7 ms·

That opinion piece is titled "If Milo Yiannopoulos has huge support in Australia, men must call him out". I wasn't aware of the article before your post, but n

That opinion piece is titled "If Milo Yiannopoulos has huge support in Australia, men must call him out". I wasn't aware of the article before your post, but now that I've read it, I don't see anything controversial (much less "atrocious") in it. Care to elaborate?

te_chris 9y ago
Some men feel weirdly threatened by the possibility of a world where their less than stellar behaviour towards women might be called out. Every comment like the one you're replying to is the same "I loved X until they lost all credibility and became biased by Y" where Y = calling out shitty MRA/Alt-right activist figures.
- monksy 9y ago
  Nice try at attempting to slander my character or political stances: but no dice for you. This isn't about my own personal stances. It's about the publication and if you can call it news. I'm really not sure where the MRA or comments on women came from in my original comment. The Guardian (And the BBC) used to my main source for international news, and cultural trends until about 2012ish. That's when they started heavily featuring columnists that put out articles similar to the one that I mentioned. I wrote a letter to an editor with a concern, it got ignored. I stopped taking them seriously (as a whole) and reading as a primary source.
  - thewarrior 9y ago
    I don't get what you're saying at all . Publishing opinion pieces that advance a socio-economic agenda is one of the things I expect of a news paper. If you don't agree with it you can disagree with it in the comments, write a letter to the editor, or stop reading. But I like opinion pieces.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    "This isn't about my own personal stances." I'm not trying to 'slander' your character. Your complaint with the Guardian was literally about an article calling out Milo, a controversial bigot who, as was recently revealed by BuzzFeed, fraternises with Nazis for his own gain. This is a pattern I've seen recur among angry MRA/alt-right types - saying they got sick of news source because of something related to feminism. If you're not MRA/alt-right then I'm sorry, but I'd suggest picking your examples more carefully. I'm not sure why the editor owed you a reply either. You're free to not read it. It can't have meant that much to you as you didn't seem to fight it all that hard.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      I'm no fan of Milo (kinda hate the guy honestly), but I'm not sure if "talking with sources about the topic of an article" really qualifies as fraternizing. That sort of thing is somewhat of a job requirement if you intend to write about the topic honestly. What's he supposed to do, not treat this like real journalism and just publish whatever negative quotes he can get from anyone about it?
    - nailer 9y ago
      Which specific nazis did Milo fraternise with? The Daily Stormer hates him, and he's married to a black man. Or are you using 'fraternises' as 'contacted'? Milo is a journalist, they contact people. The Guardian also contacts nazis. It doesn't mean they are nazis.
  - asymmetric 9y ago
    What has become your primary source?
- Spivak 9y ago
  I'm not the person you replied to. I'm in no way threatened by my personal behavior being called out. I'm threatened because I'm lumped into the category of 'men' and then loaded with all the baggage of every man who I have zero connection with have done or said. Don't get me wrong, I despise those shitty people too, but I also have a bone to pick with the people who are, successfully, generalizing the behavior to men.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    No you're not, I explicitly said 'some'. I'm also a man. I abhor the shitty behaviour, but I recognise that our current conceptions of masculinity enable it - and trap us too. I've been through a few phases with my discovery and reconciliation with feminism, from ignorance, to ridicule, to acknowledgement and some very uncomfortable realisations about my own past behaviour, to now being full-on on board. Feminst arguments aren't just about women, they're about everyone living in a society where masculinity is just one of many forces, balanced with others. Parts of my life are now like this and it's awesome, and actually freeing from all the dullness of traditional masculinity and dominance.
    - nailer 9y ago
      Yes some said 'some' but the article refers to 'men' as a single, unthinking group. Men who refer to women this way are called misogynists and rightly so.
- Aunche 9y ago
  I'm not a fan of Milo either, but the article just reeks of slacktivism. It's just a angry rant that doesn't offer anything new.
- hateduser2 9y ago
  It’s not weird that they feel threatened, they have a lot to gain from that behavior and some may be dependent on it. I think it’s normal to feel threatened by it given their potential lifestyle.
monksy 9y ago
I just typed it directly from my phone. That must have been updated. Haven't read the article, because I've seen numerous others from the news source. The issue I have with an article with a title like this: Why is it a bad thing to support Milo? Why is it "men who need to be called to fight"? (I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that) TL;DR: It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances. (Such as this) I see this as supressing the opposition and has caused a massive swing in action. (i.e. Trump is "magically" elected despite "predictions" saying otherwise, Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population)
- calcifer 9y ago
  > Haven't read the article Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title? > I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that Just a cursory search into who Milo is, what he says and does will show you he is a deeply, virulently intolerant person. And in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance [1]. > It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances. It's the personal opinion column of a journalist. I also don't see anything wrong with her "pushing political stances". Unbiased journalism is a myth. People who call for it are either looking for journalism they already agree with or stuff that is so mundanely unimportant that couldn't possibly contain any stance and therefore news value. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - librvf 9y ago
    > Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title? He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.
  - 9y ago
gadders 9y ago
They later changed the headline to add "If".
- nailer 9y ago
  Yep the URL and various metadata show the article without the 'if' added.

te_chris 9y ago

Some men feel weirdly threatened by the possibility of a world where their less than stellar behaviour towards women might be called out. Every comment like the one you're replying to is the same "I loved X until they lost all credibility and became biased by Y" where Y = calling out shitty MRA/Alt-right activist figures.

monksy 9y ago
Nice try at attempting to slander my character or political stances: but no dice for you. This isn't about my own personal stances. It's about the publication and if you can call it news. I'm really not sure where the MRA or comments on women came from in my original comment. The Guardian (And the BBC) used to my main source for international news, and cultural trends until about 2012ish. That's when they started heavily featuring columnists that put out articles similar to the one that I mentioned. I wrote a letter to an editor with a concern, it got ignored. I stopped taking them seriously (as a whole) and reading as a primary source.
- thewarrior 9y ago
  I don't get what you're saying at all . Publishing opinion pieces that advance a socio-economic agenda is one of the things I expect of a news paper. If you don't agree with it you can disagree with it in the comments, write a letter to the editor, or stop reading. But I like opinion pieces.
- te_chris 9y ago
  "This isn't about my own personal stances." I'm not trying to 'slander' your character. Your complaint with the Guardian was literally about an article calling out Milo, a controversial bigot who, as was recently revealed by BuzzFeed, fraternises with Nazis for his own gain. This is a pattern I've seen recur among angry MRA/alt-right types - saying they got sick of news source because of something related to feminism. If you're not MRA/alt-right then I'm sorry, but I'd suggest picking your examples more carefully. I'm not sure why the editor owed you a reply either. You're free to not read it. It can't have meant that much to you as you didn't seem to fight it all that hard.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    I'm no fan of Milo (kinda hate the guy honestly), but I'm not sure if "talking with sources about the topic of an article" really qualifies as fraternizing. That sort of thing is somewhat of a job requirement if you intend to write about the topic honestly. What's he supposed to do, not treat this like real journalism and just publish whatever negative quotes he can get from anyone about it?
  - nailer 9y ago
    Which specific nazis did Milo fraternise with? The Daily Stormer hates him, and he's married to a black man. Or are you using 'fraternises' as 'contacted'? Milo is a journalist, they contact people. The Guardian also contacts nazis. It doesn't mean they are nazis.
- asymmetric 9y ago
  What has become your primary source?
Spivak 9y ago
I'm not the person you replied to. I'm in no way threatened by my personal behavior being called out. I'm threatened because I'm lumped into the category of 'men' and then loaded with all the baggage of every man who I have zero connection with have done or said. Don't get me wrong, I despise those shitty people too, but I also have a bone to pick with the people who are, successfully, generalizing the behavior to men.
- te_chris 9y ago
  No you're not, I explicitly said 'some'. I'm also a man. I abhor the shitty behaviour, but I recognise that our current conceptions of masculinity enable it - and trap us too. I've been through a few phases with my discovery and reconciliation with feminism, from ignorance, to ridicule, to acknowledgement and some very uncomfortable realisations about my own past behaviour, to now being full-on on board. Feminst arguments aren't just about women, they're about everyone living in a society where masculinity is just one of many forces, balanced with others. Parts of my life are now like this and it's awesome, and actually freeing from all the dullness of traditional masculinity and dominance.
  - nailer 9y ago
    Yes some said 'some' but the article refers to 'men' as a single, unthinking group. Men who refer to women this way are called misogynists and rightly so.
Aunche 9y ago
I'm not a fan of Milo either, but the article just reeks of slacktivism. It's just a angry rant that doesn't offer anything new.
hateduser2 9y ago
It’s not weird that they feel threatened, they have a lot to gain from that behavior and some may be dependent on it. I think it’s normal to feel threatened by it given their potential lifestyle.

monksy 9y ago

I just typed it directly from my phone. That must have been updated. Haven't read the article, because I've seen numerous others from the news source. The issue I have with an article with a title like this: Why is it a bad thing to support Milo? Why is it "men who need to be called to fight"? (I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that) TL;DR: It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances. (Such as this) I see this as supressing the opposition and has caused a massive swing in action. (i.e. Trump is "magically" elected despite "predictions" saying otherwise, Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population)

calcifer 9y ago
> Haven't read the article Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title? > I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that Just a cursory search into who Milo is, what he says and does will show you he is a deeply, virulently intolerant person. And in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance [1]. > It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances. It's the personal opinion column of a journalist. I also don't see anything wrong with her "pushing political stances". Unbiased journalism is a myth. People who call for it are either looking for journalism they already agree with or stuff that is so mundanely unimportant that couldn't possibly contain any stance and therefore news value. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- librvf 9y ago
  > Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title? He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.
- 9y ago

gadders 9y ago

They later changed the headline to add "If".

nailer 9y ago
Yep the URL and various metadata show the article without the 'if' added.