I’ve had no reason to take him off of my “best to be avoided” list yet. Maybe one day but not yet. He has “mock shock” down pat when he needs to be a victim and the integrity of a Kelly-Anne Conway to me so far, so I try to steer clear generally. Maybe one day but doesn’t seem worth it at the moment to me.
There’s a slippery line between political camps (and of course there’s more than two) and he resides in that spot at the moment. He has his core following: they’re loyal to Milo and likely always will be. I’ve been seeing him pulled up as the “I’m a non-homophobic god-emperor Trump supporter – Milo’s gay so I can’t be homophobic, fgt” enough times over the past few years that… well, enough of that.
anyway the bit I’ve seen is that he’s moving towards the slippery edge between sides. People who might otherwise never consider listening to his core followers *might* be more inclined to start listening. I was almost tempted to give him a listen after the Berkeley incident… except those guys in black are clearly more of a setup than anything authentic… and he’s pointing at them as liberals? Can’t take that seriously not yet.
The slide-over from anti-SJW in general into harder political drugs is an easy slide to make. My nephew’s been infected although he’s aware of it and it’s become a bit of an in-school joke.
He’s 11 and the other day in a Skype chat late, they were talking about all the colors of the spectrum and he said “I’m normal color”.
Him and his friends had a laugh at his gaffe and they tease him about his mild racism in school but he wouldn’t have said anything like that a year ago.
But the past year he’s been following a few youtubers who express anti-SJW sentiments and a lot of his jokes have been in that vein.
So, he’s making the slide over but at least he’s aware of it for now. I point out when I feel the need but I try not to interfere *too* much ’cause he’s got to make his own way. I just reserve it when it could get him into social trouble.
A few guys kick over garbage cans and break a few windows one day. A few other guys light fireworks and start a small fire.
I’m supposed to take them seriously? I can’t.
Whether they wear black hats or not, there’s always a few people that cause trouble at any large gathering of people that are enthusiastic.
Were they paid by somebody? Are any of them? No idea but paying-for-protestors directly was at least one time a Republican tactic (Brooks Brothers ‘riot’) but the other times I’ve heard about it (from Tea Party to BLM to post-Trump protests with paid individuals) have all been speculation.
I believe people fund organizations that support protestors. Costs money to make signs and hire security and stuff. But the people themselves? I doubt any of them were paid.
The guys in black? Paid? Not paid? Doesn’t matter to me.
Could be people wanting to help Bannan start the Fourth Turning. Could be what people say they are by the signs they hold. No idea.
To me, they’re a side-show.
What impresses me is when a mass of people get together for “something”.
Why do large amounts of people gather? Just to cheer? Because they’re stupid? Maybe. But they shouldn’t be ignored.
In the case of Berkeley, it’s Berkeley. Protesting en masse is their DNA.
The guys-in-black were WOEFULLY out of place at Berkeley. That’s more of a London thing.
Same. That’s why large crowds both baffle and impress me.
I respect large gatherings but I don’t hold to “the masses” concept. Makes me odd because most people I know see a distinction between “me and those who agree with me” and “the masses”. I try not to make that distinction but it’s hard sometimes.
Regarding Westboro – they get to deal with this across the street from them 24/7. Ongoing 24 hr protest.
I suppose I *did* just say “the masses believe in the masses but I’m special because I don’t”… but that would mean I believe in the masses which I don’t
I understand the pragmatism of hierarchy but in a limited fashion. Elimination of hierarchy is impractical for groups above 150 people. Power is something to be handled with care and not abused.