Hypothesis: Most people who decry Milo have never spent anytime listening or reading what he says. They are familiar with what other people have said about him, but that’s about it. As one who has read and heard quite a bit of Milo (and this should not be taken as a defense or sponsorship of what he says, because it’s not), my observations are that many of the righteously indignant have constructed a giant Milo strawman — and thus are working day and night to censor that strawman, through political violence as necessary, so that no child will ever have to be subjected to it’s straw arguments again.
Once again, this is no defense of Milo, but it is a criticism of the disproportionate response to his antics. He’s a blowhard who has done some bad things. I do not sponsor his more reprehensible behavior, but I also don’t think the moral panic against him, which is resulting in people actually condoning violence against him and those who have tried to see him, is doing our country any good. On things where he is wrong, he’s wrong. But in areas where he’s right, he’s an incredibly articulate blowhard who expertly calls out hypocrisy in jedi fashion.
Those who would decry him should do so with the following order of events:
1) familiarize yourself with his views, not just what people have said about him
2) put into context the worst things he has said against some of the more level headed things he has said (they actually exist)
3) if you think, after doing 1 & 2 that he is still reprehensible, fine. If you think violence is still necessary, fine. But at least your self-righteousness is now informed.