5 ms·

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 issu

by 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.
- monksy 9y ago
  As I stated before: I don't care about why you don't like Milo. What is important and what the news should be covering: Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others) > the society must be intolerant of intolerance Intolerant towards intolerant extreme actions, yes. In an open society, you must be aware that people have different stances and prejudices. Closed societies can't tolerate the "intolerance". (I.e. Some countries you can't criticize the government) > "pushing political stances" Given this stance: I should be given the right to have my stances published in the paper. I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" it is a religious organization, the article is about how the government should respect our religious existence by making pants illegal. Should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like. > Unbiased journalism I agree with you 100% neutral journalism doesn't happen. My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    > Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others) You mean exactly what they did [1] on many [2], many occasions? > I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" [...] should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like. If the paper you send it to considers this newsworthy or something the public should consider, of course. If not, you have many other avenues available to you, including self publishing. > My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves. I'm not sure I understand what "unchecked journalism" is, but I don't see a problem here. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/my-travels-in-white-america-a-land-of-anxiety-division-and-pockets-of-pain https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/my-travels-i... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/donald-trump-president-rust-belt-white-house https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/donald-trump...
pjc50 9y ago
> platforms have been used to push political stances. It's called a newspaper. The British press have never had the American obsession with pretending to be impartial. This has its advantages and disadvantages, but one implication is that it's very clear which party and what politics is supported by which paper.
- simias 9y ago
  Is it really a thing with American newspapers though? Don't they often explicitly endorse political candidates? French newspapers are more like what you describe, all the big ones pretend to be "neutral", whatever that means. Neutrality is a fool's errand IMO, people on your right are always going to say you're a leftist and vice-versa. I want my newspaper to be honest, that's the important part IMO.
untog 9y ago
It's an opinion column. It contains opinions. Why should we be tolerant of Milo's opinions, but intolerant of someone who says we should speak out against his opinions? Complaining about newspaper opinion sections being a platform for pushing political views... that's what they're there for, and why they've existed for hundreds of years before now. You haven't even read the article, so you've obviously arrived with an axe to grind and are just trying to find something that fits. > Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population Yeah, no. Brexit is very popular with the upper class. They're going to make a lot of money from it.
jimnotgym 9y ago
> Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population) The Brexiteers as the leading group like to style themselves (I prefer BeLeaver), are a bunch of the most priviledged upper class old boys of the most expensive schools in England. Boris the Clown went to Eton. Jacob Rees-Mogg got his nanny to deliver election leaflets...and also went to Eton. Farage himself is an ex stock-broker and also attended a top school. This arguement does not hold water
- nailer 9y ago
  Yes, political movements tend to be headed by the wealthy and successful. I was a member a pro remain group where the same charge could be made. The authors point is that Brexit was supported by working class non metropolitan people more than remain was.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    [Citation needed]
    - nailer 9y ago
      For which point? - For the first, Entrepreneurs In (my group) was obviously, well, entrepreneurs. - For the second, everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that non-London folk won it for Brexit. You're literally the first person I've ever met that would dispute this.
      - jimnotgym 9y ago
        I agree that non-London folk swung it. But it is a bit of a stretch to think either a) that makes everyone outside London working class b) that other cities didn't vote Leave I see lots of landed gentry and farmers who were big on Leave (back then). Lots of Tory home counties types too. I don't think it is even slightly helpful to consider it a class issue.
        9y ago

by monksy 9y ago

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.
monksy 9y ago
As I stated before: I don't care about why you don't like Milo. What is important and what the news should be covering: Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others) > the society must be intolerant of intolerance Intolerant towards intolerant extreme actions, yes. In an open society, you must be aware that people have different stances and prejudices. Closed societies can't tolerate the "intolerance". (I.e. Some countries you can't criticize the government) > "pushing political stances" Given this stance: I should be given the right to have my stances published in the paper. I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" it is a religious organization, the article is about how the government should respect our religious existence by making pants illegal. Should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like. > Unbiased journalism I agree with you 100% neutral journalism doesn't happen. My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves.
- calcifer 9y ago
  > Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others) You mean exactly what they did [1] on many [2], many occasions? > I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" [...] should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like. If the paper you send it to considers this newsworthy or something the public should consider, of course. If not, you have many other avenues available to you, including self publishing. > My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves. I'm not sure I understand what "unchecked journalism" is, but I don't see a problem here. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/my-travels-in-white-america-a-land-of-anxiety-division-and-pockets-of-pain https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/my-travels-i... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/donald-trump-president-rust-belt-white-house https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/donald-trump...

pjc50 9y ago

> platforms have been used to push political stances. It's called a newspaper. The British press have never had the American obsession with pretending to be impartial. This has its advantages and disadvantages, but one implication is that it's very clear which party and what politics is supported by which paper.

simias 9y ago
Is it really a thing with American newspapers though? Don't they often explicitly endorse political candidates? French newspapers are more like what you describe, all the big ones pretend to be "neutral", whatever that means. Neutrality is a fool's errand IMO, people on your right are always going to say you're a leftist and vice-versa. I want my newspaper to be honest, that's the important part IMO.

untog 9y ago

It's an opinion column. It contains opinions. Why should we be tolerant of Milo's opinions, but intolerant of someone who says we should speak out against his opinions? Complaining about newspaper opinion sections being a platform for pushing political views... that's what they're there for, and why they've existed for hundreds of years before now. You haven't even read the article, so you've obviously arrived with an axe to grind and are just trying to find something that fits. > Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population Yeah, no. Brexit is very popular with the upper class. They're going to make a lot of money from it.

jimnotgym 9y ago

> Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population) The Brexiteers as the leading group like to style themselves (I prefer BeLeaver), are a bunch of the most priviledged upper class old boys of the most expensive schools in England. Boris the Clown went to Eton. Jacob Rees-Mogg got his nanny to deliver election leaflets...and also went to Eton. Farage himself is an ex stock-broker and also attended a top school. This arguement does not hold water

nailer 9y ago
Yes, political movements tend to be headed by the wealthy and successful. I was a member a pro remain group where the same charge could be made. The authors point is that Brexit was supported by working class non metropolitan people more than remain was.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  [Citation needed]
  - nailer 9y ago
    For which point? - For the first, Entrepreneurs In (my group) was obviously, well, entrepreneurs. - For the second, everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that non-London folk won it for Brexit. You're literally the first person I've ever met that would dispute this.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      I agree that non-London folk swung it. But it is a bit of a stretch to think either a) that makes everyone outside London working class b) that other cities didn't vote Leave I see lots of landed gentry and farmers who were big on Leave (back then). Lots of Tory home counties types too. I don't think it is even slightly helpful to consider it a class issue.
      - 9y ago