The "egomaniacal narcissist" bit I get, but "neoreactionary misogynist" just seems like ad hominem.
... how is an insulting (though accurate) description of Yiannopoulos' character LESS of an ad hominem argument than an accurate (though arguably insulting) description of his gender politics?
How accurate are they? Let's see. You may not like the answer.
*Totally respectful, not-disparaging-at-all "Citation needed" image macro*
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/ (FSTDT-approved!)
While I disagree with the idea of a cap on women in STEM, the rest of the article is completely valid.
As for the second, it
did rub me the wrong way, but at least it's based on actual facts. Sure, maybe the data is flawed, and maybe there are other factors to consider, but there's a big difference between it and the "feels trump reals" bullshit we see from the politically correct crowd.
And because the man is a gift that keeps giving:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/sexbots-why-women-should-panic/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/26/does-feminism-make-women-ugly/
Both very obviously tongue-in-cheek. But I don't blame you, people thought Jonathan Swift was serious too when he suggested eating Irish babies.
UP, I've called you out several times already on your complete lack of self-awareness. Since there's no point in trying to appeal to your nonexistent self-reflective capabilities, I guess I'll have to step out of my comfort zones and be more... specific in my criticism.
You have repeatedly argued that some people, namely those that are politically on your left, should be more mindful about the bad apples on their side. That they should always stand ready to denounce, loudly and publicly, any group or individual that display reverse bigotry, "anti-free-speech" tendencies, or anything that you would call "extremism" or "fanaticism"... no matter how insignificant the person or insular the group, and how petty, exaggerated or just plain silly your actual grievance.
You have something of a point. Maybe I am overreacting. But considering how much influence these people have, and the media silence about their more questionable traits and activities, can you blame me? Let me ask you: where are the media outlets covering the bullying of Paige Paz? Why isn't
she addressing the UN?
Meanwhile, you have repeatedly chosen to endorse some absolutely terrible people because they happened to share some of your pet peeves.
I don't "endorse" them. It's a marriage of convenience.
Some are anonymous Internet users, but you certainly seem to have a thing for drama-whoring "public figures" like Yiannopoulos
You call it "drama-whoring", I call it "muckraking."
or Hoff Summers.
It's "Sommers." If you're going to blatantly insult one of the leading Feminists in America, at least have the common decency to spell her name right.
And I can see where you're coming from with Milo, but what's your problem with Christina?
You aren't just failing to condemn them for their bile-spewing bullshit while putting up with them in your crusades against social justice. You actively and specifically promote their vicious points of view in your arguments against "the other side", because all is fair when trying to make people realize how evil and dangerous the enemy is.
No, I haven't. Or if I have, it's nowhere near as often as you seem to be implying.
This isn't a standard failure to live up to one's own standards. You are living proof that the Dunning-Kruger effect can be applied to moral judgements, and that a certain Jewish preacher actually had a point when he was speaking about motes and beams in people's eyes.
Oh, I'm well aware of my own moral failings. The question is: are you?
If this sounds condescending and disrespectful, that's because it is. Again, I wish I didn't have to state it outright.
And I wish you had the ability to step out of your little box and look at things from an unbiased perspective. But here we are.
2. Trying to "no platform" hate speech just makes it seem like the bigots have a point.
Citation needed, because that is a wide-reaching, unsubstantiated claim that cannot be confirmed or refuted after a quick Google search.
Let me give you a history lesson. The Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, very strong ones. Members of the Nazi Party, including Joseph Goebbels himself, were repeatedly tried and convicted for anti-Semitic language. This did not hurt them. To the contrary, it helped them, because it threw more fuel onto the "teh Ebol Joos" bonfire, with tragic consequences for Europe and Jewry.
To be quite honest, I strongly doubt that you actually want every kind of hate speech to receive a public platform, only those specific patterns that your tribe is commonly associated with and accused of.
Now you're putting me in a "tribe"? Thanks for so clearly demonstrating your mental processes. According to you, any alliance is inherently close-knit and friendly. Let me ask you: have you ever seen a coalition government in action?
Sure, you do not want to outright criminalize the brands of hate speech that offend you. You just want those to be marginalized out of the public discourse.
Au contraire, I don't want it marginalized. I want them to be able to spew their bile to their hearts' content, so that people can see for themselves how hateful they are. Maybe if we're really lucky, the opposing bigots will waste all their time fighting each other, and everybody else can get on with their lives.
Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, some most of the people you routinely accuse of advocating censorship against opinions they don't like, are in fact "merely" trying to push for these opinions to be marginalized. Which could lead you to wonder about the nature, origins, present connotations and general meaningfulness of the term "political correctness"... but probably won't.
Oh, I know full well about it. The idiotic "Cultural Marxism" strawman wannabe activists are pushing is utterly absurd, but it has at least some grain of truth. No, political correctness isn't some elaborate conspiracy to destroy the white race/masculinity/Western Civilization. However, it does cause genuine harm.
