunk.

            and citation needed: Evidence of his intentions required. Did he do it to “mark” her? Or because that’s how he felt about it and wanted to say so.

            “It is extremely disheartening to think that a professional, high-profile journalist should think that this is a remotely acceptable course of action. It was targeted (kerplunk), spiteful (kerplunk), personal abuse (KERPLUNK!) at someone who was, frankly, a banal political figure even among the student body.”

            He’s a spiteful abuser who targets people?? what a horrible man!

            He was angry, he has strong feelings about this. He said something bold and likely believed strongly in what he was saying. I give you that it was misdirected, of course.

            “It’s harassment, (kerplunk) it’s bullying, (kerplunk) it’s intimidation, (kerplunk) and it’s absolutely not on. It’s not a bit of banter gone wrong, or a joke that’s been taken too far, it was a deliberate attempt to send the mob after an innocent person.” (Kerplunk)

            He’s harrassing, bullying and intimidating people?? what a horrible man!!

            Being an asshole (in some’s opinion) does not equate to being a harrasser, a bully or intimidating people, and you’ve repeated his intention 3 times in one paragraph without evidence. Citation still needed. In the meanwhile I’d like to offer a citation for YOU.

            “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Geobbels

            I’m not claiming you have an evil intent, nor that painting Milo as a harrasser is a “big lie”. The Big Lie here is about men’s rights advocates in general as a hate group or misogynists. I’m not suggesting you are intentionally perpetuating a lie, but that perhaps you’re fooled by it yourself and that’s where the assumptions (instead of evidence) that informs these statements is coming from.

            “and to exploit someone’s death for hollow political points.” (kerplunk)

            You’re exploiting the emotions of the audience to frame someone as bad, when the reason people speak up the most during tragedies is because they’re passion about stopping those tragedies and about the causes of those tragedies are the strongest. Even misdirected, misinformed or done rhetorically, it’s not a hollow action.

            “So, given that we’ve established he’s perfectly okay with releasing the hounds on those with whom he disagrees,” (which we haven’t. Also, Kerplunk.)

            “and with using male victims of suicide as political footballs…” (Kerplunk)

            So he’s a bully, a harrassor, an intimidator, he’s abusive, and attempting to rally a lynch mob against an individual, not because there’s evidence, but because you think so. There are thirteen, THIRTEEN drops in this well. Count them.

            No amount of “equal say” stuff at the end of the article changes that fact.

            Reply Report

            • 25 Nov ’15 at 6:09 pm

              Isaac T Quill

              Oh, you are terrible and unkind, dismantling mass phallacious arguments with logic, reason and with a Coup de grâce of asking for “Evidence”. You are so kind to ask a student and pseudo-journalist for such adult things, whilst they are still playing in the Uni Of York ball pit.

              But let’s not forget what Ciarán Morrissey says of himself;

              “Clearly I’ve yet to become a big name off-campus”. He needs no research or veracity whilst he’s so big, all over a campus and lacking reach into the adult world. P^))

              Reply Report

            • Holy crap are you insufferable with your “KERPLUNKs” and ALL CAPS INTERNET CRANK stylings. Fortunately you have nothing of substance to say, other than “this didn’t fellate my guy sufficiently.” Of course he’s a massive antagonizing troll on Twitter and this is the style of everyone involved in GamerGate before and after, and a general “chan culture” pathetic tendency in the worst male specimens on offer, and the article was more than charitable in characterizing him as a legitmate person instead of yet another brand-building face of fear and xenophobia reaching a zenith on the back of hatred a la Donald Trump.

              Reply Report

      • 25 Nov ’15 at 6:10 pm

        Isaac T Quill

        Darling, would it invalidate the assessment if they did?

        Here’s a Hint. It Wouldn’t.

        Reply Report

  5. It would not surprise me if businesses that look for university graduates were putting together a “Do not hire from” list.

    Student activists are destroying the reputations of their educational establishments and the credibility of their so called educations.

    Reply Report

    • Very, very apt. As someone who works in a corporate environment, I smile with pleasure when I think about what future employers will say when they type the name of these student activists into Google. Into the flames they shall perish.

      Reply Report

      • 25 Nov ’15 at 6:14 pm

        Isaac T Quill

        Oh what a waste. Can’t they just be broiled with a nice sticky bourbon sauce and served as canapes at some networking meetups? Even useful idiots can provide tasty morsels.

        Reply Report

      • Or maybe like nearly everyone else who Is Young and Goes to College and Has Strong Opinions in their youth, they will mellow out with age and become increasingly pragmatic, even as others like perhaps yourself age into bitterness and resentment, mistaking your corporate complacence as some sort of reward for a sterile unexpressed meh-ness upon this Earth

        Reply Report

      • Doesn’t sound like a very welcoming environment, so please don’t hire us.

        Reply Report

  6. Any accusation that can be leveled against Milo I consider mute if I can find an example of a prominent feminist or progressive doing the exact same thing prior to his fame and without facing any repercussions. 15 years ago, feminists started setting the rules of war. Feminist opponents will now play by them :^)

    Reply Report

    • Bingo! Well said

      Reply Report

    • The accusations are false. The Author provides no sources to backup his claims.

      Reply Report

      • None of the claims are backed up and most of the intense accusations of “radicalism” and “how dare he score political points off a tragedy” can be viewed as a severe case of projection, considering the behaviour of Milo’s feminist opponents in the past. Oh and how dare he be “ambiguous about misogyny.” What, you mean he doesn’t buy the feminist definition of misogyny, i.e. disagreeing with feminism is misogyny? Please. This article is sad.

        Reply Report

        • “This article is sad.”

          It’s outright desperate. One giant ad hom (don’t they whine about being ad homed in the article?

          Reply Report

        • I think that, as an opinion piece, the article is actually great. Yeah, it does claim several things that are questionable at best and downright lies at worst. But the author (I have no idea if “Ciaran” is a male or female name) stresses as the point of the article that DESPITE these claims, Milo should not be no-platformed, and that they would attend specifically to engage Milo in discussion about these things. (That’s something I’m looking forward to; Milo’s bound to have some great rebuttals.)

          They stress the importance of having opposing ideas clashing, and I can look past their bias against Milo simply for that.

          Reply Report

        • 24 Nov ’15 at 1:21 pm

          Ciarán Morrissey

          The intended audience were Milo’s fans and the York student body, both of whom I would have assumed to have seen the allegations, which Milo has since deleted from his Twitter.
          I’m not a feminist, and I tried to present the article in a relatively value-free way. I certainly don’t feel that anyone’s appearances at the University should be subject to how much they agree with mainstream feminist narratives, and I’ve no idea where you’re getting this idea of projection from.
          I take issue not with the general claim that feminist attitudes can contribute to male suicides, but with the specific claim that the conduct of Ananna Zaman contributed to the death of the yet-unnamed student.
          Nor is this article a defence of standard feminist campus practice, which I find reprehensible.

          Reply Report

          • Feminists that spoke out against Rotherham moslems raping= 0
            Feminists who backed up the Magaluf girls claim that she was raped after a vid of her performing oral on 24 guys in a bar slut off contest=ALL

            Reply Report

    • Not “mute,” you mean moot, like the guy who created 4chan and saw most of this ghastly subculture metastasize over time, to the point where he had to jettison much of it. That sort of tit for tat context-free game-playing betrays the insincerity of the “men’s right’s movement.” Mostly trolls who would about-face and reject everything they espouse if the right woman would throw themselves at them.

      Say what you want about feminists of all stripes and any degree of shrillness or extreme radicalism; somehow I can sincerely believe in the roots of their grievances even if I want to condescend here and there or react to something with intense distaste at a specific thing said, and I say this as a 35 year old man who grew up in the 90’s as a total computer dork who went to an engineering school, but managed to scrape together enough social skills to not go through life being a total passive aggressive douche pathetically finding ways to “dominate” women and “be alpha” using the internet to make up for a massively tedious and unfulfilled existence.

      I do know that a lot of the resentment does simply stem from guys having impossible standards and being unwilling to change anything about themselves. Life is full of growth and improvement and change, so good luck with that

      Reply Report

  7. What they are worried about is the fact that Milo makes mincemeat of their Gender Studies BS with facts and arguments.

    Reply Report

  8. Milo is giving a small fraction of the campus mob attacks by the left back to them and they are, predictably, whining about it like the infants they are.

    Reply Report

  9. “Such accusations – which are utterly baseless – were made by Milo.”

    Were they? Certainly not in his article.

    Reply Report

  10. What Uranus said. Feminists and my fellow liberals normalized the tactics Milo uses. I can only laugh bitterly when people cry foul.

    Reply Report

  11. Milo does not assert “that this death was undeniably caused by the University’s attitudes to mental health” in his breitbart article. I am completely unaware of Milo ever asserting this. Could you please reference your sources?

    Please reference your article.

    Reply Report

  12. A person should never be silenced simply because you disagree with their ideas just so you can create a ‘safe space’. I disagree with censorship even for those who speak ideas that i do not like because that is their right in our western, liberal and democratic society.

    Reply Report

  13. This article is disgustingly homophobic. Consider it reported I will not accept such bigotry on the internet.

    Reply Report

  14. Milo is Love, Milo Is Lyf.

    Reply Report

  15. I owe the discovery of my third nipple to the conjunction of a mirror and an
    encyclopaedia.

    Reply Report

  16. Cheers. I disagree with you but at least you’re still for free speech. Keep that spirit alive.

    Reply Report

  17. The article is fairly balanced apart from the last part.

    Considering there’s a group called “Milo Yiannopoulos, Get in the Sea” where members talk about literally throwing him in the lake I think the authors comment,

    “the event opposing Milo’s appearance is an attempt by the Socialist Society to raise issues surrounding mental ill-health among males, not to prevent him from speaking.”

    Is rather BS tbh. These people don’t want him talking. They will celebrate if he is no plaformed. If he is no-platformed it will because of them.

    Someone who believes in free speech who actively wants to debate ideas would be sad if others were not present. These are not those people.

    https://www.facebook.com/events/1658663564393187/

    Reply Report

    • “Get In The Sea” is a reference to someone backwardly evolved. It is not a term coined by the event organisers. Similarly the people talking about throwing him into the lake are just students posting on the page.

      It’s explicitly NOT a no-platforming event so your argument that it must secretly be one is groundless.

      Reply Report

      • To those not aware of the term it can reasonably be taken as throwing him in the lake. The event opposes his views, but explicitly doesn’t seek to no-platform.

        Reply Report

    • Speaking as someone on the event, I don’t seek to no-platform him. Those wanting him to come speak are welcome to, and with a certain sense of resignation I will probably go listen. He represents a fairly aggressive masculinity I don’t associate with but his views seem to be shared by many.

      Reply Report

  18. So much bias. You don’t agree with him so he should not have the right to speak?

    Reply Report

  19. It was pretty good article. The only thing you got wrong is that all the youth following Milo are all right wing and radical. Cultural Libertarianism has no left or right wing political affiliation, in fact the term itself was invented by Allum Bokhari who was an election agent for the Liberal Democrats this year, hardly right wing. Take Dave Rubin for example, he used to be a political commentator for the fairly far left wing news network TYT. He himself is left wing and also gay and has identified as a cultural libertarian and moved away from the network for its lack of nuance. Bill Maher comes under the label as well. This movement is predominantly a reaction to censorship of any sort, it just so happens the feminist and other left wing social justice orientated movements are currently the biggest advocates of censorship. Our students have been raised in a very left wing education system and as such they have become sheltered to any form of political nuance. For all its faults the American Constitution got the 1st amendment right. This is why Milo matters, because even though many people hate half the stuff he says, he offers the anti censorship voice the left wing currently lacks.

    Reply Report

    • Precisely! Liberals who are disgusted with the current state of the left wing’s fascist idiocy, the grotesquerie that is feminism, and the general failings of their fellow liberals; all these people love Milo.

      This is why Milo is ‘dangerous’–because he is appealing, funny, talks sense, and is fabulous as hell. When reading his essays or articles for Breitbart, one can’t help but to like him, and once you’ve listened to him speak a few times it’s absolutely impossible to do anything other than adore him. Dangerous indeed. I think every left wing student should be made to listen to a hour or three of Milo doing a livestream, they’d all fall in love and start being responsible, thoughful young adults instead of the crybullies they are now.

      Reply Report

      • 23 Nov ’15 at 9:25 pm

        Cuthbert Spunkbubble

        Yes we do. Milo is awesome.

        Reply Report

        • 23 Nov ’15 at 9:28 pm

          Cuthbert Spunkbubble

          And I’m one of those aforementioned liberals that can’t stand the vile SJW culture “liberalism” has degenerated into. I reject that shit completely.

          Reply Report

      • Actually, I think Milo is a bully who writes a lot of misogynistic garbage and every one of his ‘essays’ makes me dislike him even more. But I still agree with the piece – no-platforming doesn’t help anyone.

        Reply Report

    • Left wing here. Mostly agree with Milo.

      Reply Report

  20. “Milo is openly gay… and plays up to every stereotype of campness and effeminacy that there is. His conduct seems almost deliberately modelled on now-aged notions of stereotypical homosexuality; hedonistic, chauvinistic, histrionic peacocking with very little regard for the role or company of women.”

    Wow, that is extremely homophobic. Pot, meet kettle.

    Reply Report

  21. 23 Nov ’15 at 8:41 pm

    www.saiyomusic.com

    Left wing here (but not neoprogressive) and i love Milo

    Reply Report

  22. For all of you bo-bos in the comments who didn’t read the article to the end, here is a teal dear for you: she thinks Milo SHOULD come to campus!

    “So we should celebrate the fact that Milo is being invited, and we should equally celebrate the efforts by students to create an effective initiative for dealing with mental health out of the ashes of this scandal. All credit should be given to the students affected by refusing to sink to the level of censorship or allowing this intimidation to silence them. I will personally be attending Milo’s talk, both to hear him speak and to ask him how he can justify the caustic and inflammatory facets of his public persona. I urge all those affected by this incident to come to his speech, whether you intend to sit in awe, or whether you intend to ask him hard-hitting questions about his actions and views. The University of York has a nationally-renowned reputation for on-campus free speech and engagement. Let’s keep this tradition going strong this year.”

    Reply Report

  23. Claims that she wants him to talk, I’m not convinced. The SJW “safe space” programming runs deep, even after the Mens’s Day farce….

    Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 1:23 pm

      Ciarán Morrissey

      *he
      And I strongly believe Milo should be invited and allowed to speak. I don’t believe in no-platforming, in any circumstances.

      Reply Report

  24. you write really really really well.
    the ad hominem attacks are part of Milo’s strategy, he knows exactly what he is doing and feels justified. so here is basically how he works.
    #1First rule is never apologize to SJW’s. why? because it means ur abiding by their unreasonable rules, and you dont have to, they have no LEGAL power over you, they just use scare tactics like shaming or getting you kicked out of sokmething or somewhere for sins like being insensitive. keep your ground and they will fade away. Also, never apologize. ever. Coz you admit wrong doing. of which there almost certainly was none. (in sjw’s eyes were all gross violators of human rights some how, but most of us a just people. normal fallible people.)
    #2 the second rule is throw their own rules in their face. Milo is wont to attack people who he thinks are bulling and r using sj for personal agendas, like attacking those who appose, or attacking people because of personal agendas. so he jumped on the fat shaming issue to ridicule her, logic being that if she was trying to look skinny she shouldn’t have. by her own standards. because there is nothing wrong with being fat. he is out on a limb, but..
    i guess he thought she deserved it, tho not sure what she did. porbalby sanctimonious bullying and pushing around people. so you cant fault him IF she did indeed deserve it.
    #3. always be outrageous because you fight outrageous rules with outrageous behavior. dont give a shit. that’s how to play and that’s how to win. because Milo isn’t after people personally, just their ideas, and nothing is sacrosanct, even feelings, especially feelings, since if you take into account feelings – well its like using a computer in safe mode. you cant do anything.
    so thats milo in two minutes. you gotta love him, respect his guts( not his posing and whatever peacock act that he puts on). at the end of the day he is an idealist. and extremely sincere, from what i’ve seen. like all conservatives. just like all leftists are pragmatic at heart. (hence the school mamrmy tone always present. (have you ever seen a lib/progressive leftist death metal singer on cocaine? they dont exist))
    also..
    ” This sort of behaviour is what contributes to the image of men on the alternative right being awkward, introverted, and venomous keyboard warriors, with a burning hatred for women and wider society.”
    yeah well not everyone see’s men on the right like that. mainly people stuck away in academia. how much of a percentage of the population is that? 0.1%?? so lets not talk about stereotypes. because what you see is just a blur through the keyhole of an open door.

    Reply Report

  25. So she paints him to be the same as how popular feminists are painted… A person who finds out something they don’t like about another person on the other side and then shares that information so that “the hounds” can tear them up. Interesting. Sounds like the same ol’ usual junk… with just one problem. Has Ananna been charged with anything, y’know, like harassment for posts or tweets that aren’t targeted or even harassment, but just an opposing viewpoint? When it reaches that level of equality, when your side starts getting charges, jail, fines, etc over insanely stupid stuff, then we can relax that we have achieved parity in the SJW harassment tactics.

    “The University of York has a nationally-renowned reputation for on-campus free speech and engagement.” If this statement were true… the IMD would not have been cancelled. York is just another sexist women-only [feminist] uni… bleh. Men will continue to just opt out rather than be attacked, harassed, treated poorly, be seen as unequal to everyone else. Perhaps that’s the goal of feminism as we’ve called it on before. Women outnumbering men in uni later being unable to find a suitable partner because they still want one that makes more than them rather than act the breadwinner [adult]. Not equality, gender role reversal, female superiority. Now that things are actually flipping around and men are speaking out, women consistently no-platform them and tell them to shut up because of… history. It’s just like the blacks in the US acting like every white person is guilty today for everything from before they were even alive.

    Reply Report

    • Spot on. Funny how, when Milo’s fans openly criticize a public figure for saying and doing stupid things, it’s called a “hate mob” and they’re “harassing.” But when feminists do the same thing it’s “social justice” and it’s called “public outcry” or “public outrage.” Fucking double-standard if I ever saw one.

      Reply Report

  26. Talk about a bias article! You definitely tried to imprint your own opinion of Milo as fact. Learn to write.

    Reply Report

  27. “It is important to stress that the event opposing Milo’s appearance is an attempt by the Socialist Society to raise issues surrounding mental ill-health among males, not to prevent him from speaking.”

    So the event that opposes Milo speaking is not trying to stop him from speaking, they’re trying to stop him from speaking. I cannot think of a better example of doublethink. This is embarrassing.

    Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 1:25 pm

      Ciarán Morrissey

      Opposing what he is saying is not the same as opposing his right to speak.
      The alternative event (which I will not be attending) is intended to be an alternative to his talk, not a replacement. There have – thankfully – been no widespread calls for him to be no-platformed.

      Reply Report

  28. 23 Nov ’15 at 11:06 pm

    Victor Gallagher

    ”Having two opposing groups present two different sides of an argument is an important part of a healthy pluralistic society, and this is not, as some are claiming, an effort by a bunch of disgruntled radical left-wingers to shut down campus debate.” Well if it isn’t an effort by a bunch of disgruntled radical left-wingers to shut down campus debate, The will someone tell me what the hell it is. Because that’s sure as hell what it looks like.

    Reply Report

    • They’re basically saying, “We’re not saying he shouldn’t speak, we’re just saying he shouldn’t have a platform.” i.e. he shouldn’t be listened to, effectively saying he shouldn’t speak. It’s called doublethink and Orwell predicted it.

      Reply Report

      • It’s more like “We’re not saying he shouldn’t speak, we’re just saying he shouldn’t have THIS platform.” i.e. he shouldn’t be on campus, where students that he has directly and personally attacked LIVE. It really would be censorship to say he shouldn’t have ANY platforms.

        Reply Report

  29. “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”

    Reply Report

  30. This article just reeks of homophobia. I cannot believe that such hateful dreck can even be published in 2015. Haven’t we seen enough of gay-bashing already?

    Reply Report

    • “All these preening poofs in public life do is make life more difficult for regular young gay people by reinforcing the stereotypes about gay behaviour: reminding a struggling child’s myopic dad that queers are uppity, in-your-face, camp-as-tits faggots who’ll rape you as soon as look at you.”

      “Is being homosexual “wrong”? Something somewhere inside of me says Yes.”

      These are both direct quotes from Milo himself, so the language in the article seems somewhat apt

      Reply Report

  31. Trigger Warning: Talking about Homophobes.

    This article is incredibly triggering. You need to put trigger warnings before you mock, ridicule, and call for the silencing of homosexuals! I sat here literally shaking while I read this article. I’ve been suffering from PTSD since I was harassed on Twitter by homophobes a year ago (I was called a fgt). Please do not mock or make fun of homosexuals. It’s 2015, stop being so homophobic. You’re literally just as bad as ISIS who throw homosexuals off of roofs. Ciarán, I’m putting you on the Twitter Block Bot. I hope you get fired. Homosexuals must not be silenced! You bigot.

    Reply Report

  32. With this logic, you just sicked your hatemob on Milo, can we please move past this?

    Reply Report

  33. An interesting read. I assume from the article that you are (generally speaking) opposed to the views expressed by Milo and I applaud your willingness to allow opposing viewpoints to be expressed. I do want to offer one thought for your consideration: while Milo himself is “right-wing,” it would be a mistake to characterize and address his supporters as disaffected young men with an “alternative right” ideology. He cuts a much wider swathe that that. There is an extremely broad spectrum of society that is (1) opposed to the censorious actions of the progressive left and (2) that feels the current obsession with identity politics is regressive and damaging. It includes not just conservatives, but everything on the political compass that isn’t illiberal authoritarian left. If you approach his platform as you would a strictly conservative viewpoint, you’ve already lost the argument.

    Reply Report

  34. You really can’t suggest Milo operates by setting hate mobs on people without also mentioning in the same sentence that that’s exactly what the progressive left has been doing on EVERY issue in the last 5 years.
    I don’t know whether what you say is true but if it IS, he’s just operating exactly the way his enemies do. And did long before he came along.

    Reply Report

  35. Milo is brilliant sometimes – for some reason he went completely OTT blaming feminists for this guy’s suicide.

    I know of no evidence to support this – and anyway it’s dubious blaming other people for a suicide (though in the case of the 17 yr old boy wrongly accused of rape you can see why, not in this case so much)

    Maybe Milo sometimes says crazy things – but he is super-sharp in argument. I see few commentators about who can put such a cogent, logical argument together

    Reply Report

  36. This article reminds me of Mark Antony’s eulogy in Julius Ceaser. He is trying to no platform Milo by saying we shouldn’t no platform him, that people who oppose his views should go there to try and no platform him, instead of critiquing his views, we should censor them.

    Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 8:40 pm

      Ciarán Morrissey

      No, I’m really not.
      I’m genuinely pretty excited to go and see his talk, and will be campaigning to have him allowed on campus.

      Reply Report

  37. ” now-aged notions of stereotypical homosexuality; hedonistic, chauvinistic, histrionic peacocking with very little regard for the role or company of women”

    How is gay men’s lack of regard for the role or company of women amount to “chauvinism” (a more apt use of the term would be feminist’s toxic talk of “toxic masculinity” and “male violence”)? Quite a lot of gay men can perform women’s roles in their own lives perfectly well, and often better than most women. As for the company of women, is it supposed to be some kind of affront to women’s awesome, sacred presence to have little or no interest in it? This sounds suspiciously like a claim that women are entitled to male company, since it can’t reasonably be construed to mean that gay men are somehow losing out.

    And if gay men’s attitudes towards women are chauvinistic, surely lesbians’ attitude are also. Clue for you: they’re not.

    Reply Report

  38. 24 Nov ’15 at 3:58 pm

    Isaac T Quill

    I find this “Article” (not being sure is such a Noun should be used and give credence) most manipulative and abusive – and I say that as anything other than a fan of Mr Milo Yiannopoulos or Breitbart.

    Fierst I note the utterly poor quality practice of making report, but not linking to source so that readers can readily be encouraged to verify claims made. This piece has been written with a view that it is Truth that has no reason to be questioned or verified. That is the mentality found in cults. I say/speak/write and therefore must be believed. It’s rather narcissistic.

    Mr Y’s Piece is archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6dHWbXqn3

    Mr Y opens his piece dated 18 November with a clear statement that shows the death of a male student by Suicide predated the University’s highly questionable knee jerk over “International Men’s Day”. And yet here the reader has to wade through 4.5 paragraphs and over 400 words and some 2400 characters before reading this:

    “This student’s death came before the announcement that IMD’s commemorations were to be cancelled, and the claims that his death was in any way linked to IMD, or that societal attitudes towards masculinity forced him to suffer in silence, have been emphatically denied by one of his housemates. ”

    So after layers of inference, implication, innuendo and error a central FACT is stated.

    So Milo makes that clear in sentence 1 and here it’s obfuscated and hidden under a self-absorbed analysis that is nothing but a Hit Piece.

    I point the author to thier own publication nouse.co.uk – 20 July 2013 – “One in 12 UK students admit to suicidal thoughts”. Archived Copy http://www.webcitation.org/6dHWiR3KX

    I was struck by this;

    “The Nightline survey also found that 75 per cent of students had personally experienced some form of emotional distress while at university. Stress was the most common cause, with 65 per cent of the 1000 students asked admitting that they had suffered from stress during at least one period of their university careers.

    43 per cent of the students asked admitted they had experienced anxiety, loneliness and feelings of not being able to cope. A further third of all students questioned had felt depressed or homesick at one time whilst at university.

    York has seen a consistent rise in students withdrawing for personal reasons. In four years the number of these undergraduate students has trebled. Last year a total of 15 undergraduates and ten postgraduates were recorded.

    Mags Godderidge, Charity Development Manager at Nightline, highlighted in particular the fact that only five per cent of students surveyed agreed with the statement ‘No, I don’t know anyone who has experienced these feelings whilst at university’. She described this statistic in particular as suggestive that these negative feelings and mood states are “prevalent” across the UK student population.

    YUSU Welfare Officer, George Offer commented: “The latest Nightline research confirms what we already thought; that a lot of students experience pressure, stress and mental health difficulties whilst at University. This is why YUSU is committed to improving support for students (in particular, supporting the latest moves to increase College welfare support and extending Health Centre Hours), but also to reducing problems in the first place by improving, for instance, the quality of private sector housing and the affordability of studying at University.””

    75% of York Students found to be suffering anziety/stress/ emotional displacement?

    Withdrawal rates of student up by 400%

    95% of students identified that “”YES, I do know someone who has experienced these feelings whilst at university””

    YUSU has been aware of the issues since at least 2013 and everyone is still waiting for action.

    Maybe the students should be asking why the delay by YUSU and the UniOfYork in getting their acts together?

    If YUSU and The Boys and Girls up at the big house are not up to addressing even just the issue of male Suicide rates….. one has to see it as Churlish and beyond shallow that they should set out to attack InternationalMen’s Day when in 2015 a central point of reference is Male Suicide.

    In light of the known and longstanding issues, it makes the conduct of Ananna Zaman and her publishing a sexist and discriminatory message via facebook even more questionable and abusive. She is both sexist and racist when she says” Carry yourself with the confidence of a mediocre white man”. Evidently as a none white female she uses her position to politically imply that she is oppressed by white men. It is after all a central Feminist Meme derived from the discredited patriarchy theory.

    But then again she see’s her role as seeing women as oppressed and males as oppressors, a position inconsistent with Equality duties and most of The Equality Act 2010. She’s a Liability

    If She is such an expert and so interested in the issues I hope the author will ask her to explain just how her conduct and published messages do in any way reconciled with her supposed position within YUSU.

    That the author has tried to smear over matters with the following again brings the authors whole hit piece into disrepute:

    “Yet this has not stopped some – including Milo – from not only asserting that this death was undeniably caused by the University’s attitudes to mental health, but that specific students, namely Ananna Zaman, one of YUSU’s co-Women’s Officers, were directly responsible. Such accusations – which are utterly baseless – were made by Milo and followed up by dozens of his followers.”

    And where is your evidence, or did someone miss the class on “How To use A Hyperlink 101 – Basics for Student Journalists 000″?

    I hope others will read this awful piece of crap and use it as a case study on how not to write from the opinion or belief that you have no responsibility to be accurate and even impartial l just ‘cos yous is a Student Journo and can say anything yous like due to being under the allusionary Title of Editor”.

    Reply Report

  39. Libertarian, yes, but conservative? He is anything but. He rejected gay marriage on the logic that marriage was not appropriate to the gay life style, reminiscent of radical gay activism in the 90s. He is flamboyant. He ridicules the parts of the progressive (read liberal for US readers) movement that attempt to constrain free speech and action, an instinct with deep roots in the conservative camp as well (family values, McCarthy, abortion). And perhaps most of all: he completely upturns gender roles by ascribing agency to women, requiring them to answer to the same requirements that men do, while conservatism for the most part wants to retain those roles.

    Time to realise politics have three independent poles: a progressive one, seeing the world in terms of the tension between oppressed and oppressing groups and advocating a strong role for the state in defense of social justice; a liberal (libertarian) one, advocating economic and political freedom with a skeptical view of the state; and a conservative one, advocating the primacy of Western culture and traditional values, with an additional role of the state as a moral arbiter and preserver of those values.

    We see how this plays out in the recent campus rape hysteria. Progressives and conservatives support strong action for the state to combat campus rape, but for different reasons. Progressives push for the inflated narrative of rape culture and advocate strong state action, grounded in the view of women as an oppressed group, while conservatives push in the same direction grounded in a mixture of family values, puritanism, and the sanctity of women as the sources of procreation. Libertarians reject the same narrative out of concern for the miscarriages of justice that, as we all know, are a deplorable concomitant of many a fit of public outrage. Milo to be sure, fits squarely in the third camp.

    Reply Report

  40. So he is not being no-platformed, there have been no calls for him to be no-platformed, the author supports his being able to speak, the university supports his being able to speak, and this is an example of the appalling censorship that, no, hold on.

    What exactly are you guys whinging about?

    Reply Report

    • I suspect that a lot of these crybabies found their way here via Milo’s twitter. I don’t think reading comprehension is a strong suit of theirs.

      Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 10:01 pm

      Stuart Webber

      Except it seems like she’s answering a question. There should be no question on why someone should be allowed to speak on a campus. That no-platforming is a thing is absolutely horrific. Universities should be a place for dissenting opinions, questions and ridicule. Not for no-platforming bullshit and censoring dissent.

      Reply Report

  41. 24 Nov ’15 at 5:31 pm

    John Anderson

    The problem is suicide not being labeled a suicide enabler ro something like that or does that only apply to rape? Let me guess. It only applies to the one that (apparently) victimizes women more. Thus proving Milo’s point.

    Reply Report

  42. The attempts of these commenters to attack you, Ciaran, is downright hilarious. Clearly they have no idea who you are.

    I support no-platforming in this instance. Specifically, I support preventing someone who has made very personal and unjustified attacks on students coming to the campus where they live and study. MY should be allowed to speak, YUUKIP can have their event, but off-campus. The man himself cannot be blamed with good conscience, but his supporters have levied some vitriolic harassment on the people he has attacked on twitter, and to have those supporters gathering on campus seems like a terrible idea, just for the sake of public order.

    Reply Report

    • 24 Nov ’15 at 8:54 pm

      Ciarán Morrissey

      Cheers! Clearly I’ve yet to become a big name off-campus.

      I still think MY should be allowed on campus. I’ve contacted him for an interview (not for Nouse), with a view to sitting him down and calling for him to answer for all of the things he is responsible for re: the situation on the 19th.
      While I understand the arguments behind those arguing for no-platforming, I still strongly believe that a) he does have some worthwhile things to say and b) you’ll never be able to hold him to account unless you engage with him.

      Also, mind dropping me a message letting me know who you are?

      Reply Report

      • 25 Nov ’15 at 6:00 pm

        Isaac T Quill

        P^) “Clearly I’ve yet to become a big name off-campus.”

        Darling, it may surprise you, but you have yet to become a big name ON campus, let alone off….. unless of course you are still playing Peil Ghaelach for Kilmurry Ibrickane GAA and hitting a few homies in those lovely shorts.

        Reply Report

  43. “The attempts of these commenters to attack you, Ciaran, is downright hilarious. Clearly they have no idea who you are.

    I support no-platforming in this instance. Specifically, I support preventing someone who has made very personal and unjustified attacks on students coming to the campus where they live and study. MY should be allowed to speak, YUUKIP can have their event, but off-campus. The man himself cannot be blamed with good conscience, but his supporters have levied some vitriolic harassment on the people he has attacked on twitter, and to have those supporters gathering on campus seems like a terrible idea, just for the sake of public order.”

    Good Lord! So much for Russell Group – you can barely write English. Presumably a Gender Studies student?

    Reply Report

  44. “Milo is openly gay… and plays up to every stereotype of campness and effeminacy that there is. His conduct seems almost deliberately modelled on now-aged notions of stereotypical homosexuality; hedonistic, chauvinistic, histrionic peacocking with very little regard for the role or company of women.”

    Please post where to meet adult gay men that don’t behave like 13yo girls into the comments section of Gay Patriot. Several of our readers are having trouble finding them.

    Reply Report

  45. 24 Nov ’15 at 9:52 pm

    Stuart Webber

    Dear Toxic 3rd wave feminists and “progressive” movements that want to ban speech,

    When you start policing speech or free thinking you have lost my support forever. It’s hard enough to do deal with new age government spying and corporations riding rough shod over privacy, but good people will not standby while you try to censor, ban and harm dissenters. Having people fired from their jobs, or banned from speaking on a campus, just for having a dissenting opinion or having your feelings hurt? go fuck yourselves.

    Left-wing campus extremists have been given a very loud and wide platform on which to speak, but when someone questions, ridicules or fact-checks their content they’re banned, blocked, bashed, branded and often targeted where they work. Employers are similarly harrassed until the mob get what they want.

    Now that Milo has something to say, that you may or may not like, you can get the fuck out of the way and let the man talk.

    Sincerely,
    SW

    Reply Report

  46. Well, I should note. Milo has also huge support from the more libertarian left and centrist youth. Youth, as usual, isn’t often right-wing. So, Milo makes sure to keep up his image of a cultural libertarian. It’d be stupid of him to appear too right-wing on any topic, after all. Anyway, I was saying, it is a disservice to simply say he’s right-wing, he’s more cunning than that — exactly in the same way it’d be disservice to say the great feminists of ole’ were left-wing. I must admit, I quite enjoy watching in first person the forces driving this huge pendulum back-and-forth, even though I don’t think I can label any these people as “good persons”.

    Man, goodness of nature aside. This faggot is awesome, I love him.

    Reply Report

  47. Kudos to Bristol Uni – Milo and a telegraph journo had a civilised debate last night.

    In comparison York look like a bunch of privileged whiny juvenile Sparts – ever wonder why so many women reject the “feminist” label?

    Reply Report

  48. 23 Dec ’15 at 11:16 pm

    Aaron Solomon

    “Regardless, it is not the place of other students, much less those unconnected to the University, to engage in baseless speculation about the events that took place or why they took place.”

    “Social Justice” culture is nothing if not one long, transnational, multi-decade exercise in baseless speculation about events and why they take place.

    White cop shoots a black guy? Obviously a symptom of a white supremacist “system”–never mind if he was lunging for the cop’s gun. Aggregate average earnings of women are less than men’s? Obviously a symptom of patriarchal hegemony–never mind if women consistently make choices–CHOICES!–about career fields, family, and work/life balance that logically lead to lower average earnings. Taxpaying middle American criticizes Obama? OBVIOUSLY evidence of racism, never mind the ideological chasm between Obama’s socialism-inspired redistributive schemes and many citizens’ free-market traditionalism.

    What an utterly hilarious critique for a liberal to make.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment