Sorry, but no.


Thanks for engaging. As I understand it, Milo et al. were invited to have speeches there. Milo considers himself an entertainer. I’m not splitting hairs, I’d pay to go see him. He’s funny. If any other entertainer has a show on campus, don’t they get paid? Steve Crowder has an online show. Christina Hoffs Sommers is an actual professor. She also has an online youtube presence. I have no problem in paying these people to conduct their business wherever they have permission and poetic license to do it. But that’s not why we’re here.

I do not find anything outrageous or wrong with any of them have to say. Milo in particular speaks about disenfranchising men; the outrageous skew towards women in the family courts and universities, male suicide, racism, education and gender relations. Topics I find worthy of deeper discussion. He is no saint. Neither is he a demon; he found a horse to ride on and he does it as well as he knows how to do. Sounds like capitalism to me; it can be despicable, dirty, venal, evil, and outright antisocial in constitution and configuration. But it’s how we choose to conduct the business of society. We can argue better ways may exist but let’s keep on topic. That’s not why we are here either.

We are here because you don’t agree with his choice of topics. You and others, don’t want him sharing his thoughts, his ideas, his beliefs. What gives you the right to prevent him? Can you point to anything he has done wrong in law? Is there legislation that bars a person from telling anyone who will listen, what he believes?

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly gives the legal precedent for anyone to exercise this form of free speech.

Milo et al are not doing anything legally wrong. Without opposing arguments that could potentially silence them, the left resorts to one strategy and one only: character assassination. To do this it employs loaded words that attack the character of their oppositon. Words like racist, sexist, misogynist, bigot, xenophobe [edit] and now pedophile. Words that attempt to reduce an argument to a defence of character instead of an appraisal of an argument or position. When that stops working, step two: protest.

Marches, silly hats, rambling disjointed demands that range from free abortions to pussys that grab back. Where are the arguments for the wonderful effects of feminism on the family? Where are the facts that support open sexuality and single parent families? Where is the ideological support for the welfare state, free birth control and abortions? There are no arguments, only entitlements and the USA is too deep in debt, too shaky an economy to continue supporting this. Why shouldn’t I be able to hear what Milo et al. say? This is what they talk about and it interests me.

The left has no counter arguments.

Step three: protests deteriorate. Fires are started. Cars overturned. Hapless ATMs and plate glass windows are battered and brutally smashed. To beat a man unconscious and pepper spray his companion is not protest. That’s abuse of the privilege to protest. That’s naked aggression. That’s felony riot. That’s patently illegal.

You can’t sugar coat illegal action with claims of being ungovernable or the right to protest. Your protests physically hurt people and destroy property -in so doing effectively shut down Milo’s right to have his say. I can only conclude that was the intent from the start.

That’s what children do when they don’t get their way. They upset the game in petulant rage. That’s what a failure to use words and arguments becomes; a naked display of force, a foolish display of herd [bovine?] behavior and a vindication of the pitiful lack of a competing narrative from the left.

Your turn.