In a quote often attributed to Voltaire, he said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is a creed I have long lived by, believing that preventing someone from being able to speak is far more dangerous than any idea they can espouse.
I read a quote from Noam Chomsky that gets close to my thinking – “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” The same could be said for free speech – it is easy to fight for the free speech for those we support, but that’s not the real test. The real test of free speech is those screaming at the top of their lungs something that you oppose with every ounce of your being – will you fight for them?
For me the answer is yes, which is exactly why I will fight for the repugnant views of Milo Yiannopoulos to be heard. I do not like the ideas of the students protesting his speech to be belittled, they are sincere and deeply-rooted beliefs that should be heard. That is why I intentionally did not comment on the substance of their letter yesterday.
But today I will. I don’t agree that his speech should be canceled. That is not going to make his ideas go away. If anything, it will force them underground and, for too long in the last eight years, we have relegated the views of the alt-right to the fringes of the internet and society – where, unconfronted, they were allowed to fester and grow.
The problem here is that is exactly what he wants to happen. He is intentionally coming to liberal university campuses and wants to demonstrate the intolerance of the left by generating protests and efforts to shut him down.
The act of protest, the attempts to shut him down make his voice grow louder. I actually think the best response would have been to ignore him completely. But that hasn’t happened.
“Students aren’t used to hearing alternative points of view,” Mr. Yiannopoulos wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “That has been the case for a decade or more. It enrages them that not only do I make evidence-based arguments and consistently beat them on the rare occasion they show up, but I do so with style, sass, and my trademark humility.
“If you don’t want to come to a Milo Yiannopoulos lecture, don’t come. But you have no right to deny others the chance to,” he wrote. Aside from a “tiny minority” of “social justice warriors,” he continued, “pretty much everyone else agrees with at least some of what I’m saying, because they recognize that, for example, feminism hurts women as much as it hurts men and they are mystified that feminists are unwilling/incapable of defending their wacky positions.”
He is exactly correct here – tactically speaking. People are not used to hearing alternative points of view. There have been articles that have demonstrated that the social media phenomena have done more to bifurcate and segregate views that anything.
On the other hand, the man has some pretty whacky views himself. The idea that feminism hurts women is certainly his right to believe. Openly advocating that men flush their partners’ contraceptives down the toilet is just weird. Here is an article where he argues “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”
Twitter permanently banned him as it cracked down on his targeting of Leslie Jones, the actress in “Ghostbusters.” But you have to wonder, as the Washington Post reported, “Reactions to Yiannopoulos’s suspension fell along the lines you’d expect: His supporters — he had more than 300,000 followers at the time of his suspension — rallied behind the #FreeMilo hashtag, which trended in the United States for several hours, and said that he’d done nothing wrong. Many others cheered Twitter’s decision to ban someone whose mocking, trollish tweets about people on the alt-right’s bad side were often the prelude to a mob of abuse.”
The ban probably only made Milo stronger, although, you can hardly blame Twitter for not wanting their platform to be used to abuse someone in the way it appears Mr. Yiannopoulos did.
So what is the best remedy here to a guy who enjoys getting attention, and takes pride in flipping his middle finger to the establishment?
The best response here would be to allow him to speak, and ignore him. He craves attention, don’t give it to him.
The second best response would be to allow him to speak and offer a counter-measure. Attack his ideas.
The worst response is to attempt to ban him and give him the attention that he craves.
It is not the answer that some people want – I get it. But, then again, I did not support shutting down N.W.A. and Ice-T for their anti-police raps. Or Tipper Gore putting warning labels on my music albums in the late 1980s. Efforts to shut down offensive music did not work. Efforts to shut down offensive alt-right speakers will not work either.
At the same time, taking the high ground has its virtues. The letter notes, “We, the undersigned students, faculty, staff, and alumni, strongly object to the Davis College Republican’s invitation to host Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Davis on January 13th…”
They continue, “Milo Yiannopoulos is well known for his espousal of racist, sexist, and islamophobic hate speech targeted towards numerous members of our campus community.”
Instead of DEMANDING “that campus administrators and the Davis College Republicans cancel this event” and arguing, “The use of campus facilities and resources to host and therefore legitimize a white nationalist runs completely counter to the stated goals of the University of California and serves as a direct threat towards traditionally marginalized groups on campus,” they should have turned this on the College Republicans.
They should have said something like we are appalled that the College Republicans would ask a man who has espoused racist and sexist views to speak at UC Davis. Is that what the College Republicans stand for?
By doing that, the issue would not be about free speech, the issue would be about guilt by association. The weak link here is the College Republicans – is this man what they are about? I await their answer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just because a group invites a speaker on campus doesn’t mean that they necessarily agree with them on every issue they might espouse. I listened to a couple of Yianno’s videos on Youtube yesterday and he does make some good points. I don’t agree with everything he says just as the college Republicans probably don’t either.
David, do you think that all the far left speakers that are invited onto campus totally represent the ideals of the group that invited them? I don’t remember you ever calling any of them out. Let’s be honest here, this is all about shutting down right wing speech.
Thank you for your article that his speech should not be shut down.
I think it would be a fair question to ask the inviters whether they support the message of the speaker. I can tell you as editor of the Vanguard, I often seek out opposing viewpoints to write pieces on here. And of course there are speaker series that espouse different views. But the College Republicans play a different role and I haven’t seen an explanation from them as to their purpose
Here’s the Executive Board. They’re all on Facebook.
Davis College Republicans
DCR has officially appointed a new Executive Director: Andrew Mendoza. He will join the rest of DCR’s 2016-2017 Executive Board that was elected earlier this Summer. Therefore, DCR’s current Board is as follows:
Chair: Nicholas Francois
Vice Chair: Gabrielle McDowell
Communications Director: Kurtie Kellner
Political Director: Deborah Porter
Treasurer: Atanas Spasov
Secretary: Steve An
Executive Director: Andrew Mendoza
“Here’s the Executive Board. They’re all on Facebook.”
I would love to hear their thoughts on their goals in making this invitation. Perhaps someone who actually uses Facebook ( which I do not although I do have an account) could reach out to them and post any responses here on the Vanguard.
No wonder why they like to see Milo .
David wrote:
> I haven’t seen an explanation from them as to their purpose
Did you ask them (or were you waiting for them to come to your office to explain).
When I was an AS exec. I often “invited” B list metal bands to campus that sang about the devil as well as B list rap groups that talked about killing cops. My purpose was not to “support” “devil worship” or “cop killing” but to fill seats in the on campus venue and make money for AS.
SOD
I agree that an invitation does not equal agreement on all points. However, I would question your judgement or motive in inviting groups that talk about “killing cops” unless in a negative and discouraging fashion, just as I question the motive of inviting intemperate promotion of right wing ideas.
I see this as exploitation of deliberately harmful ideas for profit which I find distasteful regardless of which side is doing it. Not meeting the criteria for a ban, but certainly worthy of criticism.
Tia, the tickets to this event are free.
So who is paying him to come here?
I don’t know but obviously the college Republicans aren’t doing it for profit.
For the record, he apparently claims he doesn’t charge a speaker’s fee.
“It enrages them that not only do I make evidence-based arguments and consistently beat them on the rare occasion they show up, but I do so with style, sass, and my trademark humility.
I have read multiple articles and watched several of MY’s tapes and was unable to identify anything that he said that was “evidence based”. Of course, since I am a doctor and he is not, I recognize that we may hold different standards for what constitutes “evidence”.
I am wondering if BP who has stated,”I listened to a couple of Yianno’s videos on Youtube yesterday and he does make some good points.” would be willing to share what you see as the “good points” that he has made.
David wrote:
> It is a creed I have long lived by believing that preventing
> someone from being able to speak is far more dangerous
> than any idea they can espouse.
It sounds like David, Tia and myself think this way but there are quite a few people on the left that want to stop anyone to the right of Tom Campbell or Ed Zschau (two super moderate pro-choice Republicans that I worked for in the 80’s) from speaking on a college campus, just like there are quite a few people on the right that would kick kids out of school that even “talked” about flag burning (and want to “force” Colin Kappernick to stand and sing along with the national anthem).
> He is intentionally coming to liberal university campuses
> and wants to demonstrate the intolerance of the left
Did Tia use her ESP to tell you why he decided to come to Davis? I agree that there is a good chance that is what he is doing but unless he told me (or I had a friend with ESP that knows what others are thinking) I would write “I think he might be coming…”
> I actually think the best response would have been to ignore him completely.
So do I, can you let us know why a guy who thinks the “best response would have been to ignore him completely” decided to headline his blog for yet another day with a story about a guy who according to the UCD kids that don’t want him to speak “is well known for his espousal of racist, sexist, and islamophobic hate speech targeted towards numerous members of our campus community.”?
I thought his quote spoke for itself on that issue, no?
SOD
“Did Tia use her ESP to tell you why he decided to come to Davis?”
You were making a good point right up until you decided that you had to invoke the snark. You post this despite the fact that on previous threads I have stated repeatedly that I have no idea ( indeed can’t even imagine) what the Republican group was thinking when they invited him. Perhaps you do not realize that your posts would have much more impact ( as would mine) without the snark, especially when it is directly countered by the “evidence”.
Tia wrote:
> You were making a good point right up until you
> decided that you had to invoke the snark.
When you and David stop telling us why people do things or what they are thinking I’ll stop joking about it.
> I suggest that you start by Googling “white supremacists
> celebrate Trump win”.
If you Google “black panthers celebrate Obama win” you will also get a lot of hits (and Obama is no more a Black Panther supporter than Trump is a white supremacist). In most major cities criminal street gangs (of all races) identify with different sports teams (and wear there “colors”) yet the sports teams have nothing to do with the criminals that like them…
SOD
“When you and David stop telling us why people do things or what they are thinking I’ll stop joking about it.”
If you will quote any post of mine in which I have told “us why people do things or what they are thinking…” then I will be able to clarify. I know that you can find examples in which I have asked people if I was correct in my interpretation of their thinking. However, anyone who has achieved a third grade reading level in English can tell that the presence of “?” indicates a question, while the presence of a “.” indicates a declaration or assertion. I write the words that I write with my punctuation. I am not responsible for your inference of what I mean.
“ff you Google “black panthers celebrate Obama win” you will also get a lot of hits”
When a member of the black panthers is invited to campus to speak, I am sure that I would have something to say about that as well and if they were promoting reproductive sabotage and/or limitation of women in STEM fields, I am quite sure that I would take exactly the same stance as I am taking with MY’s invitation.
Really, you’ve lived in Davis for a long time, did you speak out when Angela Davis spoke on campus?
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/angela-davis-remaking-world
Tia wrote:
> If you will quote any post of mine in which I have told
> “us why people do things or what they are thinking…”
> then I will be able to clarify.
Here you tell us what Frakkly’s world view is:
“Because of course, in the world according to Frankly, you know better than they “what they really are about” and because in the world according to Frankly, there are no nuances, only tribes with no cross over and no complexity….”
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/katehi-put-on-investigative-leave/
> they were promoting reproductive sabotage
I’m wondering if Tia is aware that millions of people (including most conservative/orthodox Jews and Catholics) like Milo are opposed to birth control?
I’m not a conservative Jew or Catholic, but I’ve heard that the last few Popes (speaking in front of crowds with thousands of people) have agreed with Milo on birth control.
Since I’m personally “pro choice on everything” I’ll let women make their own decisions on birth control but don’t feel the need to call Milo some kind of crazy for having the same view on birth control as many world religious leaders and millions of Americans.
Germaine Greer, once an Icon of the feminist movement, has been “no platformed” in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/18/transgender-activists-protest-germaine-greer-lecture-cardiff-university
Like I stated yesterday I had never heard of Yiannopolis before our local liberals started having a hissy fit over him talking on campus. So I’ve done a little research and watched a couple of his video speeches. I see the typical cries of white nationalism and racist coming from the left and maybe I need to do more research but I honestly haven’t seen any truth to that. In one of the videos, after the speech, a reporter filmed the students and asked them about their accusing him of being a racist and to give some examples. They couldn’t come up with any.
BP
“Like I stated yesterday I had never heard of Yiannopolis before”
I am sure this is true. I had not heard of him prior to GamerGate. However, I would like to point out that our previous ignorance of his activities does not mean that he was not knowingly creating a great deal of harm to the GhostBusters actress and her family in the form of threats of rape and death from his followers. This is reminiscent of the pizza shop shooting in which the shooter decided that he needed to personally “investigate” the claims of HRC running a child sex ring out of this completely legitimate business. The words of our leaders, entertainers and self styled provocateurs do matter and can become dangerous as this act showed.
“I see the typical cries of white nationalism and racist coming from the left and maybe I need to do more research…”
The research isn’t difficult to do. I suggest that you start by Googling “white supremacists celebrate Trump win”. The second entry is a link to a well attended speech by white nationalist R. Spencer. Please take a few minutes to listen to his speech questioning whether those who are on the political left are “even human” at all, watch the Nazi style salutes and then tell me whether or not you believe that this is actually happening. I suggested this before, but it would appear from your comment that you see no evidence that this is occurring that perhaps you did not get around to it.
Yiannopolous has addressed that, he’s not responsible for what others might say or write. I see the hate now coming from the left towards Trump, should we blame HRC for all the ugly comments and threats directed towards him?
Here you go again projecting onto Yiannoplous what someone else has said or done. Give me examples of racism coming from Yainnopolous himself, not what someone else has said.
You seem to doing some real stretches here.
In fact if you watch the video below Yiannopolous says he doesn’t identify with the alt-right. His own words. Watch the video with an open mind, you might learn something.
I think Tia you have fallen victim that comes from the left when they despise someone that doesn’t fit their P.C. world by branding them with white nationalism, racism, etc. [fill in the blank]
BP
“Yiannopolous has addressed that, he’s not responsible for what others might say or write.”
I know that he has disavowed the actions of his on line followers. However, if I , as a doctor tell women that birth control pills, IUDs and implants do not work, and they believe me and do not use them, do I not have any responsibility for the ensuing pregnancies ? I would say that I was indirectly responsible for these outcomes and would own it. I believe that Yiannopoulos as an obviously intelligent individual who knows exactly what he is doing and is choosing to lead others down a predictable path to threats of violence intended to be harmful and continued to do so long after this effect was pointed out to him.
“Here you go again projecting onto Yiannoplous what someone else has said or done. “
I projected nothing on to Yiannopoulos. I merely provided you with an example of actual white supremacists celebrating the election results on a thread regarding Yiannopoulos. Nowhere did I claim he was in the room, agreed with them nor promoted their group. My post was directly prompted by your statement that you did not see these kinds of actions occurring.
Okay, I can see where you got that out of my wording. What I meant was I haven’t seen any truth to that occurring when it comes to Yiannopolous’ views or speeches.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained
Does this guy really rise to the threshold of deserving to be banned?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgl53EXInPc
BP
“Does this guy really rise to the threshold of deserving to be banned?”
If this were the only side of “this guy” that is being promoted, I would agree with you that it does not. However, I certainly believe that the other side, the side that depicts women and other races as inferior ( as in not worthy of places in the STEM fields and should be excluded from them, not able to decide what medicines they should be able to use, and not having “our values” with regard to immigrants) is dangerous and while I do not believe his speech should be banned, I do believe that it should not be trivialized and should consistently be called out for the hate mongering that it is.
I would like to call to the attention of all Vanguard readers, two articles from today’s Enterprise that I think really bring home the full implications of the type of speech we are discussing and its intended and perhaps unintended consequences at the local as well as national level.
The articles are “KKK disavows white supremacist label” and “Davis police make hate-crime arrest” and can be found on the second page of today’s Enterprise directly beneath Bob Dunning’s column.
“Does this guy really rise to the threshold of deserving to be banned?”
Of course not–not if one understands and values the First Amendment.
But it’s important to understand that Yiannopolous is in demand as a speaker because he is the appealing and personable face of the alt-right. He is skilled at putting a positive spin on what is a white nationalist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, sexist faction of the far right. The videos merely show that he’s good at what he does, not that his message is benign.
Did you watch the above video?
He states he doesn’t identify with the alt-right.
Which supports my point–he’s good at what he does.
So if the man says he doesn’t identify with a group that doesn’t count?
BP wrote:
> So if the man says he doesn’t identify
> with a group that doesn’t count?
Once (crazy) far left or (crazy) far right brand someone there is nothing they can do to change that (many on the far left still call Trump a “birther” and many on the far right still call Obama a “Muslim born in Kenya”…
I often laugh at (crazy) far left or (crazy) far right talk about “code words” saying things like he said “working class” but that was just a “code word” for “Hispanics”…
To some degree, this occurs on a daily basis, in the Vanguard comments section.
I have no problem shutting down faux facts, aka “lies”/untruths.
hpierce: As I’ve previously noted, your role in doing so is appreciated.
Thx… on the “opinion” side, I do have some hot buttons, so sometimes behave badly.
SOD
“When you and David stop telling us why people do things or what they are thinking I’ll stop joking about it.”
If you will quote any post of mine in which I have told “us why people do things or what they are thinking…” then I will be able to clarify. I know that you can find examples in which I have asked people if I was correct in my interpretation of their thinking. However, anyone who has achieved a third grade reading level in English can tell that the presence of “?” indicates a question, while the presence of a “.” indicates a declaration or assertion. I write the words that I write with my punctuation. I am not responsible for your inference of what I mean.
“ff you Google “black panthers celebrate Obama win” you will also get a lot of hits”
When a member of the black panthers is invited to campus to speak, I am sure that I would have something to say about that as well and if they were promoting reproductive sabotage and/or limitation of women in STEM fields, I am quite sure that I would take exactly the same stance as I am taking with MY’s invitation.
>To some degree, this occurs on a daily basis, in the Vanguard comments section.
How so?
BP
“He states he doesn’t identify with the alt-right.”
He makes a lot of claims that aren’t true. Such as women are unfit to pursue STEM careers. He uses this obvious untruth to advocate for rationing slots in STEM fields for women. He claims that birth control pills make women fat and crazy and uses this to promote contraceptive interference with the increase in risk of unintended pregnancy increasing from less than 80-90 % to an 80 % chance of conception in the reproductive age range over all. So if he is willing to tell these blatant lies, are we supposed to believe him when he says ( with a wind and a nod) that he doesn’t identify with the alt-right.
Tia wrote:
> Such as women are unfit to pursue STEM careers.
Can you post a link where he says or writes “women are unfit to pursue STEM careers”?
I did a Google search and found a quotes where he says (nothing that says “women are unfit to pursue STEM careers”):
“Encouraging women to take leadership and technical roles in technology, the Internet and gaming, if they want them, is a noble goal.”
and
“There are highly technical subjects totally dominated by women: veterinary science, for example.”
and
“Women who can in tech don’t need to get by on their gender, and they are often the first people to push social climbers and weak performers out so they don’t have to be judged by them. “
SOD
Here is one. I posted a separate link to another article by MY on Breibart on a previous thread. On the link below he asserts that he feels that women should be limited in their pursuit not only of the “harder” STEM areas but also in medicine. I seem to be having some problems with linking, but you can just Google “Yiannopoulos and women in STEM” and you will find an assortment of his writings on this subject.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/
People say lots of crazy stuff. For example Jerry Brown has said many times that other kids should get more money for their schools than my kids should. Yet I don’t see JB being reviled here.
I’ll just say this, if this man gets shut down it will be an ugly day for UC Davis and because of its location the City of Davis.