tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2660089177097719300.post4895232335423369424..comments2024-03-27T23:59:01.850-07:00Comments on Writing About Writing (And Occasionally Some Writing): Social Justice Bard vs. Milo the TrollChris Brecheenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819138776404280633noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2660089177097719300.post-78593778247724627802017-02-08T00:23:16.791-08:002017-02-08T00:23:16.791-08:00Why thank you! :blush:Why thank you! :blush:Geek Ramblingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15243735458957955818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2660089177097719300.post-37565074946424183742017-02-07T13:05:36.818-08:002017-02-07T13:05:36.818-08:00I actually found your reply to be more interesting...I actually found your reply to be more interesting than the article!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2660089177097719300.post-42035509522959194022017-02-07T05:17:24.242-08:002017-02-07T05:17:24.242-08:00Very interesting, very ethereal, though correct an...Very interesting, very ethereal, though correct and to the point. I would like to point in more obvious terms to something else that is going on here. If MY were as unappealing physically as Bannon, would he draw so many young white men? His act is not even sexually ambiguous, it is outright homoerotic as are pro sports heroes.robertontheairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347703597606351123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2660089177097719300.post-81308880966668952192017-02-06T17:14:58.276-08:002017-02-06T17:14:58.276-08:00I think the strength of MY in the videos I've ...I think the strength of MY in the videos I've seen of him is that he keeps to a very narrow subtext of debate. He looks for and uses the faulty maxims and axioms of his opponents and uses them against them by building a strong cogent argument for HIS claims using the initial conditions of his opponents. If you accept those initial conditions as true (his opponents do) then his logic is impeccable. For a different group, he will alter those initial conditions.<br /><br />Thus, the only way to debate Milo is to attack his initial conditions, because you will never get him on his logic. To attack his initial conditions, you risk the ire of his opponents.<br /><br />Most of what he says is designed to provoke an emotional response. His detractors respond emotionally, leaving him to take the intellectual high ground.<br /><br />To really take down Milo, you have to avoid deductive reasoning and use Socratic reasoning (if he will let you). Question his sources, compare them with others, deconstruct the foundation. Ask lots of yes/no questions, challenge equivocation, use paired examples. If you look, that's exactly what he does to his detractors, and they fall for it. Every. Single Time. <br /><br />For example. Milo doesn't believe Rape culture exists. Simply contrast that with his views on Islam and terrorism. Would you agree Milo, that Muslim terrorism exists because it is enabled by a larger segment of Islamic society? Would you agree that although there are only a handful of terrorists, there are a larger group of extremists that provide support both materially and ideologically? And that beyond that there is an even larger circle of sympathisers that enable that inner circle? Would you consider this a terrorist culture involving a significant proportion of the Muslim world that needs to be tackled first? <br /><br />After that, it writes itself. To disagree with you, he must deconstruct his arguments on other issues.Geek Ramblingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15243735458957955818noreply@blogger.com