I had some thoughts regarding a post u/tequila_wolf made in the antifa sub. But apparently my brain farts are to dangerous for that sub. So as I took the time to write my thoughts out for you all, and given that it should probably be up to you what you want to read, I will post my thoughts here.
Trigger warning - this post may contain a point of view you have not considered. If that is likely to cause you mental anguish I advise you not to read further. Thank you
Given it is a year on from the Berkley ET al Milo campus protests, who won?
Personally I think they played into Milo's hand and into the hands of the right in general.
Especially if you look at the perception amongst the average Joe or Jane, who doesn't care too much about politics. Or even young college age people still finding their political 'home'
Viewed from the outside:
Milo/the right : "The left believe in oppression through violence, they don't believe it's OK to criticize the status quo, or in the freedom of expression required in any healthy democracy"
Antifascist: "We reject your right to criticize the status quo, and think it's OK to revoke someone's freedom of expression through unchecked violence"
While this doesn't reflect the true reality of the situation (and for the avoidance of doubt, is not a defense of Milo/right message)
It's what most people took away from the headlines, they couldn't be bothered to read past (because they are not politically engaged)
Worse still, it provided Milo / right with the ability to say: "see, I told you so"
What's more, is the controversy created, drew more people in to hear the message, as it's a natural human instinct to 'see what all the fuss is about'
This then compounds with the fact that the Milo-right are very good at putting together arguments that come across as reasonable, reasoned and logical. (While in fact being persecutory in nature)
The Milo-right presents as reasonable people, simply talking, open to engage in dialogue with their opponents,
The loudest left, comes across as the exact opposite.
It doesn't matter what the future holds for the personal fortunes of Milo. His message (and this political battle) is bigger than one man.
Proven by the way the alt-rights favourite Jewish, pro gay and interracial marriage, victim of child abuse (that's nearly virtue signal bingo), got cast to the side when his liability exceeded his reach and usefulness to the message.
And in all of this, where is the counter message?
Instead of bullying universities into cancelling the talk, a better move would have been to insist on a smart, well read (on Milo's bs), person on stage with Milo to challenge him and provide the counter argument.
This would have been a relatively, low risk strategy. The win could come easily, as his rhetoric is flawed and unchanging. But also, because the left would have put up an 'unknown' against a 'known' / poster child. Therefore a 'loss' even if total would have caused limited damage, but a win would not just damage the credibility of Milo, but the whole right.
A person calmly, intelligently, and eloquently debating Milo, would also, show his slurs against the left to be bullshit.
Given the sway the left had over the university establishment, i believe resorting to violence, destruction, and no platforming tactics present a missed opportunity...
But what do I know...I'm just a Nazi
"Equality uber alles"