Yes, I remember that thread. Fortunately, I had the choice to not get involved, which I wisely exercised.
With regards to the wider point...I'm going to go all Machiavelli here and say that in politics, winning is the only outcome that matters. But I will also say, "winning" is a quite broad category of things, and not easily demarcated by achieving short term goals.
Lets work with Milo, for example. It was a short-term win, in the sense that he lost his platform and is discredited, which stops him from spreading racist, sexist and transmisogynist alt-right nonsense. But will the conditions that brought about that victory have longer term consequences, which will make it a larger strategic failure? In this case it seems unlikely, but there are plenty of cases where shutting down someone can lead to a perception of persecution and suppression which perversely supports their cause.
And if people rest on their laurels of having defeated tEh vIlLaInOuS mIlO instead of realising that he was merely a symptom of a much broader range of social and political processes, which are proceeding in his absence at the same pace....well, that's also clearly suboptimal.
Tactics and strategy matter, not only for outcome but also for managing the perception of the outcome, its legitimacy and sustaining that outcome going forwards. As far as I'm concerned, the left is pants on head retarded when it comes to strategy and tactics. So is the far-right and liberal centre, but their economic resources and, in the case of the liberal-right, institutional dominance mean they can afford to fail far more often while searching for successful strategies and tactics.
