An assortment of presumably minor left-statist American figures have been howling about Milo Yiannopulis getting his book published, presumably deciding that they should not just give Milo more publicity, but given that they are of the ilk Milo targets, they should endorse his book by loudly reacting with horror to it. To be honest I have no idea who the hell Judd Apatow or Sarah Silverman actually are, and I cannot be bothered to even stick their names in DuckDuckGo to find out, but the fact they are annoyed by Milo means I doubt I would care to invite them around for a G&T.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Left wingers strongly and loudly endorse Milo’s new book…January 1st, 2017 |
 19 comments to Left wingers strongly and loudly endorse Milo’s new book… |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
FWIW, she is an alleged comedienne and he is an alleged actor. Both are hard-core leftists who love to be in the spotlight with their political views. I suspect this will be just the latest illustration of the Streisand Effect.
Sarah Silverman is a person from Bedford New Hampshire who has reinvented herself as a New Yorker. Sarah Silverman has found that leftist politics is an advantage in the comedy game – getting her positions that she would not otherwise get. And that is fair enough – as Sarah S. does not pretend to be anything else but leftist (unlike, say, the Economist magazine which pretends to be a free market roll-back-the-state publication – my hated of them is due to this fraud) I have nothing against her.
I would not dream of paying to see the routine of Silver Silverman – after all it is directed against people like me (conservative capitalist pigs) and my life is quite nasty enough without paying to be insulted – but it is the way the lady earns her living, and I believe that she should be free to make her living this way.
Judd Apatow – sorry drawing a blank on that name, but Laird has covered it.
Why should these people want to prevent Milo getting his book published?
That is easy enough – they are leftists and leftists are in favour of political censorship.
That is not new – after all W.T. Crouch (of the Chicago University Press) exposed how the established leftists (who controlled most of the big publishers) tried to prevent F.A. Hayek’s “The Road To Serfdom” being published in the United States.
They (the establishment leftists – such as Mr Miller) made snobbish noises about how the book would “sell very well” (this was presented as a BAD thing – which shows an odd business publishing already was).
All this was exposed in the “Freeman” more than 60 years ago – and the left have not changed their stance.
“Banned in Boston” used to be the draw.
Now, as Mr. Trump has so adequately shown, it’s MUCH easier to get your critics to pimp for you, at THEIR expense.
But, there’s no need to “look them up, or spell their names correctly if you MUST cite them, lest they get more of those sweet, sweet, free “search engine hits” for their agents, and flacks, to Hail Mary their failing pertinence back into “The Funny Papers”.
HINT:Like (ie)Ms. Maddcow, Ms. Silverfish resorts to saying outrageous crap to get attention, as she doesn’t have (ie)Kardasiboobs, or Marihass to flaunt.
Sarah Silverman used to be “controversial” and is now PC. (“Controversial” is anything other than politically correct). I did like her “Jesus is magic” show though.
Paul Marks, I can more easily deal with Silverman pretending to be a New Yorker than Mel Gibson pretending to be American or Johnny Depp pretending to be European rather than from Owensboro Kentucky.
Predictably, the progressive literary world is massing to punish Milo’s publisher, Simon and Schuster.
Several significant reviewing organizations have now announced they will not review any book from Simon and Schuster until this book has been cancelled.
Several authors of note have announced that they will pull their works-in-progress from S&S in protest.
There’s a large on-line contingent gearing up to organize a boycott of all other S&S titles.
But Milo’s book – pre-publication – has already hit #1 on Amazon Books. Worst-case for Milo is, S&S cancels, pays him his advance, and then he self-publishes to an already-guaranteed audience and makes a LOT more money than he would have had he paid S&S their cut. I’ll bet he’s hoping S&S pulls out now.
Bobby b, which organizations? I had heard that Chicago Review of Books had, but they are just nobodies with a grand name.
And the Washington Times article linked to says similarly that “Liberal celebrities’ support of boycott backfires”
But of course generally the main objectives of liberal celebrities’ denunciations of books like Milo’s is typically virtue signaling, brand building, and self promotion. Judd Apatow and Sarah Silverman almost certainly don’t care at all if their own words help Milo sell more books.
Apatow is known mainly as a director, not actor, although he did act, write, etc. He did 40 year old virgin, knocked-up, and others in that vein. He is considered a genius, more because he is a leftist, than actual talent. He started a fuss by tweeting about Cosby’s guilt and acting like due process was unnecessary.
It’s a sort of virtual, pre-emptive book-burning. Stop ’em now, so you don’t have to burn ’em later.
After I saw your response, I went back to Reddit to re-read what I saw there – essentially, what I said above, “Several significant reviewing organizations, including the Chicago Review of Books . . . ” – and was confused by your response. I mean, who hasn’t heard of the Chicago Review?
Took me a few minutes on Google to figure out that “Chicago Review of Books” and “Chicago Review” (a reviewer of books) weren’t the same thing. I’m still wondering how the Chicago Review people aren’t in some legal fight about this name confusion, but, point is, you’re right. CRoB was “established in 2016.” Huh.
It should be noted that Judd Apatow is also largely responsible for the rise(?) of Lena Dunham, as he was instrumental in setting up Girls at HBO.
As such, we really owe him a vote of thanks, since Dunham is easily the worst advertisement for leftist liberalism in the history of ever.
I’m itching to buy the book without any intention of actually reading it.
>I’m still wondering how the Chicago Review people aren’t in some legal fight about this name confusion
Venerable literary journals like the Chicago Review usually have no money, so even if they are pissed off with the Chicago Review of Books there’s probably not much they can do legally.
This sort of thing really baffles me.I mean people who embrace the name liberal favoring boycotts of publishers? It is so ridiculously illiberal. I remember when the left went absolutely nuts when rumors came out that Sarah Palin had “banned” books in the local library when she was mayor of some Podunk little town.
I guess it is a game played for advantage rather than for logical consistency, but I find these people to be more and more parodies of themselves.
Don’t get me wrong, boycotts are a perfectly reasonable tactic, but boycotting publishers because your little snowflake ears can’t bear to imaging that someone is reading something that offends you is so utterly ridiculous. I suppose it is all just a part of the stupidity of that “progressive” world view though.
And of course the real irony of the whole thing is that book reviewers are boycotting this. I mean that is the whole point of free speech, right. Milo offends you (and lets be frank, Milo is excellent at offending just about everyone) then you publish a response explaining why Milo is a douche. So to not review his book is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. It shows a laughable misunderstanding of the concept of free speech.
(Of course I am talking to the Brits who long ago seem to have given up on free speech. I was listening to PMQ on Dec 14, I think, and the PM was talking about some other offensive organization that she wanted to use the power of the police against. Can’t remember what it was right now. As if it just goes without saying that that police should be used to prevent people being “offended”.)
The left are desperately trying to keep the lid on — they are terrified that if one dissenting voice is allowed out then their world will come crashing down like the East German government in 1989. Hence the Stalinst tactics employed in the global warming debate. Logical consistency was given up long ago.
Yes Thailover – Mr Depp reinventing himself as a European has been odd. But he was amusing in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films.
Mel Gibson – caught somewhere in the Pacific between Australia and the United States (not his fault – it is his life history).
Like General Grant, Mr Gibson can do good work when he is sober – but when he is drunk he seems to fall to pieces, ranting about how the Jews rule the world and so on.
Still what General Grant did drunk, send men on hopeless frontal attacks – such as Cold Harbor, General Douglas Haig did when sober.
They don’t know what to do. They backed those of dissenting opinions into a corner with their “Ouch, you’re offending me” rhetoric and, as often happens when you back people into a corner, they came out fighting with a rousting “Fuck your sensibilities”.
Civil society doesn’t stand many one-way streets.
Milo, like Trump is a traitor to his class.
The class to which he is a traitor is not the old Marxian Upper, Middle and Lower class, or even the “New Class” of managerial bureaucrats that people were banging on about in the 1950s.
The ruling class that Trump and Milo have betrayed is the Celebrity Class. For the past quarter century of so we have been ruled by Paris Hilton and her cohorts. That explains a lot.
But Milo was never a celebrity like Trump was. He’s only getting attention now for his political opinions.
The worry I have with Milo is that he’s just a charming self-promoter who leaves a trail of wreckage behind him, like Boris Johnson. This is actually the third book he’s supposed to have written. The first two never appeared. The college scholarships for white men he claims he would fund have never appeared. A lot of old colleagues hate him. Some of that is par for the course, but there seems to be an awful lot of it with him. I really hope he becomes a big — or bigger — success, and I admire him for what he’s done so far, but I still have my worries about him.