Milo: Why he exists, a letter replying to yet another PC call to ban him

Milo: Why he exists, a letter replying to yet another PC call to ban him, by Andrew Russell.

I think your most substantial error is at the end of your article, in which you state that society must always make room for constructive debate but nothing is gained from inflammatory rhetoric. …

Are those who shout insults and pejoratives about ‘cis white males’ and routinely dismiss arguments on the basis of the identities of the arguer engaging in civilized, constructive discussion? Are they being intellectually honest? …

With the exception of economics departments and STEM fields, universities have become political monocultures. The mainstream media too is generally a political monoculture. Society needs space for constructive dialogue, but who is responsible for destroying civility and dialogue? Who homogenised most parts of the university and expelled those of differing viewpoints? Who constructed entire academic journals around esoteric theories which pathologised any disagreement as symptomatic of solipsistic ‘privilege?’ Who is teaching students to shout down, riot and claim imminent threats to mental health at the mere presence of disagreement? Who are the people engaging in advocacy research with the aim of proving that disagreement is ‘violence?’ And who exactly is determining the course content of today’s journalism, literature and communications degrees?

It is not merely people like Milo who are getting attacked; Milo is merely the most flamboyant. Charles Murray and Ben Shapiro, both of whom are very much the kind to stick with civil debate and play respectability politics, frequently get no-platformed and accused of being morally akin to Hitler. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an immigrant woman of color and a classical liberal atheist, gets accused of religious bigotry or racism, as does Maajid Nawaz for attempting to reform and modernise his own faith community.

These examples should make it very clear; … you can play respectability politics and make nuanced, calm arguments, and you will still be called a racist sexist xenophobic internalized-homophobic transphobic ableist cis-speciesist whatever. You will still be dismissed as a psuedo-intellectual lightweight unworthy of serious discussion, mocked, and called an uneducated redneck, if you dissent from contemporary intersectional social justice orthodoxy.

Classical liberals/libertarians and at least the more intellectually inclined conservatives have been doing exactly what you claim they should keep doing for quite literally several decades. It has not worked.

Hence Milo, hence Trump. Think of it as evolution in action, a case of the environment the left created calling forth a new breed of anti-left warrior.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific