In November 2016, part-time editor at Breitbart, and full-time self-adulator, Milo Yiannopoulos appeared on Channel 4 to discuss the “alt-right” phenomenon. Though he denies any official affiliation to the movement, Yiannopoulos has been hailed online as one of its de-facto leaders and chief “ideologues”, a reputation he has been loath to shed.

Throughout the interview, Channel 4 host Kathy Newman attempted valiantly to force Yiannopoulos into capitulating on some of his most controversial – and some would argue reprehensible – political positions. She failed.

The problem was not that Newman took Yiannopoulis lightly. On the contrary, she took him more seriously than he appears to take himself. But more on that in a moment.

***

      Before going any further, it may be helpful to define what the alt-right actually is. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which catalogues and monitors hate groups across the country, defines it thusly:

a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice”.

While strictly accurate, this definition is somewhat misleading. The vast majority of “alt-righters” on the internet are not interested in affecting any real political change. Their immediate aim is, above all, to incense, infuriate and effectively render apoplectic, those they deem to be too socially liberal. Indeed, their crusade is not against any specific political actor, but rather the archetypal “social justice warrior”.

On some level, we all know that they are being deliberatively provocative. So why do we respond with such moral outrage?

***

In large part, our response to the alt-right is conditioned by our growing addiction to self-righteous indignation. We decry our favourite social issues with the full force 140 characters will allow. We continuously proclaim how offended we are to anyone who will listen. Our expectation here is very clear. We expect “likes”, or virtual pats on the back from our friends and their acquaintances. And friends of friends and their acquaintances.

This is nothing more than moral grandstanding.

If we really care about things like white privilege or toxic masculinity we will engage with our communities, become activists, teachers or even politicians. In other words, we will fight real battles and risk failure to achieve our political goals. Instead, the left has reflexively engaged in a childish, largely online, game of “pin the tail on the morally-abhorrent donkey”, that has massaged many egos but accomplished nothing.

***

      Into this orgy of online self-aggrandizement steps our friend Milo. Make no mistake, none of what Yiannopoulos says – or at least nothing that gets any attention – can be interpreted as a cogent political argument. His provocative statements are nothing more than a mocking subversion of modern identity politics and social progressivism played off for personal aggrandizement.

When journalists, on Channel 4 or anywhere else, confront Yiannopoulos with (no doubt well-intentioned) indignation rather than rigorous debate, they are simply playing into his hands.

Indeed, the alt-right’s entire end-game is subversion. It feeds on outrage. When challenged with actual facts, its “arguments” will appear petulant and childish (because they are). Similarly, when we cease to treat Milo Yiannopoulaos as some kind of neo-fascist supervillain, he will be revealed as a run-of-the-mill internet troll (because he is).

However, as long as we react with apoplectic – and publicly broadcasted – outrage, the alt-right will continue to be perceived as a viable alternative to modern progressivism. Why else would we be getting so worked up?

At the end of the day, the alt-right has done nothing more than find, and exploit, the left’s most obvious weakness – self-righteous outrage.

It’s time we got over it.♦