Milo appears on Maher

Last night the controversial Milo Yiannopoulos appeared on Bill Maher’s show, which is like putting a match on gasoline (Maher would be the gasoline). I received that information from several readers, and here are some quotes from their emails (I’ll not give their names):

Interesting Bill Maher show with Milo. Really reinforces the idea that the best thing is to give people like [Milo] all the platform and air that they can get. He was, by a country mile, the least interesting person on the show. Without the hysterics of his would be censors he would have a shelf-life of a few days.

and

I had never heard Milo Yiannopoulos speak before watching this interview with Bill Maher. The interview is far from HEATED as described and maybe this isn’t representative of Yiannopoulos’ stock performance, but if this is an example of what drives some liberals to distraction, we are in a far more frightening place than I realized.

Watch for yourself. My only comments are that Maher makes some good criticisms of Milo (his irrational Catholicism, his gratuitous meanness, etc.; and Milo just changes the subject every time). What we have here is not a discussion but a sparring match combined with some world-class preening by Milo, and Maher comes out on top. I’ve realized that Milo may handle questions better when they’re leveled by triggered university students, but on a show like this, with a calm and thoughtful interlocutor, Milo doesn’t fare well:

And one reader sent me the “overtime” segment with this note: “The Overtime panel where Milo gets ass handed to him by smart guy and funny guy [Larry Wilmore], neither of which he is.”

Here’s that one:

The New York Times article on the Maher/Yiannopoulos confrontation is remarkably tepid—perhaps because the “confrontation” itself was. There’s a lot of heat, to be sure, but no light.

Finally, if you want to watch the whole hour, which has a nice interview about Scientology with Leah Remini, here it is (h/t reader Ken):

96 Comments

  1. Cindy
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    I’ve always been a big fan of Larry Wilmore. Funny and smart man!

    • Zach
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Yes, his staggering wit was on display when he told Milo to “Go fuck yourself.”

      The only person who came off that panel discussion looking good was that Republican congressman, because he didn’t feed the troll that is Milo.

      • dd
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        Zach, you are right.

        I was embarrassed when the f-bombs got dropped because that’s exactly the kind of reaction Milo is after.

        • Posted February 19, 2017 at 5:00 am | Permalink

          *Snort* Ironically, I saw this just after viewing the PBS series, “The History of Comedy” that did the episode on Lenny Bruce and his followers: Redd Foxx, George Carlin, Andrew Dice Clay, and so on. “F-bombs”? Oh, come on! Carlin’s “7 Words You Can’t Say on TV” is a classic! If that’s “the kind of reaction Milo is after”, then he’s in good company.

          Milo is absolutely correct on one point; words alone can’t hurt you — not unless you let them — and modern Liberals make a religion out of letting them. Liberals really do worship words! That’s what makes them so easy to drive into hysterics, which honestly is funny to watch.

          • johnranta
            Posted February 19, 2017 at 7:16 am | Permalink

            Words can and do hurt. I get that lots of right-wingers want to escape the confines of thoughtfulness and courtesy that acknowledging the power of words entails. How much fun it is to throw off the shackles of civility, and shout crude (honest?) attacks at “faggots” and “cucks”. Pay no attention to the fact that every year gay teens that have suffered such verbal abuse commit suicide. Words can’t hurt, they should just get over it.

            • E.A. Blair
              Posted February 19, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

              Yes they do. in comment #5, dd made a reference to Yiannopoulos’ opponents rioting and having “grand mal fits”.

              I spent 43 years being an undiagnosed epileptic. I did not start having symptoms until after age 40, and it was because my seizure threshold was high enough that I didn’t show the effects until a prescription drug lowered that threshold. Even at that, I didn’t know what was happening because I had no reason to suspect. My doctor tried to have me tested, but Blue Cross of Illinois denied the request (too expensive). Eventually, I had a seizure while driving to work and hit and killed a pedestrian. Because I was still unaware of my true condition, the cops reported the incident as drug related, even though I was not tested for drugs.

              I faced charges of vehicular homicide which were dismissed when I finally was diagnosed, but because the record still reports that it was a drug incident, I am still unable to drive despite being seizure free for eighteen years and in apparent remission.

              So when I see the words “grand mal fits” used frivilously, the events of eighteen years ago come back to me like a baseball bat to the back of my head.

              I chose to ignore dd’s remark until I read spacehistorian’s assertion that “Words don’t harm people.” They can and they do.

            • Posted February 20, 2017 at 7:34 am | Permalink

              ++

      • Cindy
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        I haven’t watched it yet. Bummer.

      • Andy
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        Wow, there are a couple of classic concern troll responses there (Zach and dd). When they dropped the “f-bombs” that was in response to insults about IQ. Perhaps you should borrow Milo’s pearls to clutch?

        • Zach
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

          Perhaps I should, because I still think that political arguments should stay at least one notch above “You’re stupid!”—“Go fuck yourself, you pathetic little douche!”

          Really, my point was a more pragmatic one: when an exchange devolves to that level, everyone loses. Except the troll, of course, who wants it to devolve to that level. Larry Wilmore could have acted like an adult. Instead he ended up looking just as childish as Milo.

          • Saul Sorrell-Till
            Posted February 19, 2017 at 4:09 am | Permalink

            No he didn’t. He looked bored of Milo’s inane, needy posturing. It’s a myth that the only way to treat people like Milo is to talk politely the entire time and wait for them to finish their point before arguing.

      • docbill1351
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        I disagree, Zach.

        Milo is a self-styled provocateur and if he provokes a “Go fuck yourself” then that’s what he wants.

        In actuality, Milo is an undereducated boob who gets air time because he’s so “outrageous.”

        However, RuPaul is also outrageous but RuPaul is also thoughtful, articulate, educated and has style – all missing from Milo.

        Finally, Milo sat there and lied over and over again. He’s not interested in an intellectual discussion because he’s incapable of that. He’s only interested in taunting, to which I reply, “Go fuck yourself, Milo, and the horse you rode in on.”

        • Craw
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

          You disagree with the statement that Milo is after that kind of reaction, and insist instead that that kind of reaction is what Milo wants?

        • Posted February 19, 2017 at 5:06 am | Permalink

          How, then, would you react to Andrew Dice Clay? Or, for that matter, Joan Rivers? Or “South Park”, come to that?

  2. Claudia Baker
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    He did not fare well at all. He appeared bumbling and self-conscious to me and certainly not a match for Maher (or his panellists). It is absolutely the right thing to have him on TV, showing him for what he is: an immature bully. The more he and his vile ideology are “aired out”, the less people will be infatuated with him, I believe.

    Too bad, cause he’s a cutie and I loved his pearls. What a waste of what could be a fun and interesting character in entertainment.

    • Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      What a waste of what could be a fun and interesting character in entertainment.

      But that’s what he is! He’s an entertainer, he says outrageous things to get a reaction. He openly says so!

      It’s a mistake to regard him as a serious political commentator.

      But, having said that, he does have one big idea — the idea that today’s society is too censorious of viewpoints. He is deliberately provocative to counter that, and in that way I think he’s actually very good for society.

      Occasionally he’ll say something interesting and thought provoking; more often he’ll just be wildly wrong. But whichever of those, he is usually good entertainment value! Sacha Baron Cohen is the nearest equivalent I can think of.

      • Claudia Baker
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        Haha – that’s true re Cohen.

        What I meant by “what a waste” is that watching him on his talk circuit is not enjoyable to watch because of his ideas. One can be deliberately provocative without being so fascist about it. And the fact that he is a Tumpite is enough to turn me right off. It’s the same with Ann Coulter. She’s good-looking and clever, but obnoxious and xenophobic, so, for me, not entertaining. I want Milo to just be a comedian, with all his gay ways, which I love, without the vile.

        And no, he is not a serious political commentator. But he does appeal to a crowd who may consider him as such. In that way, he is somewhat dangerous imo.

        • aljones909
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

          “One can be deliberately provocative without being so fascist about it.”. He’s anti islam, anti third wave feminism, anti BLM, anti illegal immigrant. Is that fascist?

  3. Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Milo Y…really! Does his rectum ever envy the excrement that spews from his mouth!

  4. Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    It’s less fun than watching those snakes chasing lizards again.

  5. dd
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    It was my first extended view of Mr. Milo Y.

    My takeaway: I am depressed that Milo, who is at turns charming, insulting, and too often puerile, and inarticulate, can cause his opponents to riot and throw grand mal fits.

    As a commenter already said, the biggest takeaway is that the left has really
    worked itself into some kind of bubble if someone this jejune can bring about riots and
    mayhem.

    I have been reading reaction to his appearance on several platforms, and the intensity of their disgust is fascinating.

    My feeling is that Milo is blaspheming against secular fundamentalism, the non-theistic religion of the left. And the left lashes back, too often, as the religious all over the world do.

    • Posted February 18, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      I wonder how much of the hostility is because Yiannopoulos is gay?

      The Left seem to reserve a particular hatred for those they see as ‘betraying’ them because they assume they should share their politics because of their identity.

      Think of the hatred directed towards second wave feminists like Germain Greer or Julie Burchill who fail to toe the line on trans issues, or liberal or ex-Muslims like Maajid Nawaz or Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

      It goes beyond the hatred they express for straight white men, who are despised as a group, but inspire less hatred as individuals.

      • Posted February 18, 2017 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        “I wonder how much of the hostility is because Yiannopoulos is gay?”

        Well it’s certainly the cause of the attention he receives, and the attention breeds hostility.

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted February 19, 2017 at 4:27 am | Permalink

          He really didn’t do well at all. He looked like an incredibly needy child. I’ve always known he was an intellectual pygmy but he looked truly pathetic on this. And Bill Maher’s Hitchens comparison was ridiculous. Milo is the alt-right equivalent of Russell Brand, and neither of them will be remembered as thinkers of any kind.

      • dd
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I noticed that hostility toward him also. Left-wing homophobia and the betrayal. He is a quasi-drag, queen, gay, real flamer and he plays it up on purpose.

        I think he is much aware of his contradictions and uses them right and left.

        I think he is very much aware of that and provokes….that’s what the pearls were all about.

        He is no dummy in terms of sensing/understanding what his opponent’s weaknesses are.

        Kind of like Madonna in Truth or Dare when she admits to not being the best singer or dancer in the world….but she said that she really knew how to “press people’s buttons”.

    • somer
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

      Milo is a total non event intellectually and a nasty hypocrite. But he’s a political entertainer whose schtick is winding up the regressives on the left to the delight of the more adolescent-brains on the right. A phenomenon like Milo – a political entertainer based on one track trick of wind up and deflection could not have existed without social media. He would have to show actual theatrical talent or some coherent (even if wrong) political view – and be either mainly a good theatrical performer/comedian or mainly a serious political commentator/journalist. Putting him up to serious debate or interview just shows him for what he is – a complete fluffpot. The gratuitous f* you from Larry Wilmore was perhaps uncalled for (even though effectively its what he does it plays to his outrage game somewhat but there was enough serious debate – especially in the one to one interview with Maher – to show him up). Joe Rogan also recently did a one to one interview with him which even more showed him up as a complete hypocrite and fool.

      • Cindy
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        Milo is a total non event intellectually and a nasty hypocrite. But he’s a political entertainer whose schtick is winding up the regressives on the left to the delight of the more adolescent-brains on the right.

        I am not completely against this method of taking on the illiberal left. After perusing anti-SJW Youtube channels for the good part of a year, I have noticed that the most popular channels also happen to be the most entertaining.

        The #1 anti-SJW channel on YT, “The Amazing Atheist”, has 1 million subs, and the host is a 6ft7 loud mouthed angry screeching dudebro who did something *very* indecent with a banana. These people make a spectacle of themselves for the clicks – and it works. But, as I said, I am not entirely against it, because I am of the opinion that any kind of infotainment that opposes the illiberal left is better than none. Regular people who do not read websites such as WEIT or Johnathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy can find arguments opposing SJWism on Youtube. And those arguments will be easy to digest and entertaining. It might be low brow, but it’s better than nothing.

        And there is a controversy brewing around top YTer “Pewdiepie” – the man has over 50 million subs, and has been labelled a Nazi by the regressive left. This is not going to go well for the regressive left – those 50 million viewers are going to side with Pewdiepie, and not the folks who are accusing him of being a literal Nazi.

        • tubby
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

          Well, Pew made poorly considered, poorly crafted, and contextless genocide jokes in a time of growing antisemitism, it got reported on because he is an e-celeb, and his sponsors gave him a dose of reality. I can’t find any sympathy when he whines about how oppressed he is by the media because now he is making less money.

          • somer
            Posted February 18, 2017 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

            I looked Pewdiepie up on wikipedia and have to say he doesnt sound like a nice guy, though he has given a lot of money to anti Aids causes in Africa, a children’s hospital and World Wildlife Fund.

          • FA
            Posted February 19, 2017 at 12:53 am | Permalink

            Well, no. The WSJ went on a witch hunt against PewDiePie. Indeed, one of the segments they cut out of context was a skit about how the media takes things out of context. The WSJ then went to Disney and YouTube to bully them to drop PewDiePie.

        • somer
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

          Yes I didn’t express myself well – we need politicised entertainment and the figures like you mentioned pushing back against the authoritarian wing of the left on social media and utube (though Ive heard utube mostly appeals to the older generation!).

          – I think though in social media theres a propensity for irrationality to amplify and feed on itself. I agree that there needs to be pushback to the regressives using the same media and aimed at just plain entertainment but I don’t think Milo does it well – he just adds a right wing (and in his case alternative) brand of obnoxiousness rudeness, hypocrisy, evasion and irrationality to the mix. After all Trump and Steve Bannon rose using social media.

          There is a new propensity for insidious use in social media (as opposed to websites) Trump and Steve Bannon rose because of it. People get their news from Facebook and twitter. Re the regressive left though and apologise for slight change of topic I do think the regressives come from the intellectual climate sown since WWII with the disparagement of rationality. Social media has given it a good boost but it was forces there before – why else so many people from the boomer generation and so much of mainstream anti rightwing media gone along with regressive positions when their major contributors are overwhelmingly staffed by boomers and Gen Xers? And maybe also its the human propensity to prefer to see things in black and white/ us versus them – though surely rejection of objectivity and facts removes the barriers to exclusionary thinking.

          • Cindy
            Posted February 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

            There is a new propensity for insidious use in social media (as opposed to websites) Trump and Steve Bannon rose because of it. People get their news from Facebook and twitter

            Market share. Clickbait. Echo chambers.

            First, it’s really really easy to create an echo chamber on social media. Especially now with how easy it is to censor those with opposing views – FB, twitter and even Disqus all offer the option to mute and to block those who offer a different opinion. So you sit in your echo chamber, and you feel good as your biases are continually reaffirmed.

            Second, the reason that Trump and Milo are so successful on social media is because the market is so saturated. It’s no longer the big three networks (in the USA anyway) and everyone is fighting for a piece of the pie. Milo knows that if he says something outrageous, that if Network A doesn’t report on it, Network B will, or Joe Blow with a YT channel will…so it’s basically a race to the bottom, with corporate media in competition with every asshat who has a YT channel or twitter account. This is one reason why Trump was able to run his campaign relatively inexpensively – he kept coming up with outrageous quips, and media fell over itself reporting on it.

            As PCC said, ideally, we should be ignoring Milo, but in a world where market share = money, corporate media especially cannot afford to ignore the Milo’s of this world.

            The clickbait phenomenon is an interesting one. I admit to being suspicious of bloggers who say outrageous things. Take Dan Arel and his ‘punching Nazis’ diatribes – he was just a nobody, and now people such as PCC and Dave Rubin have noticed that he exists. I bet that he has gained more subscribes to his blog. And a few years ago, The Friendly Atheist let a secular pro lifer write a god-awful essay on the ‘secular reasons to ban abortion’ or somesuch. Many of TFA’s regulars were quite angry with him and they unsubbed, as they believed that pro-lifers should *never* be given a platform (I disagreed, and I welcomed the chance to engage in some robust debate). However, the entire exercise worked out well for TFA. The article was widely disseminated, with people offering rebuttals, and rebuttals to the rebuttals and so on. In the end, it brought more traffic to his blog.

            So yeah, I look at Milo as the Britney Spears to WEIT’s Yo-yo ma. Britney Spears is mediocre, but she reaches a wider audience.

            If you are interested in something that is high-brow on the Youtube, I recommend this channel, there is a lot of good content by Pinker, Haidt and many others of note:

            https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCskcws9RtJPRM02UVe43BQA

            • somer
              Posted February 19, 2017 at 3:44 am | Permalink

              Many thanks for the reference Cindy

    • Zach
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

      My feeling is that Milo is blaspheming against secular fundamentalism, the non-theistic religion of the left. And the left lashes back, too often, as the religious all over the world do.

      Not sure I would call it secular fundamentalism (really, I’m not sure what to call it), but that is exactly what happened. Milo poked a sacred cow, transgender rights, and Larry Wilmore duly reacted like every other Defender of the Marginalized that Milo has riled up over the past year. It’s his main shtick, and it works so consistently he’s gotten wealthy off of it.

      • dd
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        It’s not merely the specific target, it’s the methodology.

        The poking of holy cows has been for many decades, at least to the 19th century (it’s the moral essence of the avant-garde), largely a pursuit of the left against the right. Almost always in the name of some freedom, sexual or expressive, etc.

        Milo Y., as did Trump, does the poking from a right-wing perch against left-wing holy cows. He would be stronger if it didn’t involve bs statistics like the one about transgender people and crime.

    • Somite
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      He was doing some serious selective signaling on Maher. This is the real Milo.

  6. angelaevans773
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    I will have to respectfully disagree with your take on last night’s episode. I did watch the show last night. As has been Bill’s tact, of late, he didn’t give Milo enough time to speak. Maher kept interrupting Milo. It was rather frustrating to watch, actually. As for the overtime segment, I thought Wilmore and Nance were well defeated by Milo. This is the second consecutive episode where a guest has been repeatedly sworn at and shouted down. It was a rather sad performance by those two, very triggered, men.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      Funny, I thought Milo got more than enough time to speak. He simply has nothing to say. He does have a trait similar to Trump – I think they call it, A legion in his own mind. He is just another version of the Ann Coulter mold. Be outrageous and make money.

      • Kurt Lewis Helf
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        He seems as phony and empty as the day is long.

  7. tomh
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    And after listening to Milo’s concern about “protecting women and children from men who are confused about their sexual identity in their bathrooms,” Maher turns to another guest and says, “Jack, where do you stand on weirdos peeing?”

    Just another reason I can’t stand Maher.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      I have not watched that segment, so count me as uninformed, but could that just be Maher being tongue in cheek?

      • Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, he said himself that he just said it to wind the congressman up.

        /@

        • tomh
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

          Well, think what you want, to however many millions (?) of people who watch him, he called transgender people “weirdos.” He also said it was “not unreasonable” that Milo should want to protect women and children from transgender people in their bathrooms. Approving Milo’s point that transgender people are going into bathrooms to harass women and children. That didn’t sound like a joke.

          • Harrison
            Posted February 19, 2017 at 4:26 am | Permalink

            The most important elements of the bathroom issue to me are this:

            -It’s not a government civil rights issue. Govt. is not enforcing bathroom segregation. Businesses do it because it’s what the people en masse want and expect. Maybe we should all switch to unisex toilets.

            -It’s primarily a womens’ room issue. That’s where the entirety of the controversy lies. Nobody cares about the mens’ room. It virtually is unisex even without being labeled as such.

            -The issue primarily comes down to women wanting a safe space vs. transwomen wanting accomodation. Which turns the issue into feminists fighting feminists (and both groups trying to outdo each other in laying the blame on men).

            -It’s given massively disproportionate attention relative to other issues because it’s low-cost. Bathroom legislation affects a miniscule number of people in a trivial way, but it doesn’t cost much to enforce so politicians see it as a great way to make political hay without having to spend any money. Infrastructure, unemployment, deregulation and environmental spoilage, declining union membership: All of these affect far more people in far more pronounced ways, but they’re hard problems to deal with and would cost money which voters don’t like. So let’s argue about where people piss instead.

    • rickflick
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      He’s a comic. Not all slapshots go into the net, but you gotta take ’em when you can.

      • tomh
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

        Maher’s a comic? I had no idea. Maybe he’ll do blackface next, that’s always funny.

        • rickflick
          Posted February 19, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

          Well, you’re right. He’s more than a comic. He’s also a serious social critic. Perhaps you are unable to appreciate the use of humor in fighting city hall. Maher supports most progressive ideas with a few embarrassing exceptions(vaccines). For one thing, he demolishes the regressive left, which is a favorite of your’s and mine. He can, as you point out, come across a bit crude at times and occasionally puts his foot in his mouth. That’s no reason to condemn him.

          • tomh
            Posted February 19, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

            “he demolishes the regressive left, which is a favorite of your’s and mine”

            I have no idea why you think you know what is a “favorite” of mine, but I seriously doubt it would align with yours.

            “come across a bit crude at times and occasionally puts his foot in his mouth. That’s no reason to condemn him.”

            There is plenty of reason to condemn Maher, leaving aside his promotion of disease and death for children, which goes hand in hand with his unhinged ideas on health and wellness. Even if his chumminess with Milo on bathroom issues was Maher simply playing for cheap laughs, his failure to respond to Milo’s outrageous lie that transgender people are “disproportionately involved” in sex crimes, is hardly the act of a “serious social critic” as you label him. How hard would it have been to ask for evidence of this? He simply strengthens Milo’s efforts to stoke fear of transgender people.

  8. Historian
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    I watched Milo on the “overtime” segment. He is all shtick and is probably making a very good income from it. The fact that the far left takes seriously his comedy routine (as repulsive as it may be) only demonstrates how politically naïve they are. If it were not for the pointless demonstrations against him, he would never have appeared on the Bill Maher show. Of course, the far right loves him because he allows them to make the false equivalency between the powerless far left and the powerful far right. In other words, he serves as their tool and a diversion from the real threat to this nation that the far right represents. The proper strategy to deal with Milo is to simply ignore him and he will quickly fade away. He thrives on attention, something the demonstrators seem incapable of understanding.

  9. Timothy Bagley
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    What I found very disheartening was hearing Maher compare this poseur with Christopher Hitchens. Seriously?

    • abram
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      Maher had to have been even higher than usual to make such an absurd connection.

    • Posted February 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      Yes, Timothy. Yiannopoulos is Kenneth Williams without the wit, Boy George without the talent and Christopher Hitchens without…well, the Christopher Hitchens.

    • Harrison
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      I’m hardly a fan of Peter Hitchens but he does exist and is as close to a conservative version of his brother as you’re likely to encounter. He could also run circles around Milo.

  10. kelskye
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    After seeing this, it’s hard to believe Milo is a person anyone could get up in arms about. He’s not persuasive, charismatic, nor particularly provocative. The way my ultra-leftist Facebook feed make him out to be some sort of fascist mastermind who needs to be silenced before its too late. I don’t get it.

    • somer
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

      +1 and he’d never be able to get the attention or make a living being a prat without the internet

    • Craw
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      You posted the explanation yourself: “ultra-leftist”. Is there any discussion of any person or any topic where your ultra-leftist friends are not either hagiographic or bilious?

      • kelskye
        Posted February 19, 2017 at 12:59 am | Permalink

        Usually pretty good when it comes to most areas of science, especially so when it comes to combating pseudoscience. Sometimes good when it comes to discussions of ethics, and even politics (as long as its not anything where the easy out is just to go bigot). Religion can be hit and miss depending on the target.

        Can’t really trust them to say anything of consequence on sport, and their choices in music are just terrible.

    • nicky
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 5:47 am | Permalink

      Although I read about his ideas, this was the first time I actually saw him ‘in action’. I have to admit I am mightily underwhelmed by his performance. I’m kind of disappointed, expected something more provoking.
      What’s all the fuss about? My 15 year old (semi-retarded) nephew does a better job throwing a tantrum.

  11. Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Milo disambiguation: Sophistry with pearls.

    • Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

      He’s always metaphorically clutching at them …

      /@

    • Kevin
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      I would put him at:

      Devil’s advocate with a dagger

      Of course, most of the time he’s just slashing at the air, but mendicants for entertainment seem to notice.

  12. abram
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    From what little I saw the low point was the shallow flitty professional troll calling a career Naval Intelligence Officer and expert in middle east relations “stupid”.

    • $G
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

      Nance stuffed it right in Milo’s face too. Good on that guy for torching that worm with what might as well have been a flick of the wrist.

      Milo’s fanbase is primarily made up of spoiled, nihilistic little trolls, and that’s precisely what he looked like on that panel.

      And good on Maher for pointing out that Nance has “done things that allow you to fuckin’ *live*” when the internet troll called the intelligence officer “stupid”. He got put in his place and it resembled an adult shaming a lippy child.

  13. E.A. Blair
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    The former journalistic standard was that people mentioned in news reports were referred to as “Mister A”, “Miss A” or “Mrs. A” (the latter two became replaced by “Ms”). Referring to a person simply by last name implied criminality (either by conviction or accusation).

    I am not implying any criminal behavior, but I refuse to refer to Yiannopoulos by his first name alone. It assumes a familiarity that I do not want. Anyone who wants to consider that demeaning on my part is free to do so.

    • Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure what you can read into that. British chaps used to refer to each other by just their surnames. “Jolly good show, Carstairs!” “Mainwaring’s on a bit of a sticky wicket again.” 

      /@

      • E.A. Blair
        Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Well, maybe I should have said American journalistic standards. I remember a flap from the late 1960s that happened when a network reporter (I think it was someone from NBC) referred to the President Johnson by his last name only and ended up getting fired for his gaffe. I’d like to give more details, but it was a long time ago and I was a bit young to be paying close attention to the news.

        • E.A. Blair
          Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

          “then-President Johnson”, not “the President Johnson”.

      • Posted February 18, 2017 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        It’s a public school thing in the UK: teachers addressing pupils by their surnames.

  14. Posted February 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    The problem with Milo, and this is obvious if you read the comment sections of the videos above, is that people buy into what he says. A considerable percentage of the commenters think he made everyone else on the show look like idiots. This means when he says things like “transexuals are disproportionatly sexual predators”, people believe him. This puts transgendered people’s safety at risk. Add to that the fact that people no longer trust the media, or science, or polls, and how do you counter him when he says things like that? I’m still a supporter of free speech, but I can certainly sympathize you those who don’t want to give his harmful speech a platform.

    • Harrison
      Posted February 18, 2017 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      I would say lack of public trust in the media is symptomatic of the media losing trust in itself and the power of truth to counter falsity.

      Presenting the bare truth of a lunatic’s words should be enough to discredit him. There’s no need to lie or exaggerate and doing so hurts you and helps the loony. The media is in the business of sensationalism though so the bare truth often seems too bland.

      Now we live in an age where all bad people are literally Hitler, and people aren’t buying it anymore.

  15. Diana MacPherson
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Yes, this is a fine example of an intellectual lightweight out of his element. Mostly he tried to talk over Maher with banalities and giggle at his immature jokes. Give him all the rope he needs!!

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 5:50 am | Permalink

      I thought he was actually embarrassing. I mean literally – he made me cringe. I’ve never seen anyone look so needy and self-conscious on Maher’s show before. He looked like a kid high on sugar who the adults have long gotten bored of. And he was so desperate to get his most ‘outrageous’ remarks out there, but people were kind of ignoring him by that point so it just looked what it was; again, desperate.

      I’ve just realised who he reminds me of – it’s Russell Brand: although they sit at either end of the political spectrum they’re both tedious fuckwits who know almost nothing about any of the subjects they drone on about beyond the surface level talking points.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted February 19, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        It actually reminded me of the time, way back when Dennis Miller had his talk show in the late 90s/early 00’s. He had Tom Green on the show and Tom Green tried to be funny and take on Dennis Miller and Dennis Miller just intellectually eviscerated him. It was cringe-worthy and it basically put Tom Green, a little known comedian who had become famous for marrying Drew Barrymore and being gross on TV, in his place.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a thoughtful and well-written article I came across earlier today about Milo, the alt-right, 4chan, and Donald Trump.

    • Diane G.
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 3:50 am | Permalink

      That was…interesting.

      I guess it makes as much sense as most of the other analyses of the current debacle I’ve read…

  17. Posted February 18, 2017 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Like many commenting before me, I had not seen Milo in a televised appearance. I knew of him from reading reports in the media and then articles that were very critical of him from Left-leaning websites. I admit the way his critics had built him up into this uber-Boogeyman has raised my expectations on seeing Milo face off with Bill.

    So Bill introduces him and this awkward kid comes out who was clearly dressed to be provocative. I was expecting a cogent argument for his outrageous behavior but after listening to him during the opening segment and then in the Overtime segment, I realized that Milo was a British version of a number of insecure, confused, attention seeking kids I knew as an undergrad. Hell, I remember being like that myself. I would deliberately say the most offensive things possible to provoke a reaction out of people. I had a rare talent for zeroing in on the triggers for other people. I’d find their weak spot and then open fire. It wasn’t so much political as it was based on the extremely conservative Christian culture that I was raised in as a youth. No sacred cow was safe from my commentary.

    The best way to shut me up was to ignore me. I’d get bored and move on because being ignored didn’t get me off like sparking a heated discussion or argument. I can’t imagine the magnitude of douchery I would have evolved into if I had been given a platform to reach a larger audience. I would never have matured past that stage in my life if I had been rewarded for engaging in it even more enthusiastically. But Milo had the fortune (good or bad) to be an outrageous jerk in the Age of the Alt-Right on social media. Behavior that once got me written off as an asshole by so many in my youth is now rewarded as being heroic by many Conservatives.

    I agree with Bill and others who have commented that Liberals have been their own worst enemies in how they have reacted to Milo. I shouldn’t use the term Liberal because the actions of those on the Left to prevent Milo from speaking at public events is authoritarian in nature and not Liberal at all. In attacking Milo’s right to Free Speech, the Authoritarian Left has made him into an Alt-Right Hero and empowered him to act out in more provocative ways because he knows how well it works to trigger the Auth-Left. When he made some snarky condescending comments when he first sat down to talk to Bill, he got the boos and he quickly turned and pointed out just how easy it was to get that reaction. How many times will the Auth-Left let this Lucy put the ball down and keep going full Charlie Brown?

    Milo is full of sound and fury but is powerless until he gets the reaction he seeks from his opponents. His Kryptonite is being ignored or when he provokes the Left, for them to react with measured indifference. Like the Wicked Witch of the West when doused with water, Milo will melt into irrelevance if ignored. Let him spew his adolescent rage and bile. Words don’t harm people. If he calls for violence against people or threatens people with physical harm, or some other unlawful act, then have him charged with a crime. A peaceful protest that involved positive Progressive values in helping and understanding those who are different from us would send a much better message than acting like spoiled children demanding a different desert because they don’t like cookies.

    • DrDroid
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      “I realized that Milo was a British version of a number of insecure, confused, attention seeking kids I knew as an undergrad”

      Yep, my reaction was that this was a 32 yo teenager who delights in uttering anything that enrages and confounds adults.

      I found that it was hard to follow much of anything he said as he had a habit of looking down and mumbling into his pearls.

      docbill1351 commented that “In actuality, Milo is an undereducated boob who gets air time because he’s so “outrageous.” Hmmm…where have I heard that before?? Oh, right, that’s pretty much a description of Trump. And that’s the scary thing to me. Should we laugh and discount Milo? Didn’t we try that with Trump?

      As a “classic liberal” I am a strong believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinions. But I wonder if the classic liberals of the Enlightenment ever imagined the age of the Internet in which every kind of crackpot and fake news site would have a megaphone to disseminate their ideas.

      With the Internet people no longer have a common source of information. I check the NYT and CNN for news because I think they do try to report accurately on what’s happening. But then I check Fox News and see that issues that dominate the NYT/CNN coverage are not mentioned at all on Fox, or are presented with an entirely different spin. And it is apparently the case that Trump supporters derive their news from Fox rather than “very fake news” sources (I won’t even mention Breitbart). No wonder people have become so balkanized. What to do about the dilemma now facing us on the Internet???

    • Posted February 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Alt-Right. Ctrl-Left.

      /@

  18. Posted February 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Milo is the USA’s Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Ali G) wannabe who doesn’t have the talent to make it. Not nearly as funny, versatile or edgy as Cohen.
    He’s trying to take the piss but hasn’t yet realised he’s the joke.

  19. Kevin
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    This is the first I’ve ever seen Milo speak. I thought he was pretty innocuous. His bandwidth is all about controversy. Being that that is not obvious is a clear statement of how many misguided people there are in this country, both left and right.

    I don’t get it. He is closer to Maher than most of Maher’s guests. He is a full supporter of free speech and he is teaching example for the left. He is serving them a dish they deserve for their backward attitudes.

  20. Jim Smith
    Posted February 18, 2017 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Milo is just the foil. He let the SJW’s skewer themselves. His campus tour last year was about the far left’s authoritarianism and love of censorship, etc. And Milo let them do all the work in proving him correct with their disruptive threatening behaviors and actions and generally just completely losing their collective shit over the mere thought of Milo giving a speech about the radical left’s looniness.

    • $G
      Posted February 19, 2017 at 4:57 am | Permalink

      No more has the value of ignoring trolls been proven to me than with this Milo case. I heard about him a bit before but he’s gotten *huge* in the last year and every time I see his name it’s because someone stormed one of his events.

      These people are absolutely helping him. I know this will sound glib, but I think there’s something to it: my mother, who struggles to even set up her own Netflix account, now knows who Milo is. That’s how far he’s risen and it’s all because of the reaction because it’s not like the guy produces anything of mainstream value. At least Marilyn Manson, a similar provacateur, had some good rock tunes (and didn’t make up stats to dump on certain minorities — big difference, but you get my drift about Milo not really producing much).

      • tomh
        Posted February 20, 2017 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        “These people are absolutely helping him.”

        Well, I guess he’ll really become famous now, since he’s gotten more help, first from the ultra-conservative CPAC conference withdrawing his invite to speak, and now Simon and Schuster cancelling his book deal. He must be dancing in the streets.

        • Posted February 20, 2017 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

          I have a feeling you may be wrong. Yiannopoulos’ post explaining the loss of his book deal with Simon (Jewish) & Schuster (Austrian) was monosyllabic and and telegraphically brief.

          Now some Breitbart journos are threatening to quit if he isn’t sacked. Dancing in the Street? The tracks of his tears, more like.

  21. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted February 19, 2017 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    What a thoroughly boring little man.

  22. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 19, 2017 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Milo’s a provocateur, but he’s provocative for the sake of provocation. There’s nothing truly subversive in what he says. Hell, there’s barely anything substantive in what he says.

  23. Paul
    Posted February 19, 2017 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    “Just fuck off” seems to be quite an effective response to Yanoupolos’ form of trolling.

  24. Posted February 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    1. I’m so tired of the “the only reason Milo is so popular is that the Left opposes him so strongly” trope; it’s tired, facile, and intellectually lazy. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that Milo is popular because a lot of people agree with his views and like the fact that he’s utterly shameless and cruel. We really need to stop talking about the Right as if they’re either automatons or toddlers who can neither understand the reasons why they do what they do, nor be held accountable for doing it.
    2. Every interview Milo ever gives into perpetuity should start with “Why do you think it’s worse for a child rapist to be embarrassed than for a child to be raped?” and end with “Why do you think children who get raped are responsible for their rape?” There’s an awful lot of Milo-apologia that says “Let people hear from both sides & then decide for themselves what they think of him,” but that’s not possible when his hosts help him conceal this ugly aspect of his persona. Failure to remind the audience that this is the kind of “person” they’re dealing with is a failure of journalistic integrity at best, and a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts at worst.
    3. That the Right has shackled the principle of free speech to this intellectually & morally bankrupt attention whore is not accidental. They’ve figured out how to portray any objection to Milo on any grounds whatsoever as an assault on free speech and “evidence” that the Left is afraid of his ideas. In this manner they badger, bully, & shame their way into ever bigger platforms and ever more influential interlocutors, further legitimizing him and his views. He’s become a bludgeon to do the opposite of no-platforming, a kind of “forced-platforming” in which denying him access to any stage or declining to engage with him for any reason can be held up as just more proof that the Left are the real fascists.
    4. He is not the next Hitch. He’s not even the next Alex Jones.

  25. tomh
    Posted February 19, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    “the possibility that Milo is popular because a lot of people agree with his views and like the fact that he’s utterly shameless and cruel”

    Exactly right. And Maher deserves no praise for providing him a platform and simply allowing his remarks to go unchallenged.

  26. Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Milo is either a fraud or an idiot (perhaps both!). In either case he’s irrelevant and gets far more attention than he deserves.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] via Milo appears on Maher — Why Evolution Is True […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: