This explains a lot. But it’s also more or less what you’re engaging in. The article is full of insults, demonising, and otherwise completely uncharitable readings of conservative ideas. It’s very entertaining to read, and I agree with most of it, but it’s pretty rich to call mainstream British debate a bloodsport and then engage in the same tactics yourself.

Yes, Milo makes a living from playing the role of a crazy person. He’s someone who operates very well when communicating with the masses or when he doesn’t have to hold an argument together for more than two sentences. Beyond that, it all falls apart. There’s a clip from Milo’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast talking about homosexuality and religion. It’s cringeworthy to watch Milo double-down on a failing argument, and you can even see him falter a bit, but much of the alt-right will buy it.

But, with the exception of a single sentence, you pretty much evict Milo and his political ilk from the status of humanity. They’re goblins, or monsters, or any other word that adequately renders the injustice and anti-intellectualism of their ideas. Have you considered that Geert Wilders is a compassionate person who is simply confused about the correct way to maximise human flourishing in society? And that the best way forward is to bury his ideas rather than attack him as a person?

I think it would be wise to separate Milo the Person from Milo the Character. In public life, Milo is playing the role of a provocateur who is completely uninhibited by the usual standards that hold us back from saying some of the crazy things that we may be thinking. He does this simply because it works for him, and he enjoys the attention. I have a hunch that (much the same as Trump), the Character will say anything to garner the support of the disenfranchised masses but he Person holds much less silly, much more concrete, and perhaps even intellectually defensible views.

You’re right, his words and ideas have caused a lot of suffering, but I don’t think that’s sufficient grounds to hate the guy. In fact, I don’t really think there’s really any logical basis for hatred. Try to understand why a person holds their beliefs (admittedly, in cases like Roosh V the answer might simply be “psychopathy”) and use your platform to deconstruct their arguments to prevent people from falling into their ideological trap. That’s really all we can do. Holding hatred in our hearts is only self-destructive.