[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Nexlev]

We wouldn't even be discussing Milo if Commodore wasn't right.

It's his whole shtick, his audience would not exist without the outrage. Before his college tour there were a couple clips of Milo on youtube from British TV shows, but he was largely a no-name. His antics have also upped the profile of Breitbart as far as I can tell. He's definitely not winning people over with logic.

Is that the question: whether the riots are helping or hurting Milo? Or am I walking into a conversion lacking an understanding of the context.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not the numbers that count though, it's the rate at which those numbers are acquired. Milo saw a huge jump in his YouTube view counts and subscriber count after the riots at Berkeley. Now you could say it might just be his opponents going on there to dislike his videos and leave mean comments, but that doesn't really matter. YouTube's algorithm doesn't use likes and dislikes anymore when determining how far up in the search results a video or channel should be pushed. It looks at a combination of overall watch time and whether or not your videos/channel are "trending" (getting a huge spike in views/subscribers in a short amount of time). So even if it is just anti-Milo people going on there to troll him, they are still helping him out by doing so since the algorithm just sees it as another view and thinks his videos are getting those views because people like him.

It's still ultimately the numbers, though. If you run a mile one day and two miles the next, you've still run less than the guy running ten, and Milo's audience is still quite limited when compared to second- or even third-tier YouTube personalities, and while I wouldn't over-emphasise the significance of that particular metric, it does suggest that his notoriety has gotten ahead of his popularity. It's one thing for everyone to be saying your name, but unless you can turn fleeting attention into enduring influence, you're just another sideshow performer.

And what makes you think I've never heard of those YouTubers? Oh that was just a baseless assumption on your part? Got it.

I assumed that you haven't heard of them because, well, why would you? They're a niche interest, most people haven't heard of them.

I really don't know why that's something you'd choose to take personally.

We wouldn't even be discussing Milo if Commodore wasn't right.

If the discussion consists mostly of people going "oh geez what a bellend", Commodore is, at best, only right-ish.

 

[aelf]

We wouldn't even be discussing Milo if Commodore wasn't right.

We could also have a common man's paradise if people weren't greedy and stupid.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We wouldn't even be discussing Milo if Commodore wasn't right.

Correct. We wouldn't. But that really isn't the point. The people who follow Milo's every move on Breitbart are the people who buy books off the alt-right presses, and those people would have been talking about "how cool it was that Milo outed some dirtbags" if there had been no riots. Instead they are talking about "evil *******s attacking Milo's free speech." But it doesn't really matter what the details are, Milo was going to be the talk of that ilk either way. The only variable is whether he got to ruin some lives or not, because his target audience was going to be talking about him either way. We, assuming we aren't that target audience, can be talking about him, or not, and it doesn't make a difference either way.

 

[Hygro]

We could also have a common man's paradise if people weren't greedy and stupid.

Maybe

 

[Commodore]

I doubt the algorithm cares: presumably it rewards views because everyone viewing a video has to watch the adverts, whether they like the video or not.

Well, yeah that's pretty much what I said. YouTube's algorithm changed a few months back to put much more emphasis on "how popular has your channel/videos been in the past 24 hours" rather than overall view counts and subscriber counts. That's because YouTube wants more viral videos since more viral videos means more people are seeing the ads.

You've made this claim at least twice now. Do you have evidence to support it?

Yeah, and I already posted where to find it. If you don't know how to look at the analytics for a YouTube channel, that's your problem not mine.

Translation: I haven't heard of them but wouldn't admit it under torture

Another baseless assumption.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Another baseless assumption.

Has it occurred to you that all these "baseless assumptions" people make about you actually have a common source and aren't baseless at all?

Okay, strike that.

You are certainly smart enough to know that already.

So, my conclusion is that you intentionally misrepresent and create an unflattering image so that you can cry about the "unfairness" when people point out the ugliness you have hinted at. What do you have to gain from that?

 

[Commodore]

Has it occurred to you that all these "baseless assumptions" people make about you actually have a common source and aren't baseless at all?

Okay, strike that.

You are certainly smart enough to know that already.

So, my conclusion is that you intentionally misrepresent and create an unflattering image so that you can cry about the "unfairness" when people point out the ugliness you have hinted at. What do you have to gain from that?

What does any of this have to do with what YouTubers I'm aware of and which ones I'm not? It seems like you were just waiting for an opportunity to say something like this to me.

The baseless assumption was Traitorfish assuming what I know and what I don't know without having any possible way to accurately ascertain whether or not his assumption was correct. Regardless of what someone may think of my personality, it doesn't mean they get to make assumptions about my level of knowledge on a given topic.

 

[Lexicus]

The baseless assumption was Traitorfish assuming what I know and what I don't know without having any possible way to accurately ascertain whether or not his assumption was correct. Regardless of what someone may think of my personality, it doesn't mean they get to make assumptions about my level of knowledge on a given topic.

So can I ask whether you knew who Traitorfish was talking about? Is there any chance at all of your answering truthfully?

I tell you frankly, I had no idea who they were and wouldn't be insulted if Traitorfish had assumed that was the case, because they are obscure and I don't want or need an encyclopedic knowledge of Youtube channels. If you didn't know who they were, as seems incredibly likely to me, why are you making such a big deal of someone making the (entirely reasonable) assumption that you didn't know who they were? No one was insulting you because you didn't know who these Youtube stars were. No one would consider it strange, no one thinks they are something you should have known about. So what gives?

 

[Sommerswerd]

He claimed it was all blatant lies simply based off the fact that one of the claims was false. He operated on the logic that if one was false, it must all be false. This is evidenced by the fact that he said "These seem to be blatant lies", not "the Twitter claim is a blatant lie".

EDIT: Don't try to gaslight me like that Sommer. You're one of the few people on here I still actually like. Not to mention such a tactic is beneath you.

I agree with you that west india man concluded that all your claims were lies based on the fact that one of the claims was demonstrably false. I hope you will agree that this is an understandable, albeit not completely logical conclusion for him to make. Did you notice that in my post to you I specifically said that your response "OK that one was false but the other claims are true" was a perfectly legit answer?

I don't see how you can call that "gaslighting" you. In any case, I'll leave it at that, cause I recognize that you're fighting on a lot of fronts right now and I'm not interested in dogpiling you on what is essentially a tangential issue.

 

[BvBPL]

Bob Garfield did a really excellent interview with Ryan Holiday on the backlash against Yiannopoulos at Berkeley. Holiday, author of Trust Me, I'm Lying, discussed how Yiannopoulos used the violence at Berkeley to go from being a marginal columnist to a household name. If you need a reason to embrace non-violence, consider that the violence rioting against Yiannopoulos was exactly part of his plan. He's a merchant of outrage, and he incites outrageous behavior from others to further his own interests. The best way to oppose him is to deny him the spectacle upon which he feeds.

 

[aelf]

Bob Garfield did a really excellent interview with Ryan Holiday on the backlash against Yiannopoulos at Berkeley. Holiday, author of Trust Me, I'm Lying, discussed how Yiannopoulos used the violence at Berkeley to go from being a marginal columnist to a household name. If you need a reason to embrace non-violence, consider that the violence rioting against Yiannopoulos was exactly part of his plan. He's a merchant of outrage, and he incites outrageous behavior from others to further his own interests. The best way to oppose him is to deny him the spectacle upon which he feeds.

I'm not really expecting any kind of an honest response at this point, but you do realise he's saying that any protest and outrage, violent or not, is part of Yiannopoulos' plan, right?

Do you need any more reason to embrace your true calling of no-protest?

 

[BvBPL]

BOB GARFIELD: All right, so you wrote the handbook. If you were to write the handbook for those trying to, you know, shut down ugly provocateurs before they even get started, what would that look like?

RYAN HOLIDAY: It's interesting. You know, the word that I see thrown out there the most, the thing that people are somehow afraid of, they’re, they’re afraid of “normalizing” all of this. But I actually think that's exactly how you should be thinking about it. You’ve got to remember that, particularly to the audience that a lot of these groups appeal to, being told that something shouldn't be allowed, that it's forbidden, that it's, it’s an offensive truth is what makes it appealing. So you are showing the, the followers, the, the members of this mob that, oh, they’re – they have to shut us down, they have to use violence because we’re onto something.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems like you were just waiting for an opportunity to say something like this to me.

Of course. I just decided out of the blue to pick on little you. No amount of bait you throw out has ever had anything to do with the number of people snapping at you.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't support Milo. He is undoubtedly a racist, among other things. However rioting is not a good idea. It will only make his own supporters more riled up than they already are. And when his side appears to be abused, it will make others more sympathetic to him, even if they don't agree with him. When he says things like "left wingers are against free speech" and then they straight up try to stop him from having an event, you are effectively proving him right. Ironically I think he would be a nobody if people just rolled their eyes and ignored him. He thrives on controversy, and gets there by making shock value statements. And "Lol I'm a gay Jewish man with a black boyfriend, take that liberals"

 

[bernie14]

 

[Commodore]

So can I ask whether you knew who Traitorfish was talking about?

I wasn't aware of Grav3yardgirl, mostly because I have no need for makeup tutorials. I knew about Rhett & Link because I watch their stuff occasionally, and I knew about Buff Dudes from some of my friends.

Is there any chance at all of your answering truthfully?

You say this like I have been habitually and intentionally dishonest on here. You aren't the first person to accuse me of this and quite frankly it confuses me because every time I ask someone to point out even one scrap of evidence where I have been intentionally dishonest, they are able to produce nothing. So where does this perception that I am dishonest come from? Is it just because you find me disagreeable, therefore in your mind I must be dishonest as well?

I realize that I'm far from being the most polite or nicest member of this forum, but I don't lie or argue in bad faith.

So what gives?

It was the positioning, context, and overall tone that led me to take offense at what Traitorfish posted. He structured the post, whether intentionally or not, in a way that implied I have no clue what I'm talking about and that I have no perspective on the matter, so my statements on the matter should just be dismissed. Just think if a poster here did that to you. You'd feel pretty insulted as well.

Of course. I just decided out of the blue to pick on little you.

No, it's not out of the blue. You've had a problem with me for a long time now because I've insulted you in the past. In any case, the post I quoted was you lashing out at me personally for something that had absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed, so how else was I supposed to interpret that post?

 

[aelf]

quotes

Nope.

That’s what’s so misguided about what happened at UC Berkeley. From what I understand, most of the violence was perpetrated by infiltrators who were looking to sow chaos and destruction. Yet many of the peaceful protesters and organizers have admitted that they too were attempting to shut down Milo’s talk. The last thing you ever want to do is give an opponent the moral high ground—and attempts to suppress, intimidate and revoke constitutional rights do exactly that.

Article

His beef isn't with violence; it's about free speech. He disagrees even with the peaceful protesters. I think you do too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't support Milo. He is undoubtedly a racist

Oh well if you say so, I guess there is no doubt. Mind you it doesn't take very much to be classified as "undoubtedly" racist in these part.

 

[caketastydelish]

Oh well if you say so, I guess there is no doubt. Mind you it doesn't take very much to be classified as "undoubtedly" racist in these part.

Most people who know my post history on this forum know I openly mock political correctness. This guy is more than politically incorrect. He is straight up in racist territory.

edit: I'll also add that someone who says "I don't like black people" as you did in the punch a Nazi thread. If someone thinks "not liking black people" isn't racist, then it wouldn't' surprise me that they don't think Milo is racist either. With all due respect.