For some reason, the name Milo Yiannopolous has been appearing lately on my Facebook feed. I guess he's in the news a lot now that Donald Trump is president-elect and Steve Bannon is his chief advisor and Bannon is affiliated with Breitbart.com and Yiannopolous is apparently the technology editor at Breitbart so of course social media would be all a-flutter.
I've been remotely aware of Mr. Yiannopolous but not enough to have formulated an opinion about him. I know, for instance, that Twitter has censored him and that college campuses are banning him. Both of these should be enough to commend him. Then again, the rumors, the hearsay. Alt right! White nationalist! Racist! Bigot! Homophobe! (well, scratch that last one. See BBC interview, below). Maybe I should back away slowly . . . .
Anyway, the other day, on two separate occasions, I saw Facebook postings of a year-old article by Milo (the same article, coincidentally, about women studying science and math), accompanied by reactions ranging from sneering dismissal to consternation to outrage. Curious, I decided to read that article, as well as a few others. And as I did, something began to dawn on me. The guy was yanking our chains. He was making outrageous statements almost matter-of-factly. Isn't this one of the characteristics of irony? Saying one thing, meaning another? For instance, in the article about women and math, he wasn't attacking women. He was attacking something else, political correctness, the hypocrisy of social engineering. Where Facebook people saw misogyny, I detected satire.
But then I began to doubt myself. What if Mr. Yiannopolous was, in fact, serious? What if he really did think women didn't belong in the sciences (for instance) or on the Internet (for another instance)? What if these Facebook folks were right and I was wrong?
Fortunately, I belong to an online community collectively known as Ricochet, which bills itself as "the leading place for civil discussion of the center-right and beyond." As a dues-paying member, I have the privilege of initiating a conversation about whatever's on my mind. Today, Milo was on my mind. What better place to learn more about him than on Ricochet.
So I created the post, "Explaining Milo," which includes at last count 144 responses from the Ricochet community. Judging from the responses, I think my initial impression, that he's a satirist, is accurate. And while I'm not quite ready to label him a modern-day Jonathan Swift, I do think he's a provocateur. Many of the commenters on my post seem to agree, though there's some debate as to the efficacy of his approach.
It occurs to me that most people, both right and left (but predominantly those on the left), in taking Mr. Yiannopolous oh so seriously, may be missing the underlying significance of what he's actually saying. Maybe we need to stop freaking out for a moment, unplug our sensitive ears, and listen.
Explaining Milo (Ricochet)
Interesting top. Years ago I read Father Joe which was about a British (and rather messed up as a person) comedy writer and his encounter with a Catholic priest. He concluded his call to satire was on equal par with the priesthood because he was standing for righteousness and bringing down the big guy. Or at least that's his story.
ReplyDeleteMore recently I heard a podcast by Malcolm Gladwell who saw satire in the same way but added the point that this kind of fighting, if you will, doesn't really work. Because when it comes to humor, we all see what we want to see.
My parents tended conservative (though we never really talked politics but that is my sense) yet they loved All In the Family. Most conservatives just said, "Yeah, that Archie Bunker is a real hoot!" never picking up that it was Norman Lear's way of mocking them.
I certainly don't know Milo but I do appreciate the humor that states something so honestly that it shows how ridiculous it is. Quips like "I feel like I identify as a man tonight; I think I'll use this restroom" would probably bring a chuckle to some of my friends and a scowl on the face of others.
I remember (read about) a story of a nerdy computer guy who used to quote movies and when given an assignment he didn't like say something like, "I'll get you, swamp woman!" I doubt he was making a profound point - and I have friends in business where we might make silly jokes or cultural references to keep things light and humorous.
Well, you guessed it. They fired him for sexual harassment. I guess if you like and agree with someone, you take the time to understand their humor attempts and get their point (if there is a point). But if you already decided you are on the opposite side, you might just assume the worst.
This whole Milo thing has made me aware of how little I understand about satire. Google "lists of satirists," for example. Early, medieval, early modern, late modern, early contemporary, late contemporary, television and radio, music, TV...on and on it goes. So you're trying to fit this one guy into this whole history of satirists. Then I wonder, is he even a satirist? What's the difference between a provocateur and a satirist? Is he one or the other? A mix of both? Did you know that there are different kinds of satire? Horatian, Juvenalian, Burlesque, Parody.... And then I realize how vast is my ignorance! And I wish I could sort of start over, go back to school, study something now that I have context and purpose and a reason for inquiry.
ReplyDelete