Tag Archives: Milo

After the party, sober observations


So, it’s been two years since Trump was elected president and that marks approximately three years that my views have be come more right leaning.

In that time, I have positively inhaled countless hours of more right leaning political media – ranging from books, podcasts and YouTube videos. The opinions, humor and content was so new and interesting to me, that I was positively giddy with excitement to behold it all.

But as with anything when time passes, the initial excitement wears thin and the ensuing sobriety allows you to take a closer look at the actual ‘content’ versus the emotions it elicits.

Here’s the biggest takeaway (currently) that I have in the harsh daylight – just because you think that someone is right about one area doesn’t mean that they will be right – in other areas. or all humans – regardless of their political leanings – are flawed.

A vague and even too on the nose observation, yes? Here’s what I mean.

From about 2015 until sometime in 2018, I watched a  ton of right leaning political commentary videos. A very popular target of their content was anti-SJW, anti-feminism and anti-BLM topics. But it didn’t stop there. In addition to critiquing their opposition’s arguments – these content creators also state – subtly or overtly – that the commentator themselves are not as honest, principled, funny, smart or down right virtuous as the Right.

A couple of examples include Milo Yiannopolus, Matt Jarbo and Dave Ramsey.

It’s easy to see the hypocrisies of Milo and Matt, I was inspired to write this post because of Dave. The jolt to write came after listening to yet another spiel of Dave repeating how reasonable, willing to argue and virtuous the Right is. It’s pretty much his brand’s tagline at this point.

No, the Right isn’t more virtuous. It’s using the stratetigic tactics of the underdog. Kind of when they go low then we go high type of thinking.

So, the Liberal strongholds include academia, legacy media companies and even the general zeitgeist. In addition to attempting to replicate these institutions but from a Right point of view, the alternative side also to make a variation of the appeal to emotion. That is to say, the Right is arguing that not is their cause just (their arguments are logically correct) but the people making the arguments also are imbued with just so many more virtuous qualities than the Left.

Back to Dave Rubin and his repeptive spiel about being willing to have a conservation.

He doesn’t.

The supermajority of Rubin’s guests are right lite, moderate right leaning poltical views. But, thanks to You Tube’s algorithim that makes sure to recommend more and more extreme Right leaning views, I am well aware that his guests’ views are down right tepid by comparison.

So, Rubin, despite all proclamations to the contrary, doesn’t speak to everyone. He has a line, a limit to what he’s willing to tolerate or even what he considers to be serious.

Good grief, what is the point of pointing out that mundane fact.

Not much. Just to note that everyone – on the right or left – has their limits and boundaries that they are willing to set for themselves. The so-called Right proposes that their boundaries are more elastic than the Left, but I think this is only because they are trying to deliberately contrast themselves to a generalized uptight non talkative Left.

Take away: we’re more alike than we would like to admit. The best way to prove this assertion is to look at how more Right leaning regimes behave when they are in power.