Is literary criticism part of the canon?

And Milo was paid to suck cock whats your point

That is embarrassing

I like milo, but I don't see what the big deal about him is. If he's an substantial threat to your ideology, you really need to reevaluate your position, because it appears to be weak as fuck.

Why do they even dignify his book with a critique? Just ignore it. Everyone who isn't already a fan of Milo already knows it's worthless.

Many of them are very upset his book is selling extremely well compared to theirs.

Funny stuff.

Libtards are so cringeworthy

The worst part is the critic honestly thought he was being really clever trying to write that review

Upper shelf kek

If the literary criticism is written by Edgar Allan Poe then yes. If it's written by Edmund Wilson or Bloom......not so much.

I was on a few writing forums when his book deal got announced and there had to be 10 threads on every one of them that basically said, "Isn't it bullshit this racist, homophobic, misogynistic piece of shit got a book deal and i didn't!!! The world is unfair!!! fucking trump!!!"

Looks so fucking sexy in picrel

I legitimately don't understand those people, have they ever looked at the nonfiction best seller lists? It's almost entirely dominated by conservative and libertarian authors.

>greek
>gay
>homophobic
you may think those are both contradictions, but thay actually fit with each other.

they're just idiots in general, that's why they're on a writing forum to begin with. Most of them think it's going to advance their career if they pretend to be part of the sjw movement are are incensed by the fact that it doesn't help at all.

A great thinker of our time.

>greek
>gay
where's the contradiction?

Exactly.

If you live on neetbux u should an'ero. If you live on commission youre literally getting paid to conform to someone else's idea of quality (editor, consumer, etc.) If you live on a farm, youre probably a redneck or a goatfucker or both.

He's a contrarian that sounds like he walked out of /pol/. About the only reason I like him is that he at least makes the points in interesting ways, it's conservatism the left has trouble dealing with.
Liberals usually pull the "well he's not really black/gay/minority if he believes that" but Milo is too well spoken for that to work, so they go straight to the ad hominem and insults, yet Milo is always polite and doesn't even yell like most right-wing pundits I listen to.
When someone is reacting emotionally, you know they have no argument. Milo's going to win the argument because Liberals can barely string together a coherent thought process these days.
To me it's more of an example of just how far and fast Obama was able to move the country to the Left to the point where not even the people who voted Democrat can even support him anymore. If you look how Trump got elected, it was due in large part to defecting democrats, not republican turnout.
This is going to be the "new" right. They'll basically be what liberals were 30-15 years ago. In my mind, the liberals won the moment obama passed obamacare because americans never say no to free stuff. No way it's ever getting repealed, we're nosediving into singlepayer, mark my words.

My only problem with him is his ego is starting to get to dangerous levels, it's going to cause him problems.

In his npr interview, he refers to himself as "The Milo," more than a few times.

>My only problem with him is his ego is starting to get to dangerous levels, it's going to cause him problems.
He is a narcissistic cunt, but he is doing gods work. Without his edgy antics no one would have ever realized just how batshit the left has become. The edgy things he said 3 years ago about feminism are now almost normie tier, and I applaud him for that.

Milo is a libtard

I'm not clicking on anything from The Guardian. I remember one article posted here from some broad saying that I'm sexist if I don't own exactly the same number of books written by men and by women.

I might actually buy Milo's book just because The Guardian doesn't want me to. At least I assume they don't. Again, I'm not clicking the link.

You can't beat the Guardian for comedy gold, I still fucking love the "My son's tattoo hurt me deeply" article, It'd make Freud blush.

I saw one where a woman was seriously arguing that "she's a woman" was a perfectly good and legitimate reason to vote for Hillary.

Not an argument the post.

This is the table of contents. Thoughts?

he got that nietzsche swag to his chapter titles tho

Everybody has already forgotten about this literal faggot long ago

What about Pound?

I wish I were a minority, being able to repost /pol/ content irl for money sounds like such an easy job.

I'm interested in reading it.

Maimonides wrote, in his Guide to the Perplexed, that his book was a dangerous book, not to be read until one has proceeded long in the study of his faith and then, only then, was one permitted to read only the chapter titles, if guided by a great teacher. With this advice in mind, we may proceed to read Milo's Dangerous, paying special heed to the chapter headings and the order in which he has arranged them.

The title, however, is effectively the first line of a book. Many books from antiquity do not have titles; Plato's dialogues, for example, were entitled by the Byzantine scribes, who gave them two titles. So the dialogue we know as the Phaedo was also given the subtitle of Περι Ψυχης, or "concerning the soul." Milo announces his title as "Dangerous," which is meant as a warning to the reader. Its contents are to be treated carefully, as potentially volatile. With this warning in mind, we may proceed.

Milo's "Dangerous" is divided into three prefatory sections, eleven numbered chapters, and an epilogue. The back matter (acknowledgements, endnotes, and index) were compiled by later scribes and, well useful in any interpretation, are not meant to be part of the work itself. Taken as a whole, then, the work has fifteen parts. If one counts all fifteen parts of the book, the central chapter is chapter 5, "Why Black Lives Matter Hates Me." If one takes only the eleven numbered chapters as constituting the work as a whole, the central chapter is 6, "Why the Media Hates Me." These two chapters, then, are the hinge on which the entire book pivots. At some level, the hatred of Black Lives Matter and the Media towards Milo are meant as decisive and so color all the rest that follows.

>me
>me
>me
>me
yikes.

The book begins with the Foreword, the Preamble, and the Prologue. Should the reader not have been deterred by the title of the book, in which Milo announces that his book is not to be read, the author here, by way of excessive prefatory matter, tries to dissuade the unwary from continuing in the book. One would imagine an author coming right to the point, perhaps with a word of introduction. Even Hegel, who was not shy of verbosity, wrote his Phenomenology's Preface under some compulsion. The classic modern writers, such as Machiavelli and Hobbes, often began with a dedicatory preface and then immediately launched into the work itself. Plato, of course, began middle of his dialogues in the midst of a conversation. Milo's approach is obviously different, in that he wants to slow the reader down before the reader reaches the numbered sections of the text.

On the other hand, however, this excessive prefatory matter is deceptive. The Foreword is entitled, "So, About that Whole Drama." Milo assumes his astute reader will know the subject matter of the book before beginning it. After all, the precise "drama" or "doings" (Gk: δράω=to do) are not mentioned but, rather, assumed. The astute reader, then, rather than being put off by the warning of the title, finds instead its urgency; if one is already embroiled in the "doings," then acquainting oneself with dangerous material may be helpful, even needful, perhaps the one thing needful.

All this could have been avoided if people practiced the simple art of judging a book by its cover. Take this book for instance. What are some immediate red flags? Let's look at the title. It is in all caps, clearly made to look "trendy", and it pointlessly ascribes an attribute of the author of the book. This demonstrates that the publishing company behind the book probably is in the business of making quick bucks marketing to autistic teenagers. Next, a picture of the author, in black and white, in a "cool looking" pose is enough to show that he is a talentless hack & that everything he writes will be worthless. Finally, if you want to confirm that the book deserves to be burned, look up the author and see if they are an "internet personality" or if they have any degree of "internet fame"

This article reads like a fucking Veeky Forums post. Nat saying it's wrong, but still.

The Preamble is entitled "On Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness." The two things to note are that Milo has entitled this section a Preamble, bringing to a contemporary American reader's mind nothing so much as the Preamble to the Constitution, which explains to the world why it is necessary to found a nation with such a document. The American Constitution's Preamble lists the goods that are to be secured through the institution of the American government. These resonances suggest that Milo imagines himself to be founding a new polity, a task which, as Machiavelli notes, is no less dangerous than the exploration of a dangerous continent. Milo must found this polity with some purpose, this purpose being enumerated in the title of the Preamble itself: "On Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness." Freedom of speech is to be secured. It is worth noting, finally, that this section is the middle section of the prefatory sections; the entire preface of the book revolves around the issue of freedom of speech.

The final section of the prefatory matter is entitled "The Art of the Troll." This calls to mind Donald Trump's text "The Art of the Deal;" Milo is, recall, associated with the period of the rule of Donald Trump. It also clarifies what the "doings" and "drama" of the first section are; we are to be engaged in trolling; that is, making others angry either for personal satisfaction or to show up their hypocrisy. We are engaged, then, in a drama concerning freedom of speech in order to destroy hypocrisy and satisfy ourselves. It is still unclear, however, why such a task should be "Dangerous."

This. Milo is a troll in the same was Socrates was a troll. He asked questions that exposed the worst traits in others: hypocrisy, stupidity, deceit. Milo's process will ultimately be a benefit to the state.

The intellectual points are not overly original, but the book is elegantly written and entertaining. He has a good ghostwriter.

Think-tanks and PACs spend a ton of money literally giving away books
When I was a campus libertarian I remember my chapter president promoting some website that would mail you free boxes of Hayek

>He is a narcissistic cunt, but he is doing gods work.
Taking $100k in donations from conservatives to hand out scholarships, making off with the money, and grudgingly giving out $25k a year later when repeatedly called out on it by fellow conservatives is an incredibly good way of advancing the cause

Milo is a huckster pretending to be a culture warrior and a fucking pedophile. The fact that large numbers of supposedly right-wing teenagers consider him to be on the cutting edge of anything makes me fearful for the integrity of honest conservatism. The alt-right was correct in expelling him and he should be getting sodomized in prison

>not transcending money and thus living under a bridge, going to sleep cold and hungry and stalking your oneitis in the daytime.

do i even have to say it? do i?

We can now proceed to the eleven numbered sections. The first thing to note, the first thing anyone notices, of these sections is the repetition of "hatred" and "me;" that is, the author, Milo. Milo most emphatically points to himself in the numbered sections of the book. We also finally get a clue as to why the book is dangerous, the drama of the troll incurs hatred. Of the eleven numbered sections, nine of them concern groups hating Milo; one, the tenth, concerning gamers, notes that a group does not hate Milo; and the final section, the eleventh, notes that his college tours are "awesome." "Awesome" is an interesting choice of word because it means both awe-inspiring (and so recalls the danger of the task of founding a polity in free speech) and also "very enjoyable." The awesome-ness of the college tours, coming at the end of the numbered sections, re-iterates the subject matter of the prefatory sections of the book: the needful, but enjoyable, danger of trolling others for free speech.

It is too tedious to list the specific groups which Milo insists hate him. The tedium and repetition of the hatred have the effect of dulling the reader's recognition of any particular group that hates him. They're all, in effect, interchangeable. It is worth noting, however, that Milo intends for us to see that otherwise opposing groups (eg "Progressives" in ch. 1 and the "Alt-Right" in ch. 2) hate him. Through this tedious repetition of oppositions, both to others, and to himself, we are made to focus solely on hatred as such and, through that, the hatred one incurs by attempting to found "new modes and orders" (Machiavelli).

The one group, finally, that does not hate Milo are the "Gamers." The chapter on Gamers leads directly into the chapter on the Awesome. The suggestion is that the awesomeness of the task and its status as a game are mutually-implicating. Recall that the task is enjoyable, but also dangerous.

good post

I wonder how he tries to handwave the fact that he was down with kiddie-diddling

I mean the rest of the book is probably extended reddit screeds, I'm only interested in that one chapter. If anyone has a copy fucking take cell phone pictures of the pages svp

>it's a Socrates was a troll episode
lad have you actually read Socrates or do you just like to namedrop him in order to seem "well read"

The final section of the book is the epilogue. The Epilogue follows upon (επι) the argument (λογός) of the book. It is then a capstone and summation to the book. In its title, we find a confirmation of our initial thoughts regarding the double danger and pleasure which was the subject matter of the book itself. The final chapter is entitled: "How to Be a Dangerous Faggot (Even If You're Not Gay)." Milo then intends to instruct his audience in the "drama" with which he is concerned. Now we can understand why the book is so "Dangerous;" in reading it, one comes to participate in the dangerous, but pleasurable, trolling in the task of establishing a polity devoted to free speech. He tells us that we can become "dangerous faggots" even if we "are not gay;" in so doing, he lets us know that the dangerous path, Milo's path, is in principle universal; that is, open to all times and all places. One is placed in mind of Socrates' admonition to Glaucon that the ideal city is laid up as a pattern in heaven for all time, not merely for Greek cities but also, perhaps especially, for far-flung barbarian ones, as well.

>Why Gamers Don't Hate Me
holy fucking lmao

I didn't say Socrates was a troll, Outback Steakhouse onion man. I said Milo is a troll and he shares some traits with Socrates. Specifically: exposing hypocrisy through conversation. Does everyone have to repeat themselves for you? Learn to comprehend, fatty.

Glad to see a posted image involving Walt Bismark on lit of all places!

>exposing hypocrisy through conversation

sometimes i give Veeky Forums the benefit of the doubt and then i see posts like this and remember to never make that mistake again

Made me cringe.

This anti-SJW stuff and the whole Milo thing is going to go out of vogue really soon.

Actually, it already has, but in a couple of years anyone who participated in this Milo style trolling is going to look back on it like how they look back on their awkward phases or trends they participated in in high school.

>trollan is a continuation of the socratic tradition

this is why nobody likes millennials

Why were the people of Athens upset with Socrates? Why did they vote for his execution? Because he engaged in lines of questioning that were dangerous. Read it again, useless:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)#I_went_about_searching_after_a_man_who_was_wiser_than_myself:_at_first_among_the_politicians.3B_then_among_the_philosophers.3B_and_found_that_I_had_an_advantage_over_them.2C_because_I_had_no_conceit_of_knowledge.

They were all citizens who presented skill and knowledge in their professions but were, in fact, lacking. Hypocrisy.

If you can't keep up with conversation just don't say anything thanks.

Yeah, fine, I get that Milo and Socrates are superficially similar, but that's like saying that Eisenhower and Hitler are the same because they both built nation-wide highway systems. Not to mention that Socrates also had the theory of the forms (at least in the dialogues); that is, Milo better start coming up with something positive instead of negative real damn quick because trolling gets old without out. This is why, of all the anti-SJW crusaders who shot up recently, the only one to gain any mainstream traction is Jordan Peterson, who at least has things to teach.

You can get an ebook of it pretty easily

>all these buttmad liberals who let politics cloud their judgment

i have a phd in philosophy. i'm pretty fucking familiar with the apology. if you think what milo does is socratic by any measure, you should really consider reading more plato

>Yeah, fine, I get that Milo and Socrates are superficially similar

it's not fine because they aren't similar at all. not even superficially. socrates presented refutations of pythagorean relativism that are still defended today, milo calls himself "the kanye west of political writers."

i don't even want to continue this thread because it's so colossally stupid. with whom is milo actually in conversation with? he does a lot of shrieking and soapboxing to adolescent CHUDs who can appropriate him as their gay get-out-of-jail-free-card. how the fuck anyone can confuse socratic dialogue and alt-right demagoguery is absolutely beyond me

Your imaginary phd is worth jack shit on Veeky Forums, my man. Go look at the TOC list of Athenian accusers again.

I am apolitical. I voted for Obama twice, served under him in the Army, then voted Trump and got out. Socially liberal, economically conservative. I have no faith in any of our current political parties, or their leaders. Milo is exactly what this country needs. I don't even like the guy, but you are wrong. One could say the big difference between Milo and Socrates is he comes at people with the assumption that he knows better than they do. But I don't know him personally.

rly?

I thought you were like 16

>with whom is milo actually in conversation with?

I have in mind CNN panels, Bill Maher panels, Hannity, late night talk show hosts, and so on. Defenders of the so-called deep state or otherwise interested in shutting down criticism.

just shut the fuck up and read this

Just reiterating this user's point. He was exactly correct.

Witness:

>this weak tea appeal to authority

im good family

Triggering people isn't the basis for a comprehensive worldview and many of his allies have zero problems with censoring liberals, leftists and non-christians

>doesn't know what a logical fallacy is
>never read the apology
>milo supporter

it's all coming together

Are you unironically using the 'triggered sjw' card to defend your confirmation bias? Did this thread give you PTSD? And Milo's allies are not Milo. Place blame where it belongs, smart guy.

yeah, pretty much. milo is not in dialogue with anyone so qualified as the preeminent philosophers of his age. he's dealing with media demagogues. even ignoring his own membership in this defective forum, it discredits his "philosophy" or whatever you want to call it.

i don't understand why people defend him when, really, what is there to defend? some self-proclaimed faggot poking fish in a barrel? that he's a threat to anything is absurd, although you could argue that he degrades free speech with his frivolity.

>degrades free speech
>corrupting the youth

you Athenians need a good sacking

>corrupting the youth
>advocated sexual relations between older men and young boys

athenians indeed

That was a media hit job. Go watch the interview again: he began speaking of relationships between men and boys from his personal experience, a view he adopted over many years after becoming a victim. he never advocates it should be a protected institution, only that all circumstances be considered before condemnation. being gay and a victim, i'm sure he is acutely familiar with persecution by family and the public, and would not want that for other boys. That's my take on it anyway.

...

it was a joke

glad you can laugh about pedophilia

It's hebephilia you brainlet. Who didn't suck a little dick for video game money growing up?

This.

>Just reiterating this user's point. He was exactly correct.

Is this a joke?

>Triggering people isn't the basis for a comprehensive worldview...

Truth.

>Are you unironically using the 'triggered sjw' card to defend your confirmation bias? Did this thread give you PTSD? And Milo's allies are not Milo. Place blame where it belongs, smart guy.

WTF?

Indeed.

matt christman fuck off

>I am apolitical
Imagine actually believing this.

It's like if Ecce Homo was written by an idiot.

>This is the book people said couldn’t be published because I was so dangerous.
>because I was so dangerous
>I

might be the spectrum acting up, but I ain't reading an "article" with a typo in the first goddamned sentence.

>Thus Spoke Zarathustra table of contents.

pseud detected

...

>Socrates was a troll
>I didn't say Socrates was a troll >:(

It isn't a typo, if you're assuming it was meant to be "it"

Anyone who has the book, what's the physical quality like? Is it a shit-tier paperback?

>I am apolitical.

No such thing. Just ask Aristotle.

>This is going to be the "new" right. They'll basically be what liberals were 30-15 years ago
Hit the nail on the head. Sociologists are already predicting a heavy backlash in Gen Z against far-left 'progressivism'.