Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-06-2016, 01:03   #1
bonyn
Registered User
 
bonyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 278
Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos is considered by some to be anti-feminist, anti-muslim, anti-trans... but he's also gay so gets away with a lot.

Personally i'm a bit right-leaning. I find him hugely entertaining and fairly ballsy for being so unashamedly and refreshingly honest, even if he does resort to trolling.

Any other fans?
bonyn is offline  
Advertisement
28-06-2016, 08:41   #2
baby and crumble
Registered User
 
baby and crumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,157
I didn't know who you were talking about so I quickly read his Wiki page.

"In January 2016, Yiannopoulos co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant with Margaret MacLennan, “a scholarship exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates."

Sounds like the biggest tool going tbh.
baby and crumble is offline  
28-06-2016, 09:03   #3
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 343
This is the guy who's candidly said he's ashamed of being gay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baby and crumble View Post
I didn't know who you were talking about so I quickly read his Wiki page.

"In January 2016, Yiannopoulos co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant with Margaret MacLennan, “a scholarship exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates."

Sounds like the biggest tool going tbh.
There may be a case for scholarships for working class white boys if they are marginalised by efforts to fund students from minorities. But the justification they give just sounds so prejudiced.
reason vs religion is offline  
28-06-2016, 09:17   #4
baby and crumble
Registered User
 
baby and crumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by reason vs religion View Post
There may be a case for scholarships for working class white boys if they are marginalised by efforts to fund students from minorities. But the justification they give just sounds so prejudiced.
TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.
baby and crumble is offline  
28-06-2016, 10:12   #5
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby and crumble View Post
TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.
I don't quite agree. Can hardly justify marginalising one group today based on the marginalisation that occurred because of that group's forefathers previously. Also don't think anyone claims that this marginalisation has occurred because of scholarship programmes that focus elsewhere. But it could be the case that it is being ignored in favour of other disadvantaged groups.
reason vs religion is offline  
Advertisement
28-06-2016, 10:28   #6
bonyn
Registered User
 
bonyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 278
I think the scolarship thing is a stunt to get people talking, and thinking. he fights emotion with facts.
Calling it the "privilege grant" is an indication of his wit and provocativeness ☺
bonyn is offline  
(3) thanks from:
28-06-2016, 19:36   #7
Joeytheparrot
Moderator
 
Joeytheparrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 22,269
Is he a troll or a fact fighter op? I don't think you can be both.
Joeytheparrot is offline  
28-06-2016, 19:39   #8
J_E
Registered User
 
J_E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,528
He's an annoying attention seeker - I'm generally not bothered to read or listen when his name comes up, to be honest. Nothing he has said is really anything but reactionary and usually harmful. Not really sure what else there is to say.
J_E is offline  
28-06-2016, 22:57   #9
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby and crumble View Post

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.
So you therefore think it is totally fair that Universities in the US, will reject a white male with the same grades, class background as a black student but instead choose a black student for the simple reason he is black? US Universities positively discriminate against ethic minorities, but make no allowances for poor white people.

The reality is a lot of the "wage gap" is self made. Go to any University and see women who are studying something which traditionally leads lower paid jobs and they are mainly women. They choose that profession. A lot of women are ignoring STEM jobs. Are we going to blame society and the Government for not forcing women to do courses which lead to higher pay? ie a career in IT over social work

Im all for fair career progression, if someone earns it and works for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest punishing the 'white male' for the actions of generations beforehand and that we should level the playing field whatever that means. If women and other minorities want to be taken more seriously in the corporate world, they are going to have to take themselves seriously too. If women want to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, they need to take the education route to get to that. They cant expect to take a low paid career and moan that they arent earning as much as a male partner in a big four firm.
newacc2015 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
28-06-2016, 23:03   #10
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby and crumble View Post
TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.
I've read some guff in my time but this really takes the biscuit.
FortySeven is offline  
(3) thanks from:
29-06-2016, 12:25   #11
Sonics2k
Registered User
 
Sonics2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,993
So, I am very much a feminist and always have been and will be.

In terms of Milo himself, I am often very conflicted when it comes to what he says as I quite often find myself in agreement with his view of "modern campus feminism", but not his overall view of actual feminism and feminists.

I like that he's calling bullshít on the idea that if you happen to be born white and straight, then you are by default racist and sexist. Hell, it actually happened to me only like 2 weeks ago where a woman I know in passing insisted I am sexist, racist and homophobic for the simple reason I happen to be straight and white.

I like that he's challenging the whole "University is safe space" thing, which is in my mind frankly daft. University is where we go to learn and be challenged on our histories, views and ethics. A good friend of mine working as an Assistant Lecturer at a University in the UK was really really shocked when he found out that people complained about aspects of the course because it made them feel uncomfortable, eg aspects of domestic violence and rape. You wouldn't mind, but this was a course on aspects of the darker side of History in Europe.

He even called out this trash NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’

I don't like that he's a smug faced, snarky Trump supporter who has said far too many positive things about the Catholic Church and their "wonderful" treatment of Gay Men throughout the 20th Century. What I really really dislike is his more recent views on the Trans community.
Sonics2k is online now  
29-06-2016, 13:00   #12
baby and crumble
Registered User
 
baby and crumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by newacc2015 View Post
So you therefore think it is totally fair that Universities in the US, will reject a white male with the same grades, class background as a black student but instead choose a black student for the simple reason he is black? US Universities positively discriminate against ethic minorities, but make no allowances for poor white people.
Of course I don't think that's fair. I'm simple saying that there's a systemic racism and sexism which has existed for many many years. Now that there are attempts (and nobody is perfect in these attempts, let me say) to address that somehow, it's a bad thing. Of course there should be equal access to education, jobs and pay to every single individual however I see no problem with assisting those who are systemically denied access to those things. It pisses men (and privileged women etc) off to point out that in general, white people have oppressed black people for millennia. it happened, lets just be honest here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newacc2015 View Post
The reality is a lot of the "wage gap" is self made. Go to any University and see women who are studying something which traditionally leads lower paid jobs and they are mainly women. They choose that profession. A lot of women are ignoring STEM jobs. Are we going to blame society and the Government for not forcing women to do courses which lead to higher pay? ie a career in IT over social work.
How about we look at the fact that in many single sex schools, there simply is no access to certain science and IT course for female students. Why not ask why in boys schools, very few options are there to take Home Ec or music? I think we can certainly blame our school system for not encouraging students of any and all genders to think outside traditional lines for their career choices. I was lucky, I went to a mixed gender school so I was able to choose to study both woodwork and home ec. My partner, who is younger than me and did her leaving in 2002, had to go to a grinds school to do honours maths. She wanted to do architecture but her school, and the other schools in her area, wouldn't allow female students to take tech drawing. So you tell me, how is that her fault?

Quote:
Originally Posted by newacc2015 View Post
Im all for fair career progression, if someone earns it and works for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest punishing the 'white male' for the actions of generations beforehand and that we should level the playing field whatever that means. If women and other minorities want to be taken more seriously in the corporate world, they are going to have to take themselves seriously too. If women want to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, they need to take the education route to get to that. They cant expect to take a low paid career and moan that they arent earning as much as a male partner in a big four firm.
You don't seem to understand how oppression works. You can't just "work at it" and break through decades, if not centuries of SYSTEMIC, built-in oppression by getting a degree and a job. It doesn't work like that. How is someone from a black or hispanic community in the States, for example, whose local school is chronically underfunded meant to get the grades to get into University? How are they then meant to pay for that 4 year degree?

Likewise in Ireland, it's easy to see the effects of racism on the traveller community, for example. I'm not saying all travellers are innocent lambs, but I personally now a few who have brains to burn and want to succeed but they are discriminated against on a constant basis because of their status as a traveller, and because they come from a poorer background than most, they can't get the start they need. What is the problem with helping them to start? What's the problem with levelling the playing field?

Hey, I'll be honest here, I'm a middle class white woman who went to private school and then was able to get a decent job to put myself through college. I'm now in a great position, but I started from a very different point than someone who didn't have those advantages. I genuinely have zero issue with extra grant money going to underprivileged areas. Even if it meant I had to work twice as much as some of my funded peers in college, what odds? Why should I deny someone the same chances as I had, simply because of who I was born to? I'd happily pay higher taxes if it meant that the local school would take in all races, religions and creeds and treat them 100% equally in our education system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FortySeven View Post
I've read some guff in my time but this really takes the biscuit.
That was a useful contribution to the debate.
baby and crumble is offline  
29-06-2016, 14:30   #13
silverharp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,836
he has got balls, he is supposed to be leading an Pride parade through a Muslim ghetto in Sweden in a couple of weeks
silverharp is offline  
29-06-2016, 16:32   #14
JupiterKid
Registered User
 
JupiterKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,372
IMO anyone who supports Trump is a fool. And there are plenty of LGBT people who are fools.

Foolishness is not restricted to straight white men you know!

Last edited by JupiterKid; 29-06-2016 at 18:54.
JupiterKid is offline  
Thanks from:
29-06-2016, 19:07   #15
Lyaiera
Registered User
 
Lyaiera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonics2k View Post
I like that he's challenging the whole "University is safe space" thing, which is in my mind frankly daft. University is where we go to learn and be challenged on our histories, views and ethics. A good friend of mine working as an Assistant Lecturer at a University in the UK was really really shocked when he found out that people complained about aspects of the course because it made them feel uncomfortable, eg aspects of domestic violence and rape. You wouldn't mind, but this was a course on aspects of the darker side of History in Europe.
I've had direct experience of those types of topics in a course I was doing. One module was on aspects of criminology, particularly related to crimes against the person. The nature of the overall course meant it attracted people who had been victims of crime, rape victims, marital rape victims, people who had experience of child abuse (although not directly to them,) the effects of drug addiction on families, and homelessness.

The lecturer, a battle hardened woman who in her career had dealt with the most horrific things imaginable knew this was a difficult course with serious subject matter that could be very hard on people even if they had no direct experience, or even indirect experience of the topics that came up.

A lot of people present this as a binary option. A lecturer blasts in without a care in the world of the impact of what they're teaching on what may be a vulnerable person. Their attitude is suck it up, this is real, and you're here to learn. On the other side is the people who literally don't want to hear any of it, no matter how important it is to the matter at hand, and don't even want it taught. This is not the reality of the situation though, and it certainly isn't representative of how it was handled in my module.

The first thing the teacher did was outline the progression of the course. What we would be dealing with in what order. They then said if someone has an issue, or is very sensitive to what would be discussed in a particular class they were free to not turn up, or leave during the class if it started to effect them. There would be no questions or interrogations beyond, "Are you ok?" However this didn't mean you were exempt from learning about important topics, or that you could ignore them. It just meant you weren't expected to learn them in a class situation, surrounded by other people, some you may not know, and getting progressively worried and anxious about the situation. What it did mean was that if you didn't go to a particular class, or left a class due to the effects of it you were expected to learn the information and theory in another way. The lecturer would help, they'd give their slides and notes, they'd point out the readings, and if there was seriously difficulty with an issue they'd give a little time to the person individually, in a more relaxed setting. No-one was excused from learning, but if someone did have a serious issue they could learn in a way that was more comfortable to them, with help.

No-one abused this, no-one skipped every class. I don't even know if people had left or not turned up to classes because they had an issue with what was being taught, or if they were just sick, or dossing. No-one asked. People's privacy was respected. But everyone was expected to know the material, and complete the assignments, even if it was on an area they had personal trouble with.

When you present the two opposites of teaching, one with no regard to the students welfare, or the other of not teaching at all because of regards to a students emotional welfare (as opposed to their intellectual welfare) it leaves out other, non-ridiculous, non-hyperbolic strategies for dealing with subjects that are extremely difficult emotionally, but also extremely important.
Lyaiera is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet