I’m saying that stating in blatant terms that you don’t want your money going to pay for a platform for hate-speech is a form of refutation. 

No. Because we live in a society and the opinions of other people along with the laws that are passed as a consequences of those opinions affect me directly and affect people I care about. I am not part of a marginalized group myself, but the idea that a trans person, just to use one example, should just totally…

So censorship and deplatforming are fine, so long as it is not the government offering it?

I’m sure all the upcoming college graduates will feel very privileged when they’re facing an uncertain job market while buried under a crushing mound of debt that can only be discharged upon their death.

I believe in freedom of speech in the sense that the government should not put their thumb on the scale and decide who gets the right to speak. That is dangerous for any number of reasons and that’s why it’s prohibited in the Constitution.

But by doing so, you’re implicitly saying, “These ideas are equal.” You’re giving him more credibility than he deserves.

Exactly. Well said.

Only because he’s chosen to continue speaking out in ways that previous presidents did not. Plus he has a more loyal base and plenty of acolytes to spread his messages in his stead. That said, I honestly do think that his lack of a Twitter and Facebook presence has hurt him.

To be clear, despite getting the same level of catharsis that I imagine you do out of that clip of Richard Spencer being punched in the face, I don’t agree with violent assaults to prevent speech. There are ways to show your displeasure that someone will be speaking in a venue without resorting to violence.

That may work for Milo specifically but there are people of his ilk like Ben Shapiro who thrive on that kind of environment. Public debates aren’t really a good forum for substantive disagreement because there’s no way to live fact-check the participants. 

Why is the most recent president of the United States a big deal?

You’re not wrong that Milo used the attempts to deplatform him to grow his brand, but right-wingers disingenuously do that all the time, always claiming that the left is attempting to silence them whenever they get the slightest pushback. By your logic, we should just let them say whatever they want with no refutation…

You can disagree with the methods that some students have chosen to protest, but to call a group of individuals with no real power joining together collectively to make their voices heard and enact change “authoritarian” really makes it seem like you have no idea what that word actually means. The students are not the…

Do you mean an audience member on that day who gets railroaded by the speaker? In this case all that does is make the speaker look more right. Or do you mean another speaker on a different occasion with a different point of view? In this case, it’s not really a conversation because the audience for the two talks are…

The idea of deplatforming someone isn’t to prove that they are wrong. It’s that it takes away their reach and makes it harder for them to share those wrong views with fertile minds. She can scream into the void about how right she is all she wants.

No one on the right actually believes in free speech. They only believe in freedom from consequences for themselves and those with likeminded opinions. The idea that they have any kind of moral or logical high ground on this issue is laughable. As is the idea that anyone—be it a university, a traditional media outlet,…

Then you’re letting dangerous ideas go unchallenged. Which is the whole point of people like Milo doing these speaking engagements, to seed their disgusting rhetoric into an environment where it’s normally not as present.

“I thought it was strategically appalling… get on that platform and eviscerate his ideas, get on that platform and expose him for the charlatan that he is. You push back hard. You’ve given him so much power by refusing to talk.”

I see the confusion. By “practical,” I meant something that can be worn to the office or a job interview as opposed to something that’s not appropriate for either of those scenarios. Though obviously poor people should be able to have fun clothes too. I certainly agree that being poor shouldn’t mean that you’re forced…

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. By practical, basic clothing, I mean both casual and office attire. I can’t speak to every reseller in the world, but this young woman doesn’t appear to be selling the kind of clothing that someone would wear to an office. She’s selling vintage costume pieces, essentially. I…