Milo again proves his point as DePaul students go nuts and prevent him from speaking

Let nobody say I’m a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor of the right-wing website Breitbart and a professional provocateur. He’s embarked on a “Dangerous Faggot” tour in the U.S. (he’s gay), going from college to college talking about feminism, regressive Leftism, and politics. Or rather, attempting to talk, for his mere presence on U.S. campuses apparently constitutes a macroaggression, creating not just a massive unsafe space but an Unsafe Black Hole that sucks in every Authoritarian Leftist within a five-mile radius.

As I posted before when Milo tried to speak at Rutgers University, more often than not leftist students, including enraged blacks, feminists, and Authoritarian Leftists of all stripes, try to shout him down, either getting up on stage, cat-calling, blowing whistles, holding signs, or smearing themselves with fake blood. And that is inside the auditorium. His speeches are often stopped by the shenanigans of his opponents, who cannot fathom that the proper thing to do is let him speak, counter his assertions with demonstrations outside or questions inside, to give opposing talks or write opposing articles.  And so, as this happens at place after place, Milo’s opponents make his points for him, showing their immaturity and unwillingness to tolerate ideological viewpoints they find objectionable.

This last week, another group of students scored an Own Goal at Chicago’s DePaul University. Here’s a video snipped to show when the disruptions began (after 20 minutes of his talk, at 46:20), and when one woman mounts the stage to hijack Milo’s talk (57:30). If you think the videos are taken out of context, you can watch the entire two-hour fracas by going back to the beginning.

Apparently the students think that censoring someone who questions their values, and hijacking the event, is the best way to spread those values. But it doesn’t work, and never has. All it does is show that Milo is right in one respect: many students are entitled, spoiled, and unwilling to engage in civil discourse.  I wonder how they’d feel if someone behaved like that were they to give a speech.

Shame on DePaul for not stopping this kind of nonsense—and I’m referring to the student disruptions.



  1. Cindy
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink


  2. GBJames
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink


  3. Sarah
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Whatever they seem to be shouting, what they are really saying is, “I have no sound arguments of my own, and I know it.”

  4. Somite
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    I feel conflicted about this because this is obviously Milo’s goal and they are just playing into his hands. The best strategy would be to ignore him.

    BTW, he is no Hitchens. He is just one among the worse of right wing punditry.

    • Alpha Neil
      Posted May 26, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      Did someone compare him to Hitchens?

      • Barn
        Posted May 26, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        Many of his fans do.

        Milo is also huge fan of Hitches too.

  5. Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    What happened to “Land of the free and home of the brave”? Looks like “free” means “to hold
    and allow expression of only those ideas agreed on by the masses.” No other words allowed. “Home of the brave” must pertain to the few that continue to hold, speak and write alternative points of view. Why is it that these “university students” can’t see that they are validating the speakers they oppose when they do this? Where is their intelligence?

    • pali
      Posted May 27, 2016 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      I’ve always found it ironic that the country that locks up the most of its own people calls itself “the land of the free”, and that this same country that so overreacts to any threat or action against it claims to be the “home of the brave”.

      Neither tag has applied to the USA for decades.

  6. allison
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Yes, Milo plays his critics like a fiddle. If they’d just ignore him, he’d slink back into the sewer from out of which he crawled, but the morons can’t control themselves…

  7. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Good to see Andy Kaufman making a post-mortem comeback, reprising his Tony Clifton character as a pommie campus provocateur.

  8. Posted May 26, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    I believe that this is yet another example of the ‘culture of offense’ that dominates so many campuses and a lot of the current culture. There is certainly nothing wrong with being offended by certain words and actions, but the tactics for countering these has certainly changed since the college days of JAC and others our age.

  9. John B.
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Milo doesn’t fit into a neat category and that’s kind of refreshing. Yes, he’s a crass right-wing provocateur who dismisses atheists and fawns over Trump. And yet he’s fighting the good fight against the regressive left. You don’t have to be a “fan” of him to applaud what he’s doing.

    • Posted May 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      “And yet he’s fighting the good fight against the regressive left. You don’t have to be a “fan” of him to applaud what he’s doing.”

      I think anyone who doesn’t applaud what he’s doing in that respect, doesn’t recognize the extent of the regressive left problem.

      • Somite
        Posted May 26, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

        But you could certainly do it without the right wing hate baggage.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted May 26, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      He’s a politically savvy reactionary who at any time skips away from the results of his provocation and hides behind the bigger boys. He riles up the ‘alt-right’; the Breitbart stormtroopers, the Gamergaters; with callous, nasty, misogynistic, racist bullshit(although he’s careful never to quite step over the line) and then dismisses serious objections to his rhetoric as though none of his fans would dare take him seriously(even though the general pattern is that anyone in the media who calls him out tends to receive photoshopped pictures of themselves being led into the gas chambers, or getting their head blown off by a Nazi officer – and that’s before getting to those of his critics who happen to be female, or Jewish, or black…).

      He is the relatively approachable face of a seething group of bitter, resentful losers(the vast majority of whom are male), a large number of whom are explicit about their alignment with neo-fascism and racial supremacism. He’s also an intellectual fraud with a huge tranche of contradictory opinions and an inability to engage in an argument without jabbering over the top of his opponent, changing the subject, and simply ignoring the question entirely.
      He’s clearly a masterful public figure – funny, laid-back, sharp-witted, opportunistic – and, like a stopped clock, he happens to be pretty much right about one or two things, but the guy’s an intellectual lightweight and an intensely unpleasant person.

      Plenty of fantastically unpleasant, pernicious figures are refreshing, but so what?. There are people making the same arguments Milo does about free speech who also manage not to pander to a horde of vicious, rapey, racist social rejects. I’d defend Milo to the extent that Voltaire’s maxim demands it of me but everything else about the guy makes my skin crawl.

      • Mark Sturtevant
        Posted May 26, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink


        • Posted May 26, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink


          And it’s somewhat disappointing that Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report, who seemed thoughtful and reasonable not too long ago, appears to have been thoroughly charmed by Milo, and fallen for his act.

          • Saul Sorrell-Till
            Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:29 am | Permalink

            Yes, that was depressing. I like Rubin a lot but he didn’t really push back against Milo’s vacuous arguments. Perhaps he’s a touch too nice.

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted May 26, 2016 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

        “the Breitbart stormtroopers, the Gamergaters;”

        That you associate Gamergaters with the alt right and storm troopers and the rest of your vitriolic rant, to me, places you firmly in the authoritarian, regressive left camp.

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

          Are you denying that there’s serious overlap between them and Gamergaters? Part of Milo’s tactic was to openly court Gamergaters and encourage the intensely embittered, misogynistic, MRA strand of that crowd. A huge number of his supporters are Gamergaters – Gamergaters who’ve overwhelmed women like Anita Sarkeesian with rape and death threats on a regular basis.

          He dances amongst these angry guys and works them into a frenzy about the surge of feminist activists who’re coming to destroy the entire videogaming industry, about the awful ‘misandry’ these poor flowers have to put up with. Then he buggers off to rile up some other angry social tinderbox. As a partial result game video comment sections on Youtube are choking with GGers wishing physical violence on female game characters, GGers who frequently quote Milo, or the female professor from Rubin’s show whose name escapes me, or any number of anti-feminist right-wingers.

          Games do not belong to these guys – the fact that Blizzard changed a female character’s victory pose for the newly-released Overwatch doesn’t send me into a whirling rage during which I bombard Blizzard videos and metascores with raving complaints and 0/10 scores – nor does it signal the death of freedom of expression in gaming. It doesn’t bother the majority of gamers I’d wager. And whatever the original, relatively reasonable grounds for Gamergate protests were they’ve long been swallowed up by the behaviour of the most reactionary section of the gaming community.
          I’ll defend this artform; the most exciting, fast-moving artform on earth; against incursions from either reactionaries or censorious pseudo-progressives, but the(genuine) threat from the latter is, in my opinion, vastly overshadowed by the threat from the conservative luddites who’ve come to dominate the GG side.

          As for the stuff about my being an authoritarian leftist – think what you like. I get called a ‘red tory’ or a ‘neocon’ by the far-left and an ‘authoritarian leftist’ by people to my right. It’s a familiar tactic.

          • gravelinspector-Aidan
            Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

            What, in this context, is an MRA?

            • GBJames
              Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:49 am | Permalink

              MRA = Men’s Rights Activist.

              • gravelinspector-Aidan
                Posted May 27, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

                Oh. Getting an epidemic of jock-straps being burned on campus?
                Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a jock-strap in real life. Are they actually real things, or just jokes?

              • GBJames
                Posted May 27, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

                A hundred years ago when I was in high school we wore them, also as a freshman in college. They were real things back then. I don’t know if they still exist.

            • Saul Sorrell-Till
              Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:56 am | Permalink

              Men’s Rights Activist.

              I have a certain sympathy for the genuine, well-meaning MRAs, who argue that they want a private space to talk about men’s issues like mental health(the high suicide rate amongst young men is something they mention); and the illiberal left’s insufferably arrogant civil disobedience demos outside MRA talks(stopping people from even getting into the building and screaming invective in attendants’ faces) are beyond the pale; but the MRA narrative is deeply skewed and, from my experience, they tend to be outright, old-school sexists.

              • gravelinspector-Aidan
                Posted May 27, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

                mental health(the high suicide rate amongst young men is something they mention)

                While that’s a genuine point, surely it points to a need for more attention to mental health in general, and that’s far more important then petty-fogging hair splitting over gender. And that’s coming from Britain, where we do have a health service which is free at the point of use. I’m sure it would be terrible to have your wallet searched for proof of payment before the shrink’s receptionist will see you.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 27, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

            I watched from the periphery as all the same regressive left authoritarian idiocy and tactics where hurled at ‘gamergaters’.

            You have maligned people like Christina Hoff Sommers in your rant.

            Gamergaters ‘overwhelming’ Anita Sarkeesian with rape and death threats?

            Do you have any evidence?

            Gamergaters were, in general in the right in all of this.

            Anita Sarkeesian will be all right, she got to go to the UN to get them to stop criticisms of her absurd assertions.

            Your new rant cements your place in the authoritarian regressive left.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

            And, my comment about you being in the regressive, authoritarian left.
            It is not a tactic, it is an observation.

            • Saul Sorrell-Till
              Posted May 28, 2016 at 5:40 am | Permalink

              I’m not going to change your mind and I’ll leave it to others to make up theirs. People can google GG in thirty seconds and see how it has become subsumed by reactionaries.

              And it really doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the same thing, doesn’t actually give it any substance. Cheers.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 28, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

                No you are not going to change my mind, because you don’t have what I require.


                Just the same old empty shrill accusations. The type of unfounded hysteria that brought down Tim Hunt.

                I hope any body following doesn’t google to rational wiki for info.

                No, my repeating it doesn’t give it substance. The truth gives it substance.

                Cheers to you too.

              • Saul Sorrell-Till
                Posted May 28, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

                No-one has to read Rationalwiki thankfully – they can go to the actual Wikipedia article on Gamergate which lays out in long and gruesome detail the repeated death and rape threats that Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and a host of other(almost exclusively female) games journalists/developers have received for sticking their head above the parapet. All the evidence is there, with sources. I’d encourage anyone who doesn’t know about GG to read it. I’d encourage you to read it too if I thought it’d make the slightest difference.

                Anyway, I’m 3/4 of the way through Dark Souls 3 so if you’ll excuse me,


              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

                I am always willing to change my mind.
                I will have a good lookat the Wikipedia article.
                A brief scan of the article and links shows massive bias ‘or’ a report of, only that aspect of the gamergate story.
                Back soon.. ish.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 29, 2016 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

                Saul, I went through that wikipedia article and followed the sources.

                The article doesn’t cite any evidence, it is just a rehash of the same ill informed reporting that was going on at the time.

                There is no evidence for the things you claim.

                There was a recent study showing that 50% of misogynist abuse on twitter was from women.

                Gamergater’s came up with “notyourshield” to demonstrate that the accusations you make, that they were all a bunch of disgruntled sexist white ‘men’, was not true.

                Gamergate was about ethics and openness in gaming and journalism. That all the major players have updated or created and made explicit ethical standards policies shows that they have had the desired impact.

                I stand by my statements and have not seen any evidence to change my mind.

                You have made strong assertions. The Wikipedia article repeats those assertions, without evidence.

                Unless you have some evidence I think we are done.

                Any body wondering could see what Christina Hoff Sommers has to say on the issue.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 30, 2016 at 3:22 am | Permalink

                One last thing.
                “Mysoginist”, “MRA”, “rape apologist”, these are the absolutely typical textbook terms to shriek at anybody who steps outside the orthodoxy.
                Just like those protesters shrieking at the university of Toronto

                You did exactly that. Except a bit worse. (not ‘exactly’ then I suppose)

                Calling people ‘rapey’ is close to calling them rapists.

                Calling people rapists (or rapey) based on such minimal to no evidence, or if any evidence evidence of an extreme minority.

                Again, the Wikipedia article does not “lay out in long and gruesome detail” death and rape threats by gamergaters.

                It asserts it but provides no evidence.

  10. S.K.Graham
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    These activists really believe that freedom of expression is a tool of oppression.

    Truly bizarre.

    Freedom of expression is what makes their own [non-assault, non-infringing other’s rights] activism. Freedom of expression is what has made all civil rights movements of the past 2 centuries possible. Freedom of Expression is the very cornerstone of everything they claim to be fighting for.

  11. frankschmidtmissouri
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    The DePaul administration did the right thing IMHO: Decry Milo’s message, affirm his right to speak, affirm the right to protest, apologize for and condemn the disruption. The one thing the University could do is discipline the students according to DePaul’s student conduct code, which reads in part: “Orderly and peaceful demonstrations on the campus are permitted…When such demonstrations take place inside University buildings, the University insists on orderliness, free passage to all rooms, lack of excessive noise, and no interference with classes, libraries, offices, assemblies or normal administrative functions.”

    Also check out Dick Gregory’s letter to the students at Seattle University who were upset because a dean quoted the name of his autobiography.

    Much of the bad behavior stems from an ignorance of history.

  12. Posted May 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    The protestors are fools as well as knaves. Taking the bait, and feeding the troll

    • Kevin
      Posted May 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Streisand effect all around.

  13. Rob
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Two behaviors most of left behind in grade school:

    1. If I don’t like you, it is OK for me to be rude.

    2. If you’re disgusting, it is appropriate for me to be disgusting.

  14. janny11
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Security should have been there within minutes of those idiots barrelling up on stage.

    • Taz
      Posted May 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      Security was there but refused to act. Depaul made Breitbart pay extra for it.

  15. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    In retrospect, I’m a bit chagrined to admit that I really liked the time in 2009 a student tried to throw a pie in Ann Coulter’s face at a university speech (She ducked).

    But that was an isolated incident (the student was arrested)- there was no systematic disruption. But at the time, Fox News reported that the high cost of security was making more campuses not carry right wing speakers (I have no idea if that’s true or not. Perhaps it was not true in 2009 but it may be or become so now.)

    15-second video of incident as reported by FOX.

  16. Cindy
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Watching the video of Milo’s talk right now, 47 minutes in. So far, I have not found anything that I disagree with:

    Milo at DePaul

    At 47 minutes the protestors make their appearance. JFC they are irritating. I am so triggered right now by how cringey they are.

  17. revjimbob
    Posted May 26, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Why doesn’t someone operate the P.A.?

  18. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted May 27, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    I wonder how they’d feel if someone behaved like that were they to give a speech.

    I doubt that many of them have the (metaphorical) balls to stand up and make a speech.
    Do American schools and colleges have the habit of requiring students to make oral presentations to their departments and face questions from the floor? Years or even a decade or more before even starting one’s PhD and having to face a viva.

  19. LFP2016
    Posted May 28, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know or care who this Milo is, but these students make me embarrassed to be a liberal. The Regressive Left has become a much greater problem than I imagined.

%d bloggers like this: