|To anyone out there, please tell me honestly, what do you think of Milo Yiannapoulos' endorsement of Dreamkeepers.|
It was only today I found out what he is, and after realizing what the Alt-Right movement is about I am heavily morally conflicted...I want to publish a graphic novel series, through which I hope to make a massive shared universe, through Vivid Publishing, but after today I'm conflicted as to whether or not publishing via Vivid is a good idea anymore.
So please share your thoughts, I don't care what they are, I just want to know what the Dreamkeeper community thinks of this, and whether or not it is a good idea to publish the story through the Lillies, a fellow here once told me the DK community would love what I had created, which further makes me wonder whether or not I should still pursue Vivid's help.
And if you want to know what the series is about, just ask :)
|While I highly suggest that you not let the Milo endorsement discourage you from publishing your story through Vivid, as you can always trust Dave and Liz to treat you right, I also sympathize with you on some concerns.|
On one hand, talk show hosts like Milo have large followings with huge potentials for new readership, hence why David would choose popular personalities to advertise the series. On the other hand, highly-controversial and politically-charged podcasters are known for saying things that hardly anyone can agree with or makes them come off as hypocrites. Even politicians go out of their way to denounce what these kind of personalities say (i.e. Hillary's recent condemning of some of Milo's articles). You can also expect many of those podcaster's fans to have rather high opinions/beliefs and unfavorable behaviors matching that of their icons. On top of that, when podcasters take heat, anything that they advertise on an intensive level can expect to take a small blow from that heat.
So far, it's rather hard to tell how this endorsement is going to pan out. Dave only seems to care about getting new readers and not really caring how they will effect the fanbase as a whole in the long run. The number of visits to the main site have been skyrocketing, indicating that the adverts are doing their job on Milo's end. How this will change the face of our fanbase in the next year or so, we can only wait and see. Guys like Milo have a knack for bringing out the worst in people and it often changes how people act on the Internet on a personal level.
With all that being said, I wouldn't care too much about this endorsement interfering with your own dealings with the Lillies. I'd say proceed as planned and let the pieces fall where they may. ^^
|In my business dealings with the Lillies they have been nothing but helpful, dedicated, and truly professional. I have no reason to believe that they would treat you any differently if you worked together with them on publishing your own work. Of course, you are welcome to make your own decisions from a business and personal standpoint as you see fit. There are certainly plenty of avenues available to you if you wanted to go a different direction. |
Personally, I think fears about the Milo podcast advertising causing significant disruptions are unfounded. Time will tell. I think people of all political/social/economic leanings can enjoy Dreamkeepers. Some of those people may have similar or very different views from anyone else, but that's just how it goes. Advertising from any number of outlets can tend to draw more people from one side or another, but there's no "ideological purity" that David is supposed to maintain among the readership. The readers are who they are: People who are genuinely interested in the story and artwork and who grow to love it as we have.
At the end of the day, David is running a business. A business that he relies on to pay the bills, and which takes an immense amount of work simply to maintain. A business that is his life's work and is very passionate about. He has every right to pursue advertising he thinks will be effective and drawing in new readers. Advertising also costs a lot of money, so he can't spend those resources recklessly.
Not everyone will agree with his methods of advertising, but I think it is an unfair statement to claim that he does not care about how it affects the fanbase in the long run. There is no one who cares about Dreamkeepers more than David. The fans should not expect him to necessarily make decisions they personally agree with. The only thing that should be expected is what he always has done: To work hard on every volume of Dreamkeepers and to continue sharing a wonderful story.
|First off, businesses of any sort are not responsible for every word that comes from the mouth of whomever they hire to advertise their product; a business will be attracted to someone as high-profile as Milo for advertising regardless of whether the figure's right or left-wing, political or apolitical, etc. - they're only concerned about spreading knowledge of their product. Thus a DK advertisement on Milo's show is not equivalent to an endorsement of him or his ideology, and you can be associated with DK or its publishers without having any approval of their ideology or that of their advertisers whatsoever. There's no moral decision to be made.|
Secondly, even if the alt-right, Milo's show or the Lillies' political leanings were relevant to your choice of publisher then I'd suggest further research into political philosophy, history and contemporary politics before condemning the alt-right as "one of *them*"; much slander is spread by all sides in politics about all other sides - the lesson's taught even in DK - and thus I'd take the condemning word of any individual source or of mainstream sources with a grain of salt because much, if not most, of what they preach is nonsense.
Lastly, and this may or may not be relevant, but if associating with the alt-right is still something that you'd call a moral decision then your decision has already been made; there just so happens to be quite a bit of evidence of the authors' political leanings in the lore and story of DK, and it certainly isn't sympathetic to the left or mainstream right at all. I don't think that it's an unrealistic guess when I say that the Lillies happen to have alt-right leanings themselves. If you truly want to wash your hands of all things touched by the alt-right then you probably shouldn't support the Lillies' work, for it does happen to reflect their worldview. Personally, I wouldn't dissociate like that, but it's your choice.
True, the Lillies do seem to be very reasonable, so it probably wouldn’t be too big of a problem in that regard, they seem nice enough despite this questionable endorsement and Vivid does allow plenty of creative freedom.
Well that is true, while this jerk is a potential menace, he does have a massive number of followers, so that can be appealing when you wanna make money…but yeah, this motherfucker’s got such a precarious political footing it seems like it might be more of a mistake than a benefit, and this guy’s like a heat magnet.
That’s true, granted I’ve attempted plans to gain followers myself, but I did something different since I don’t even have this drawn yet (having difficulties with my artist’s schedule that’re making this hard), my Furaffinity gallery pretty much is being designed to draw in interested parties…in Dave’s case though, while he is right that he can bring in a lot of traffic this way, he isn’t considering how inviting the Alt-Right in is going to effect the fandbase. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see how this plays out, and hopefully it won’t blow up in his or our faces.
True, you and Kafelnikov have pretty much indicated (along with a friend of mine who explained what these Alt-Right people believe) that perhaps I should continue to go through Vivid anyways for this, hopefully my disapproval of Milo won’t backfire on me though.
Really? Well that’s very nice to hear, granted I’ve been making my disapproval of Milo clear and public, but this is still pretty nice to hear, ultimately I think I’ll go with Vivid regardless. It’s not like I don’t have too many other prospective candidates for altnerative routes anyways. Vivid may have bought an endorsement from a maniac, but it’s still a good company so they’ll do.
You’re sure? Why do you think it’s unfounded? I too believe that people from all walks of life can enjoy Dreamkeepers, my only problem is openly inviting a very large group of people with downright Naziesque views to join, that just seems like it could backfire horribly. However you are correct, there is no true ideological purity in fandoms, just people who read the story, like it and grow to love it.
That is also true, and as I also have to admit, I’m gonna need this comic and the universe I’ll be making out of it to support myself in the future, it is sensible to pick someone with a large following for the endorsement, and advertising would have to be effective to bring about more readers, and he does have to be careful…I just wish he’d chosen someone other than the real life, gay version of Zachary Hale Comstock.
Well of course they’re not responsible for every word that comes out of their mouth, it’s not purely moral reasons that made me question whether or not staying with Vivid was a good idea, granted, I do not like the Alt Right for good reasons, but it was mostly concerns regarding business that especially had me worried. The endorsement doesn’t equal an approval of their ideology, don’t be ridiculous, it’s the negative publicity that an Alt-Right endorsement would cause that worries me the most about my choice of publisher, because I’m just starting out for real, I never went to college, and my writing is very important to me.
And exactly where do you research your politics? I’ve seen some Alt-Right tweets that indicate a racist population of some level is involved in it, I know better than you could guess that slander is often used on both sides, my family raised me to generally view the media this way, I generally tend to look for multiple sources and take whatever I read with a grain of salt and analyzing of the content.
As I said before, while I disapprove of the Alt-Right for various reasons (which include my hatred of racism and ESPECIALLY Eugenics), it’s not mostly about morals that I’m considering this, I simply don’t want to accidentally hurt my own series due to people associating me with these maniacs. And I disagree, the Lillies and the content of DK has much more of a Libertarian streak than the Alt-Right. And I assure you once more, while I morally disapprove of the Alt-Right, these people have wallets, and wallets have money, if they want to buy my stuff then fine, it’s the Alt-Right possibly making it harder for me to draw in more readers that worries me, so in this case my worries are more out of practicality than anything else.
I think that you misunderstand what the alt-right is about; they aren't racists, eugenicists or Nazis at all. For instance, they support freedom of association and oppose government affirmative action programs specifically because such policies discriminate along racial lines. That sounds quite anti-racist to me.
As far as political eugenicists go, they want to impose policies that control reproduction rates among different groups so as to improve the gene pool of the population. Seeing as how that would mandate totalitarian government policies and how the alt-right supports heavy limitations on government power, it seems impossible that the alt-right could support eugenics in their politics.
Regarding your charge of Nazism against the alt-right, I think that you've missed the mark again; the Nazis, or national socialist party, supported extreme centralization, nationalization of industry, censorship of media, currency devaluation and systematic plunder in order to fuel unending foreign expansion. Going down the list, the alt-right is strongly opposed to every single one of those things. Everything that defines a Nazi defines the opposite of the alt-right.
Concerning the Lillies' political leanings, they've more or less rejected libertarianism in DK; they clearly state in the lore that too little government is as dangerous as too much, which is a statement that a libertarian would reject. They're definitely classical liberals or anti-neocon conservatives, both of which fall under the umbrella of the alt-right.
Really? They’re not racist or eugenicists? Explain these then please a friend of mine who told me about the Alt-Right showed me these Tweets (and commented on them), and I’ve been around a white supremacist, I know full well what these imply. If the Alt-Right doesn’t support this crap, then why’s their Twitter hashtag have this crap stuck in it?
I myself do not particularly like affirmative action, but mostly because it’s impractical, a job requirement should be purely based on whether or not someone can do the job. However, I also think that being refused a job because of race is just as bad as being given a job because of it.
Not to mention weed out and kill people with things they perceive as flaws…like Aspergers Syndrome…which I have, so you bet your ass I have a good reason to be concerned about eugenicists. Also, precisely what proof do you have that the Alt-Right really does oppose this stuff? Last I checked, there is no official Alt-Right belief, and since by definition it’s basically a place for right wingers with alternative views, obviously there’s going to be some amount of Nazis among it.
And pray tell, how did I miss the mark? At the very least those Alt-Right tweets up there indicate some level of racism exists in there, besides, the Nazis have to be hiding somewhere other than pro-Nazi forums. Now granted, from a more libertarian standpoint, none of these beliefs would be compatible, however, I have no actual proof the Alt-Right actually oppose this stuff, so far all I have to go on really is your word (in this discussion anyways), and to my knowledge I’ve never met you before, so do you have any legitimate proof? Preferably something that doesn’t come from a strictly Alt-Right source…to me, that’d be like asking a fox whether or not it’ll break into the henhouse that night.
Really? I was certain they were, there wasn’t a clear line as to where the Lillies’ beliefs went based on the comic, I was wondering if they were lefties at first, but as time went on I noticed a specific right wing bent…but I highly doubted they subscribed to the beliefs of the kind of right wingers I grew up around. And frankly I would disagree with the idea of too little government…but please ignore that opinion; I just have a massive raging hatred of the government in general, so that doesn’t really matter, just take it with a grain of salt…define classical liberals and anti-neocon conservatives please.
EDIT: On second thought, fuck the link, I just realized that uploading those in that form was a bad idea...you want to see the evidence.
As for the link, just cut and paste it, it'll work.
You contradict yourself; first you credit the alt-right with being Nazis, racists and eugenicists, then, when I object to those accusations, you claim that I can't prove anything because "there is no official Alt-Right belief". But if we accept that premise then you can't accuse the alt-right of being racists or Nazis to begin with, for they have no official beliefs.
Also, you're judging a massive group of people by the views held by a tiny minority of faux right-wingers; not a single major alt-right news outlet supports eugenics, not a single commentator whom I've ever heard has endorsed it, and, by the alt-right's definition as being anti-neocon right-wingers they support limited government, which - as I've already explained - is inherently at odds with eugenics. Want to know the views actually held by most alt-right people? Listen to the various commentators whom they support. Breitbart is a popular outlet of their views, Milo, Ben Shapiro and even Steven Crowder are fairly good samples, and there are plenty of others out there. But citing some self-professed right-wing Nazi Party Twitter page with 5 followers as being the alt-right in a nutshell is obviously unfair. Every group has its crazies, and that should go without saying.
Regarding your request that I present "proof" of the alt-right's beliefs by citing everyone but the alt-right, that seems plainly outlandish; if I can't know the alt-right's beliefs by simply observing them then how can anyone ever obtain knowledge of these beliefs? After all, the beliefs of a group emanate from the group itself, and thus knowledge can either be obtained through observing the group or it cannot be obtained at all. There is no third option - the media has no mystical means of reading the minds of the alt-right members - and therefore a citation of the alt-right themselves is every bit as reputable as a citation of the media's reports of the group. In fact, being a primary source, a citation of the group is usually preferable to a third-party report.
And who would you trust more when you want to learn about an ideology, those who conceived and defend it or a group of people whose sole purpose is to discredit the former group by any means possible? After all, several mainstream news outlets have dropped the facade of objectivity altogether and publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton. There's no way that you could call them a reliable source at this point. Also, it's unspoken but common knowledge that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by the establishment of both major parties on slandering all opposition, including the alt-right. And the media is their tool.
As far as my terms go, here are some definitions:
- classical liberalism: ideology placing an emphasis on individual liberty, especially as it pertains to politics. Liberals want the smallest state possible, given the premise that the state is necessary for some purpose(s). The qualifier "classical" is meant to set them apart from progressives, who also use the term "liberal" to describe themselves.
- libertarianism: same ideology as liberalism except that it rejects the premise that the state is necessary at all. Proponents advocate entirely unfettered markets.
- conservatism: ideology advocating the conservation of views deemed traditional. In US politics, the conservative tradition is of the general sentiments of limited government and social cohesion via Christianity and Western European culture. Consider them a step to the left (toward big government) from classical liberals.
- neoconservatism (neocon): ideology advocating the quasi-socialist, pro-war policies of the WWII era as the proper tradition of the US. To be juxtaposed with other conservatives, who treat the sentiments of liberalism as the proper tradition and are represented by the paleoconservatives and alt-right. Neoconservatives constitute the Republican party and are the most well-represented group of conservatives in the media.
…Shit, I got ahead of myself again, and instead make myself look like the fool…oh well, accidents happen now and then.
Faux right wingers? And if that’s the case, then where would this belief have originated? If the Alt-Right are in fact anti-neocon, then where did they come from? And perhaps, however I’m still unsure about this, granted you are right that eugenics would be at odds with these, how would the pro-Nazi twitter pages have came up sooner on Alt-Right hashtag? Though it is possible that these could be the crazies of the group, something I have considered, though I have not found any other proof suggesting otherwise yet.
It’s not outlandish in my shoes…politics are surreal to a Lovecraftian degree, so it’s more difficult for me to wonder ultimately whether or not someone is being true in what they say, one of the reasons politicians are one of the lowest sort of people imaginable. Plus, a group composed of Nazis (if it was smart) would never actually admit to this stuff upfront…of course then one’d have to wonder how word of this got out in the first place. My point is, I tend to treat politics in general as being a morally grey area %90 percent of the time. Politicians can never be counted on to tell the truth, and with all the obvious left or right bends in the media, the only way anyone can really decipher any news is to account for whatever that bias is. Given that the subject here is whether or not the Alt-Right actually are Nazis, can you at least see why I’d be leery about accepting proof that comes from the Alt-Right, at least where text is concerned. If you insist then fine, give me proof from an Alt-Right source, it just better either be good or hard to fake.
True, and to be fair I don’t really trust the media either, I know full well the mainstream media is pretty much paid to slander people on the right wing side on a regular basis. And to be fair that money is supposed to be being spent on slandering right wingers in general, not just the Alt-Right, there’s nothing special about them. It’s only what I read on Wikipedia and the Twitter pages that I’m using as evidence. Nothing more. Plus there’s still that trolling attack on Ghostbusters (which I have no intention of watching, but their method of trolling the black actress was pushing it) to contend with, unless your people were framed or something?
Ahhh, so those are the definitions…man, liberalism really changed hasn’t it? As much as it pains me to admit, but own beliefs probably would be closest to classical liberalism…well sort of. Still, thank you for telling me about these :)
I wrote and submitted a reply to you, which was promptly deleted because I wasn't signed in. I signed in, rewrote my reply, submitted it and... it was deleted *again*. Apparently I was signed out in the midst of writing. So I'm signing in yet again and writing my post for the third time. With that being said, sorry if my response isn't very lengthy; I'm getting really sick of writing huge eight-paragraph replies only for them to be wiped out. If you want me to elaborate more on any given issue then just say so.
The alt-right's origins are in paleoconservatism - pro-market and anti-war conservatism - as well as in classical liberalism. The paleocons were displaced in the '70s by the neocons, who dominated conservative politics until the past decade or so, when the public grew weary of their extremely hawkish attitude toward war and shifted toward the alt-right.
Concerning pro-Nazi alt-right Twitter pages, I could only find a couple of them, they were very small, and one was satirical. Juxtapose that with the massive readership of alt-right news outlet Breitbart, which has never endorsed anything even remotely resembling Nazism.
I share your distrust of political groups and their rhetoric, but it isn't very difficult to figure out what they actually stand for; rather than listening to their marketing (speeches, slogans, etc.) read what their constituents read and support - a group is nothing more than the sum of its constituents - read their political philosophy if they have one, and pay attention to which policies they support.
If we retroactively apply this type of analysis to the Nazis then we find that their regime's totalitarian nature was predictable, given the party's advocacy of radical centralization, appeal to class warfare and political maneuvering. On the other hand, an analysis of the alt-right reveals a group much different from the Nazis - nearly their opposite, in fact; they support lax domestic regulations, a comparatively dovish foreign policy and are mercantilists on trade.
Regarding your sources, I find Wikipedia to be highly suspicious; it exclusively relies upon left-wing mainstream media sources in its alt-right article, even citing the New York Times, which has publicly endorsed the Clinton campaign. Talk about a conflict of interest. My suggestion is that you listen to the debate on free trade between alt-right mercantilist Vox Day and Austrian economist Bob Murphy (found at YouTube: TomWoodsTV), wherein the trade and immigration views of the alt-right are outlined and debated from both sides. It should offer some insight into their worldview.
It happens sometimes, and it used to happen to me when I went on Fanfiction.net at first…personally you should write any notes or comments you want to write in a word processor and then use cut and paste to post them…if this problem happens again, you just gotta use the undo to get it back, though you could always substitute cut with copy I suppose. Anyways, I apologize for how long it’s been since my end of the debate was updated, been kinda busy.
Huh, pro market and anti war?...Wait a minute, what sort of restrictions would the Alt-Right want on the market? A few or none at all? Frankly I think the corporations need some restrictions…not extremely much but some, and just SOME…for a prime example of why I think that’s needed, see the videogame Bioshock, which illustrates what sorta concerns I have about that nicely. Still though, I can see why there’d be a split in conservatives in this sense.
Really…may I see these pages? A screenshot of them would do well, I’d ask for links but as I currently have no Twitter and have yet to get my cell phone active, I cannot just make an account myself at this time.
Indeed, and that does make plenty of sense, however people can be easily fooled and political philosophy can be faked, the hard part I suppose is in figuring out whether or not a politician practices what they preach. However you are right that a good way to figure out what a political group believes in, it’s figuring out their leaders (most all politicians are people I distrust and generally hate on principle though) that makes me distrustful.
Hmm, well that’s true, the Nazis were a bunch of dicks…and their beliefs are largely different than the ones you say the Alt-Right believe in, though I don’t have too much proof so far that the majority of them believe what you say they believe, however, if you want to give proof from more Alt-Right sources you may. I myself support capitalism, as opposed to what the Nazis advocated…however, I also believe in it having limits, as opposed to the case of companies like Monsanto, who are way too damn big for any set of britches.
Well true, I did sorta believe it, since it is updated by people from all walks of life…however, I also know it has a sizable left wing bent, hence why I take most anything it says about politics with a grain of salt, to be honest it’s also why I rarely look up politics there, it’s actually very reliable when the subject at hand DOESN’T involve politics. As for the interview, I could watch that…if you have a link.
Regarding the alt-right being "pro-market", I wouldn't be too concerned about them wanting to drop regulations altogether; being conservatives (mostly), they're pro-market when compared to progressives or communists but are certainly no libertarians. They're even very deliberate in distancing themselves from libertarians by self-identifying as "sort of libertarian-ish in *some* ways".
They'll make the case for regulations, nationalization and state-granted monopolies in the same way as leftists will - just less often. They generally want to regulate or totally control everything concerning banking and money, security of all types and most infrastructure, and they tend to buy the ideas of market failures and public goods, wherein the private sector is simply too stupid to tend to itself and needs the state to step in and help - like a crutch. In the first 25 stillborn drafts of my last comment, I was careful to preface "pro-market" with "generally". In the final version I wasn't so precise. Sorry for the confusion.
Concerning the pro-Nazi Twitter pages, I'm not sure how to send you a screenshot, and I could only find one of the pages that I saw earlier. However, the one that I did find - the satirical one - is called "Nationalist Hero", it has ~3000 followers and ~7000 likes, and you don't need an account to see it.
As far as companies like Monsanto go, you'll find that they grow so huge solely because they gain regulatory control of the state, without which they'd be next-to-nothing, if not nonexistent. They're parasites which exploit asinine regulations and laws concerning intellectual property, which, as a concept, is a case study in insanity to begin with.
Also, here's a link to the debate that I mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMi-c9_4v-c
|Hmm, I'm very split on this one, to be frank. I trust the Lillies, I just don't trust Milo. I haven't even heard of him, and based on the reports, they say that he's infamous and controversial, even some of the members here kinda agree with that. I'm just letting out an honest opinion here though, no shame in that.|
I don't know about you, and I'm not gonna dwell that much on what you type (I have read and understood it somewhat) and your political views, but if there are more people like you came from the endorsement and love the series, then you're welcome in the series, anytime! Just don't be a jerk and you'll be fine.
Well that’s a relief, my Dad doesn’t agree much that there should be regulations (unless he actually does believe in some, and just didn’t make that clear earlier), partially due to his immense hatred of left wing politics, while I’m a believer in capitalism, I do not believe keeping it with no restraint whatsoever is a good idea, for reasons Bioshock made pretty obvious, granted it’s not like we’d actually have to deal with legions of genetically altered drug addicts, but would you really want to pay, say, six bucks for a Three Musketeers bar? I know I wouldn’t, and apparently you don’t either (regardless of whether or not you like Three Musketeers).
Yes, that does sound like the stuff the government does say would fix the problems, in my opinion the free market would do better with less government involvement, just with a reasonable level of restrictions. Though I was mildly confused with this one, did you say these were what the liberals or the alt-right said? And what do you mean by “Buy the ideas of market failures and public goods”?
I am not totally sure yet, and as I don’t want to send my email address on this, sending a PDF isn’t an option…do you have a deviantART account and a cell phone?
That’s also true, they’ve made so much money they can barge through laws like they wrote them, and as a result they’re acting less like a respectable business, and more like Cobra. Because I can see some maniac in a metal mask demanding the copyrights to fish, grain and tomatoes in the name of world domination. Honestly this country, nay, the world would be a better place if companies that exploited laws like that were torn to shreds like flies.
Thank you, when I can get my hands on some real wireless internet, this shall be watched.
I know what you mean…both due to what this fellow above says, seeing as he does have a point, though granted I’m currently unable to check his proof until I find access to better wireless. However, he seems fairly reasonable, so it’s possible there is a sizable Alt-Right population like the one he’s describing…however as he’s also the only Alt-Righter of this sort (or Alt Righter in general) I’ve met.
However, you’re right on this, I do trust the Lillies, though with the controversy Milo has around him, I’d be wary of an endorsement of him purely because of that. Admittedly controversy is a powerful marketing tool, but the wrong kind of it results in trouble. And that was the main reason I was questioning whether or not Vivid was a good idea, it was less about doubting the Lillies, and more about whether or not the stigma the Alt-Right have due to the media and the aforementioned Twitter pages, would make profiting through Vivid harder. Plus I know little about Milo, and though I haven’t found out all the reasons he’s gained the controversy he has, I’m still more than a bit wary of him. I mean I never even heard of the guy a month ago.
You must be logged in to post to a thread.