# Milo Yiannopoulos - discuss



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2017)

I've tended to pretty much ignore him and his videos, in fact I think that he was recently booted from Twitter.  But recently people who I consider to be pretty conservative, but certainly not racist, are sending me his videos on Facebook and posting them on forums.

Am I missing something on this guy?

Full disclosure, I've only watched one of his videos (something to do with feminism) and he kinda-sorta made sense, but surely something that tame could not have gotten him banned from Twitter and almost litterally considered Satan himself by my more liberal friends.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 1, 2017)

Use the same logic as the extreme Liberals calling Trump the next Hitler.  Nothing makes sense about it. 

Milo uses sensationalism to his benefit and doesn't mince words, same idea behind Trumps popularity.  Don't agree with everything the guy says but he's not totally wrong.  

Here's a good interview done by Vice.  
I Tried to Get Milo Yiannopoulos to Convert Me to a Gay Trump Supporter - VICE


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

He's like a gay Glenn Beck: A provocateur posing as someone with legitimate social and political commentary.  The right loves him because he needles leftists and counts as their token gay friend.  The left hates him because he's just an insult comic.  I believe that the twitter ban resulted from a feud that he had with actress Leslie Jones after the new Ghostbusters came out.  My understanding is that Milo basically said to his followers "Hey guys, please don't doxx Leslie Jones, for real *wink wink*", and you can imagine precisely what happened.

He also scammed alt-right folks to the tune of about $100k last year.  He's kind of a garbage person.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The right loves him because he needles leftists and counts as their token gay friend.



This made me laugh because I have a friend who will not go see Chris Rock with me this summer.  For my buddy, Rock  was funny when he used to make fun of other black people, but he does not do those jokes anymore and now he does more of the "white guy" impressions, and is likely going to ROAST Trump, I have to find a new friend to go see the show with me.


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> He's like a gay Glenn Beck: A provocateur posing as someone with legitimate social and political commentary.  The right loves him because he needles leftists and counts as their token gay friend.  The left hates him because he's just an insult comic.  I believe that the twitter ban resulted from a feud that he had with actress Leslie Jones after the new Ghostbusters came out.  My understanding is that Milo basically said to his followers "Hey guys, please don't doxx Leslie Jones, for real *wink wink*", and you can imagine precisely what happened.
> 
> He also scammed alt-right folks to the tune of about $100k last year.  He's kind of a garbage person.


Wowsers! That was a little thick on the personal opinion, don't you think?



To answer the original questions- he's a gay conservative with a self-proclaimed affinity for black men.

He can intelligently debate the staunchest "academics," who usually devolve to their base state of anger rather quickly. This is because  he makes legitimate points and their usual retorts don't work against him- racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

Etype said:


> Wowsers! That was a little thick on the personal opinion, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've watched way too many of this guy's videos so I can't really help but give my opinion.  While Milo is a pretty skilled debater, at his core he's not interested in discourse.  He's a shock jock.  He gets appearance fees and YouTube revenue with "LOL feminism!" strawmen.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's more than a little disingenuous to argue that he's somehow interested in a legitimate exchange of ideas.  The guy's a comedian.


----------



## J.S. (Feb 1, 2017)

Milo is pretty popular among my demographic (high school/college age guys) because he's a new, young commentator who isn't afraid of pissing people off. Personally, I'm not a fan because a good amount of his material revolves around name-calling and the like, but at least he admits he's a provocateur. 

I think a large part of his appeal is his college tour and the way it exposes the hypocrisy of those colleges and the people in them, who say they want an exchange of ideas unless those ideas offend them. The videos of his speeches getting shut down by violence, or by pulled fire alarms, or by the administrations themselves, are some of his most viewed.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 1, 2017)

Milo got his start as a tech editor for Breitbart.  He established his reputation with his coverage of the whole "Gamergate" incident, and it's taken off from there.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 1, 2017)

Milo found a niche and ran with it. Like all talking heads (Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Howard Stern, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity), if you don't find his brand of schtick appealing, you're likely to miss anything of value he has to say. There have been a couple times I thought he made great points about a lot of things (feminism, social justice, etc.). I've enjoyed more than a couple of his videos, but he's grating to watch/listen to in large volumes.

I disagreed with his ouster from Twitter on principle - it was his followers/general populace causing the issue and yea, he was a dick about it but the root cause was him saying the Ghostbusters remake was awful and it was. The people attacking Leslie Jones went way racist and he got banned for it.



Etype said:


> Wowsers! That was a little thick on the personal opinion, don't you think?


And?


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And?


I thought the board was recently railing against opinion stated as fact, I must've been mistaken.

And, you know what I meant.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 1, 2017)

Etype said:


> I thought the board was recently railing against opinion stated as fact, I must've been mistaken.
> 
> And, you know what I meant.


Just asking for clarification, and no, I didn't know what you meant.

The op asked for other's opinions about Milo- I didn't understand why you would point out that someone posted their opinion, then post your opinions about Milo.

I now see your comment was motivated from past interactions on the board, and not related to this thread in any way. That's where my confusion was; I am up to speed now. My bad!


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Just asking for clarification, and no, I didn't know what you meant.
> 
> The op asked for other's opinions about Milo- I didn't understand why you would point out that someone posted their opinion, then post your opinions about Milo.
> 
> I now see your comment was motivated from past interactions on the board, and not related to this thread in any way. That's where my confusion was; I am up to speed now. My bad!


The request was to help understand, not help understand others opinions.  

Remove my assertion of him being a good debater, and my post was devoid of opinion.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

I think Etype is right here.  Perhaps I did editorialize a bit too much, although I feel like it's hard to accurately characterize Milo without being a little flippant.  I mean, his whole routine is based on being an agitator.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2017)

As the OP of the thread, I really appreciate seeing both sides of the passion towards him.  I would think that when it comes to someone as polarizing as Milo, it would be difficult to answer my question without giving some type of personal editorial (positive or negative).  Thanks to all for the input...


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 1, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> As the OP of the thread, I really appreciate seeing both sides of the passion towards him.  I would think that when it comes to someone as polarizing as Milo, it would be difficult to answer my question without giving some type of personal editorial (positive or negative).  Thanks to all for the input...


Check out his videos- it's like watching Kevin Hart for me (who I don't think is funny at all). I hate his delivery, but his material is funny at times.

If you can get past the delivery with Milo, sometimes his material is pretty good.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 1, 2017)

Love the guy. He is fantastic and hilarious. I don't agree with everything he says, but for the most part I like the cut of his jib. Yes he can be insulting, yes he can be mean, but he backs up everything with factual information. He does not "pose" as someone with legitimate commentary, nor is he a token anything. Saying that amounts to nothing more than calling him an uncle tom just because he sees things differently. He makes his case and it is usually strong. I can understand some don't like him on an emotional level. However, when he discusses a topic he usually comes armed with convincing information. 

What I love most about him is that he fights the established norms. Sometimes he can go a bit far, and some of the viewpoints I don't care for. However, if you strip away the emotion behind what he is saying, you can find the cold logic and at least see it, if not agree with it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2017)

Violence at Berkleey, where he was scheduled to speak tonight.  Event cancelled.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> ...nor is he a token anything. Saying that amounts to nothing more than calling him an uncle tom just because he sees things differently.


I hear what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand me.

Accusations of tokenism are not a slight against the individual, but rather the group that has "tokenized" the person (for lack of a better term).  Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a directed slight against the person themselves, ostensibly for selling out their own people.  So in this case, it's not an insult against Milo himself, but rather conservatives at large.  To be fair to conservatives, not all of them have been against gays, but the GOP has certainly been opposed to most LGBT issues up until very recently.  I think you can agree with that, right?  So in essence, if Milo were not gay, he wouldn't be held up as this adroit conservative pundit.  Instead he would just be another angry white dude ranting about feminazis on YouTube.



Marauder06 said:


> Violence at Berkleey, where he was scheduled to speak tonight.  Event cancelled.



Whoa.  This is fucked.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Violence at Berkleey, where he was scheduled to speak tonight.  Event cancelled.



That is really disappointing.  Every time a university gives in to shit like this, it make the thugs feel that much more confidant.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2017)

My opinion is the guy's an educated troll/ political shock jock. He makes some good points with evidence to support them, but I don't care to wade through the garbage in order to find those points. I'm far more inclined to listen to him when/ if he drops the emotional rhetoric.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 1, 2017)

Never heard of him until this thread.  Still haven't seen any of his material.  Sounds as though I'm not missing much.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 1, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> I hear what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand me.
> 
> Accusations of tokenism are not a slight against the individual, but rather the group that has "tokenized" the person (for lack of a better term).  Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a directed slight against the person themselves, ostensibly for selling out their own people.  So in this case, it's not an insult against Milo himself, but rather conservatives at large.  To be fair to conservatives, not all of them have been against gays, but the GOP has certainly been opposed to most LGBT issues up until very recently.  I think you can agree with that, right?  So in essence, if Milo were not gay, he wouldn't be held up as this adroit conservative pundit.  Instead he would just be another angry white dude ranting about feminazis on YouTube.


Now I understand your meaning. In my defense, the usual interpretation is the one I originally thought. However, you are correct and I can see your point. As to the rest, you also have a point. It is definitely part of the hypocritical nature of a large number of conservatives. Which personally, I find disgusting. Well made points.


----------



## Etype (Feb 2, 2017)

AWP said:


> I'm far more inclined to listen to him when/ if he drops the emotional rhetoric.


I rather enjoy the fact that he can engage the left's emotional rhetoric head-on.

The stuffy old white men who try to engage with articulate rhetorts from their self-proclaimed higher ground seem to be easily shouted down by young liberals as biggots.

I didn't like him initially, but he grew on me as I noticed his effectiveness.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 2, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Violence at Berkleey, where he was scheduled to speak tonight.  Event cancelled.



So tolerant...



Blizzard said:


> Never heard of him until this thread.  Still haven't seen any of his material.  Sounds as though I'm not missing much.



This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2017)

I think he is funny and enjoy watching him make LIBTARDS go full nuclear melt down.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 3, 2017)

Here's his interview with Tucker Carlson from yesterday about the riots and attacks on Free Speech.  I may have to pick up his book.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2017)

It wouldn't surprise me if that guy ends up getting murdered.

That was a disgusting display of violence and political oppression.  The left is doing the things it says it fears about the right.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 3, 2017)

Not Milo's but a similar entertainer, Gavin McInnes; was "protested" at NYU by a similar crowd.  I guess free speech on college and university campuses is truly dead.

Protesters storm NYU over conservative speaker’s seminar | New York Post


----------



## Etype (Feb 3, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> ... Gavin McInnes...


This guy is hilarious. I think this is some of his best work-


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 3, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if that guy ends up getting murdered.
> 
> That was a disgusting display of violence and political oppression.  The left is doing the things it says it fears about the right.



I was watching the Fox interview tape and had not looked at posts after @RackMaster. About halfway thru the interview, I had the same thought about Milo becoming a martyr.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 3, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Not Milo's but a similar entertainer, Gavin McInnes; was "protested" at NYU by a similar crowd.  I guess free speech on college and university campuses is truly dead.
> 
> Protesters storm NYU over conservative speaker’s seminar | New York Post



The NYPD were more prepared and proactive about protecting private property than Berkley. Well done NYPD!


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 3, 2017)

One of the problems that Milo & Co. have been running into on his self-declared "Dangerous Faggot Tour" has been increased fees for security by host venues.  The scenario is usually that the local campus Young Republicans or other similar club will invite him to give his talk.  The talk will be approved, then after the talk is scheduled -- most likely after seeing the previous stop's carnage -- the administration will demand several thousand dollars more to provide what should be adequate security for the event.  At times, the host student club runs into a great deal of trouble in raising that kind of money to cover what the school is calling for, and the talk is either relocated or canceled.  That means the threat of violence is most certainly a known factor by the campus administration.  

I'm just not all that sure that those in charge of keeping this from happening are all that interested in doing exactly that.  The recent talk Milo gave at UC Boulder was an outlier in that the administrators said they weren't canceling no matter who threatened to protest, and violence was remarkably absent.  I'm suspicious of the mob mentality amongst the students and administrators at Berkely.  Somehow, I don't think it's going to be getting chucked off of a tall building, Mosul style, that's going to be his final undoing.  If any of the little shits out there have enough brain cells to spell Mussollini or Ceaucescu, I actually see them reenacting those executions.


----------



## Etype (Feb 3, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Not Milo's but a similar entertainer, Gavin McInnes; was "protested" at NYU by a similar crowd.  I guess free speech on college and university campuses is truly dead.
> 
> Protesters storm NYU over conservative speaker’s seminar | New York Post


It's interesting to see another appearance of their, "shame," chant, which they no doubt got from Game of Thrones.

They obviously don't make the connection that it was fringe, religious extremist, biggot, homophobes who made the original chant.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 3, 2017)

R


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 3, 2017)

Free Speech only if you are Liberal...:wall:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 3, 2017)

Seen a video clip on FB of one the rioters explaining how they wanted to be peaceful, but they're not getting what they want. Then they said they are "protesting" because it's not free speech, it's hate speech.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or *the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Uhhh, yeah, so you educated enlightened liberals have lost me for ever. Y'all need your damn heads checked...or at least educate yourselves about the government and liberty, rights and privileges, before forming some crazy ass opinion and than rioting in the streets like high school kids on their first early out with their first beer.

Nobody will listen to you if your "group" is packed full of a bunch loony tunes.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2017)

I guess some people didn't get the memo that certain "hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment.

racist speech | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech'



> On the other hand, 21% students -- and 30% of self-described liberals -- agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was an “outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed.”
> 
> Also remarkable was the fact that 35% of respondents agreed that “hate speech is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.”
> 
> ...


----------



## reed11b (Feb 4, 2017)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Free Speech only if you are Liberal...:wall:


Free speech only means that the GOVERNMENT can't dictate your speech, not that you are free from the consequences of who you offend with your speech. I.E., The Trump administration directly trying to sabotage the free press = violation of free speech, civilians protesting a speaker seen as racist or bigoted = NOT a violation of free speech. 
Reed
P.S. Does not mean that threats or vandalism are legal (or ok), just separate crimes from 1st amendment violations.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 4, 2017)

Not sure how many of you will like Dilbert after this BUT this is the best opinion piece I've read yet on the Berkeley hysteria and Milo.   I also suggest reading the article he references in the first line, I hyperlinked it; it explains the complete nonsense in the comparison of Trump and Hitler.



> Scott Adams' Blog
> Top Tech
> 
> Berkeley and Hitler
> ...


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 4, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I think he is funny and enjoy watching him make LIBTARDS go full nuclear melt down.


I think a funny bi-product is the reaction from so labeled cuckservatives who won't go as far as Milo will (although he says he isn't alt-right, he shares a lot of their ideology) and then get slammed for being (R) but not (R) enough by their own party. There's really not a reciprocal- like, left leaning folks don't have a derogatory term specifically for liberals who lean too far towards the center/right.

It opens up really weird dialogue.

Sad to see the Berkeley events happening. Absolutely disgraceful.

ETA- spelling and stupid


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 4, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Not sure how many of you will like Dilbert after this BUT this is the best opinion piece I've read yet on the Berkeley hysteria and Milo.   I also suggest reading the article he references in the first line, I hyperlinked it; it explains the complete nonsense in the comparison of Trump and Hitler.


Scott Adams is a perfect example of the broken clock theory.  If you've been reading his blogs since the election season, he switched support from Johnson, to Trump, to Hillary*, to Johnson, then Trump after he won.  He has some bizarre theory hypnotism as a means of national persuasion that's absolutely bonkers but probably makes perfect sense in Adams' mind.

This is a pretty good summary of his election-related blogging: No One Understands Donald Trump Like the Horny Narcissist Who Created Dilbert

*He claimed that this support for Hillary was because he feared for his own life.


----------



## Etype (Feb 4, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> ... who won't go as far as Milo will (although he says he isn't alt-right, he shares a lot of their ideology) ...


Do you really believe Milo is anywhere near being alt-right, or did this just seem like a fun and provocative thing to say?

Why would a gay Brit be a homophobic white nationalist?

A quick Google search of Milo and Daily Stormer brings up plenty of hate articles.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 4, 2017)

Milo has certainly made statements in the past that construe him as a self-loathing homosexual: Comedian explodes on ‘self-loathing’ gay conservative who wants to be straight: Face it, ‘you are gay as f*ck!’

I know that Joe Rogan is not the ultimate authority on interviews, but he does a good job of calling Milo's attitudes for what they are.  And it's not like it's a unique attitude, either.  Women can be misogynist.  Gays can certainly hate other gays.  Just take a look at the number of anti-gay "Family values" republicans who were forced out of the closet!  Troy King, Roy Ashburn, Larry Craig, and others.  The stereotype of the self-hating Jew is more prevalent than you'd imagine.  There are all kinds of ways that societal pressures or learned biases can prejudice people against their own kind.


----------



## Etype (Feb 4, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Milo has certainly made statements in the past that construe him as a self-loathing homosexual: Comedian explodes on ‘self-loathing’ gay conservative who wants to be straight: Face it, ‘you are gay as f*ck!’
> 
> I know that Joe Rogan is not the ultimate authority on interviews, but he does a good job of calling Milo's attitudes for what they are.  And it's not like it's a unique attitude, either.  Women can be misogynist.  Gays can certainly hate other gays.  Just take a look at the number of anti-gay "Family values" republicans who were forced out of the closet!  Troy King, Roy Ashburn, Larry Craig, and others.  The stereotype of the self-hating Jew is more prevalent than you'd imagine.  There are all kinds of ways that societal pressures or learned biases can prejudice people against their own kind.


You just typed up a post saying, "it's possible and it can potentially happen."


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 4, 2017)

Etype said:


> Do you really believe Milo is anywhere near being alt-right, or did this just seem like a fun and provocative thing to say?
> 
> Why would a gay Brit be a homophobic white nationalist?
> 
> A quick Google search of Milo and Daily Stormer brings up plenty of hate articles.


Yes, I believe his views align very closely with the alt right - he and Allum Bokhari coined the term in what equates to the alt-right manifesto in March 2016. He and Bokhari literally invented the term and described the movement. You can read the Brietbart article here 

By his own admission and in the article the alt right is not homophobic or white nationalist or racist- they're just nationalist.

Here's a great video where he says theat he's not defined as the alt right but clearly and succinctly shows how his own ideologies and worldview align very nicely with the alt right.






ETA- Milo/Bokhari didn't invent the term, they wrote the definitive article about the alt right which codified that movement labeled it. The label and description of the movement was solidified after the article.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 4, 2017)

Etype said:


> Why would a gay Brit be a homophobic white nationalist?
> 
> A quick Google search of Milo and Daily Stormer brings up plenty of hate articles.


Oh, and I didn't say Milo was alt right, homophobic, or white nationalist. I said his ideology lines up well with the alt right.

If it's your assumption that one must be  a homophobic white nationalist in order to be part of the alt right-  therefore a self loathing homosexual Jew can't align to the alt right in part or nearly whole- you're just laying the ground work for the upcoming 'no true Scotsman'.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 4, 2017)

Etype said:


> You just typed up a post saying, "it's possible and it can potentially happen."


More like "It's possible and he probably is"


----------



## Locksteady (Feb 5, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I've tended to pretty much ignore him and his videos, in fact I think that he was recently booted from Twitter.  But recently people who I consider to be pretty conservative, but certainly not racist, are sending me his videos on Facebook and posting them on forums.
> 
> Am I missing something on this guy?
> 
> Full disclosure, I've only watched one of his videos (something to do with feminism) and he kinda-sorta made sense, but surely something that tame could not have gotten him banned from Twitter and almost litterally considered Satan himself by my more liberal friends.


In a nutshell, you have someone utilizing his 'marginalized' identity to expose hypocritical, inconvenient truths about purported proponents of equality and tolerance.  He gets an especially high rise out of young feminists who do not tolerate information that threatens their narrative of Western females as the perpetual posterchildren for the underprivileged and oppressed, and his flamboyant homosexuality partially insulates him from ad hominems designed to detract from his referenced points.  His expressed amusement at knowingly utilizing this to his advantage seems to frustrate his female opponents the most.

If you talk to him it becomes immediately apparent that he takes most of what he does only half-seriously (because he thinks the backlash to the idea of even discussing certain topics to be childish and ridiculous), and he clearly enjoys being positioned to poke people he considers to be self-righteous hypocrites.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 6, 2017)

AWP said:


> I guess some people didn't get the memo that certain "hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> racist speech | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
> 
> Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech'



I was just in a meeting the other week with the head of the local Anti Defamation League.  She's an Ivy-educated attorney, and even she and by extension the ADL will say that hate speech is protected speech.

The truth is that popular speech doesn't require protection.  The First Amendment was designed specifically to allow idiots to yammer loudly in the public square despite the fact their ideas are unpopular or offensive.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

I still have no idea what alternative right is, Hard Right, yes.

I don't watch Milo often, but most of the time it's in clips of his best points.  To bad he's not the Press Secretary.

As an authorized activity the Berkeley College Republicans were required to pay for additional security upfront for the event.  They paid it, what happens the Black Bloc and friends show up.  But it wasn't just the black bloc executing violence.  

The leftist "protest" left $100,000 in damage: Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos talk after violent protests - CNN.com

The left can call Trump Hitler, but these are the tactics resembling Nazis and Fascists.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 7, 2017)

This whole thing is absurd to me. When one crazy right wing dude shoots up a church or blows up a federal building he is an extremist. Not representative of a political party or even a mainstream political movement. When millions of women people protest peacefully over the course of a weekend, almost all of whom are on the left, a few hundred in one place are then representative of libtards and the left? Such absurd hypocrisy. 

Virtue signaling(@Marauder06) I'm a liberal. And they don't represent me or anyone I know....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

When you are rallying for women's rights but don't want pro-life groups with you, that's why you get called libtards.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> This whole thing is absurd to me. When one crazy right wing dude shoots up a church or blows up a federal building he is an extremist. Not representative of a political party or even a mainstream political movement. When millions of women people protest peacefully over the course of a weekend, almost all of whom are on the left, a few hundred in one place are then representative of libtards and the left? Such absurd hypocrisy.
> 
> Virtue signaling(@Marauder06) I'm a liberal. And they don't represent me or anyone I know....



Nice try at blame shifting, but that's not going to fly here.  Maybe these violent criminals do not represent you, but they do represent your movement.  THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT HAS BECOME.  It's all about the separation.  It's all about hating the "other."  It's all about the violence.

You (ETA:  "you" in the general sense of the political left, not "you" the person)  talk about the "alt-right," but the "ctl-left" is what we really have to fear in this country.  Anything that doesn't toe the "progressive" line is subject to ridicule and attack.  Any type of dissent or even attempt at rational discussion is shouted down or shut out.  Any kind of bad behavior is excused if people felt "upset."  Even before the election the left was physically and verbally attacking conservatives and Trump supporters.  That violence has continued, and magnified.  How come this degree of violence doesn't regularly occur at right-wing rallies?  How many controversial speakers (I'm sorry, "provocateurs") from the left are violently prohibited from speaking at conservative universities?  How much of this "increase in hate crimes" is faked, exaggerated, or likely committed by leftists themselves?

Like I said earlier in this thread, the left is everything it says it fears about the right. 

"Love trumps hate involves a lot more assault and arson than I thought it would."


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 7, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Nice try at blame shifting, but that's not going to fly here.  Maybe these violent criminals do not represent you, but they do represent your movement.  THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT HAS BECOME.  It's all about the separation.  It's all about hating the "other."  It's all about the violence.
> 
> You talk about the "alt-right," but the "ctl-left" is what we really have to fear in this country.  Anything that doesn't toe the "progressive" line is subject to ridicule and attack.  Any type of dissent or even attempt at rational discussion is shouted down or shut out.  Any kind of bad behavior is excused if people felt "upset."  Even before the election the left was physically and verbally attacking conservatives and Trump supporters.  That violence has continued, and magnified.  How come this degree of violence doesn't regularly occur at right-wing rallies?  How many controversial speakers (I'm sorry, "provocateurs") from the left are violently prohibited from speaking at conservative universities?  How much of this "increase in hate crimes" is faked, exaggerated, or likely committed by leftists themselves?
> 
> ...



Find a post with me talking about the Alt right... I'll wait...


Find a time when I have toed the progressive line. Again, I'll wait.

Global warming isn't a progressive thing, it is a science thing. Marriage equality and marijuana legalization aren't progressive things they are libertarian ones. The only straight up progressive stance I have is on education, as I think that is a national defense initiative. 

You don't get to generalize just like I don't. When I do, I expect to be called on it. Just like I will call out absurd ass bullshit.

I come on here and argue points, but I certainly don't shout down opposing arguments.

If the generalization game is in play, which I have tried as hard as I can to stay away from, I can overgeneralize hard in the paint with anyone.

I am pro-gun, and anti shitty government.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 7, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Nice try at blame shifting, but that's not going to fly here.  Maybe these violent criminals do not represent you, but they do represent your movement.  THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT HAS BECOME.  It's all about the separation.  It's all about hating the "other."  It's all about the violence.
> 
> You talk about the "alt-right," but the "ctl-left" is what we really have to fear in this country.  Anything that doesn't toe the "progressive" line is subject to ridicule and attack.  Any type of dissent or even attempt at rational discussion is shouted down or shut out.  Any kind of bad behavior is excused if people felt "upset."  Even before the election the left was physically and verbally attacking conservatives and Trump supporters.  That violence has continued, and magnified.  How come this degree of violence doesn't regularly occur at right-wing rallies?  How many controversial speakers (I'm sorry, "provocateurs") from the left are violently prohibited from speaking at conservative universities?  How much of this "increase in hate crimes" is faked, exaggerated, or likely committed by leftists themselves?
> 
> ...



This really surprised me coming from you.  I would not have thought this represents your views.  I get frustration with many left-leaning organizations - but it's a diverse place, with a reasonably diverse set of views. 

If this is the standard - you must be represented by all groups, or the (perceived) dominant groups, or the most extreme groups on your side of the political spectrum then I would expect zero anger at being called racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic - since all of those views are well-represented on the right of the spectrum, with more than a significant number of ties to more mainstream parts of the conservative world.

I've always found the argument solid that those movements and views don't necessarily represent someone on the conservative end of the spectrum.  I find it disturbing when that logic is then applied to the left.

If you're really interested in the answers to the rhetorical questions you posed the southern poverty law center keeps detailed statistics on violent political movements and their activities - there are more than enough to match your examples on the left if violence against protesters at President Trump's campaign rallies is not enough evidence.  I think your answer on speakers at conservative universities is disingenuous at best.  Take a look at the charters, rules of conduct, and speaking list from Liberty University, Bob Jones, or that ilk on the right - they don't invite speakers with liberal views and they have very strict covenants on how students are expelled - which can be simply for having or expressing views contrary to the University.  It's the reason FIRE can pursue legal remedies at liberal - or just not conservative - universities.

I'm all about calling out liberal hypocrisy as a liberal.  I think it's one of the few good things that can come out of the left's decimation in electoral politics but this standard of guilt by association and generalizations is hard for me to fathom.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

I would like you to actually cite the source for such a claim, looking at Liberty's Code of Conduct, there is nothing about your overgeneralization.  Whereas it is a sheer fact that violence on public Universities towards conservative speakers has been tolerated multiple time just in the State of California alone.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I would like you to actually cite the source for such a claim, looking at Liberty's Code of Conduct, there is nothing about your overgeneralization.  Whereas it is a sheer fact that violence on public Universities towards conservative speakers has been tolerated multiple time just in the State of California alone.



Your eyeballs will probably fall out reading the daily kos but it's a decent summary of the liberty code and consequences, plus it's one of the first few google entries: Liberty University's "The Liberty Way" exposed


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Your eyeballs will probably fall out reading the daily kos but it's a decent summary of the liberty code and consequences, plus it's one of the first few google entries: Liberty University's "The Liberty Way" exposed


I went to VMI, the fines listed in the book make life look easy.  We marched in circles with a rifle and did manual labor for not doing things as outlined in the blue book.

Liberty is a private University, as such can create rules you may willingly submit yourself to, or choose not to attend.  But, raw, unfiltered from Liberty: https://www.liberty.edu/media/1210/Student_Honor_Code.pdf


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Find a post with me talking about the Alt right... I'll wait...
> 
> 
> Find a time when I have toed the progressive line. Again, I'll wait.
> ...




So we're "hating" each others' posts when we disagree now?  OK, here's some right back at you.

But doesn't your reaction prove my point?  "Here's a clearly articulated political position, which includes specific examples and citations, but it causes me to experience cognitive dissonance so... straight to hate!"  You can't refute what I wrote, so you resort to calling them "absurd ass bullshit."

I thought it was clear from the context of my post that the "you" was used in a general sense, referring to the political left, and was not directed at "you," a fellow SS staff member and longtime debate partner.  I will go back and edit my original post to ensure there's no confusion.

But if we're talking about you, then yes, I think you are a progressive, if we accept a definition from an article in say... I don't know... the Huffington Post.  Or Wikipedia.  Or the dictionary. 

I found your "hard in the paint" argument interesting.  I seem to remember using a similar basketball metaphor in a separate discussion, expressing concern about exactly the type of thing that is happening in this thread right now.

But I'm not trying to make this about you.  This was, and is, a discussion of the degeneration of the political left, as evidenced by the events directly related to the topic of this thread.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 8, 2017)

@Il Duce I've seen more racism and especially anti-semitism on the Left than the Right lately; bigotry has no political master.  There's plenty of assholes throughput the whole spectrum and frankly it won't disappear until we all recognize it.  This is just one article on it, I was surprised to find it in USA Today but there's many more.

The anti-Semitism we hoped to never see again: Column


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

@Marauder06 we are talking past each other. 

Let me lay out my points:

I disagreed with your post. Any hate was a fat finger not a purposeful one. It has been fixed. 

My point about absurd ass bullshit had never thing to do with your post. My original post in this thread was my response to what I see as an absurd double standard. That is: if violence or crime is committed by individuals or groups on one side, they are considered outliers and not representative. On the other side the same stuff happens and they are representative. That is a bullshit position to take in my opinion. 

Your posts don't show that it isn't. They highlight small examples out of the millions that have protested. 

When you start a post with a personal "you" then continue to say that, it is certainly NOT clear that you are differentiating.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 8, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> @Il Duce I've seen more racism and especially anti-semitism on the Left than the Right lately; bigotry has no political master.  There's plenty of assholes throughput the whole spectrum and frankly it won't disappear until we all recognize it.  This is just one article on it, I was surprised to find it in USA Today but there's many more.
> 
> The anti-Semitism we hoped to never see again: Column


I think that the author's points, while valid, are not very strong.  They basically boil down to this:

Leftist anti-semitism comes in the form of:
-Opposition to Jewish student groups (Hillel, et. al.) on college campuses
-Anti-Israeli sentiment

Point 1 is really the strongest point, but I counter that opposition to Hillel stems primarily from opposition to Israel itself, rather than Judaism.  It's no secret that most colleges are pro-Palestine, for good or ill, but whether this is anti-semitic depends entirely on whether you consider Zionism to be a central tenet of Judaism.  I don't purport to understand the teleology of Zionism as it relates to the Jewish experience, but my layman's understanding is that the idea of a Jewish homeland is very controversial amongst the various Jewish communities.  This article does a pretty good job explaining it: Israel and Judaism: The Long—and Largely Untold—History Of Jewish Opposition to Zionism

For instance, both orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish communities are against Zionism, while reformists are firmly pro-Zionism.  Can you be against Israel but not against Jews?  I don't know.  But I certainly don't think that the anti-semitism purported to come from the American left is comparable to the systematized hatred that came from Saudi Arabia and the Nazis.  That's not to say that left is perfectly innocent, either.  It's a core principle of Black supremacist movements (not BLM) such as the New Black Panther Party.  Cornell West was even writing about it back in the early 90's!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> @Marauder06 we are talking past each other.
> 
> Let me lay out my points:
> 
> ...



The issue is that violence is being normalized by one side, where it is still an abberation for the other.  How many protests over the past two years actually involved violence for each side ofmthe political spectrum. Bundy was nonviolent, count the washington takeover as violent even though it happened offsite.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 8, 2017)

It's strange to hear that some liberal colleges are anti-Semitic or pro-Palestinian because anyone my age really just uses it to mean stingy. Most anti-Semitic remark I've ever heard was "quit being Jewish with the beer/chips/COD cocksucker".


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> The issue is that violence is being normalized by one side, where it is still an abberation for the other.  How many protests over the past two years actually involved violence for each side ofmthe political spectrum. Bundy was nonviolent, count the washington takeover as violent even though it happened offsite.



Is it normalized though?

I would say while Bundy didn't get violent, the threat of violence and potential was very high.

My issue is that we are taking a hundred or so protestors in a few instances and putting that up to the "left". Rioters are criminals. People who purposefully invite riots are criminals. These people at Berkeley that got violent are criminals. That isn't my argument. 

3 weeks ago millions of people protested in almost every major city in America with no arrests, no violence. Isn't that a better representative sample of the "libtards" than these assholes at Berkeley?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 8, 2017)

Eggings, pepper spraying, water throwing...pesceful. one step up for draino instead of water.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Eggings, pepper spraying, water throwing...pesceful. one step up for draino instead of water.



None of that happened when millions of people marched... again, if we are taking small incidents, and then generalizing them to the whole side of a political spectrum, it is an absurd proposition.

I guess people who liked Trump got guns and took over government buildings. They had a standoff with the federal government. People on the right shot up a church in Charleston, and they blew up a federal building on OKC. Those all led to far more death and destruction.

Or maybe, those people are just assholes. Maybe they don't represent an entire varied political movement. Maybe the vast majority of "libtards" are just normal people who view America through a different prism than you do. Generalizing entire groups by the actions of the extreme is a poor metric.

You can be on the right and be a normal person, or you can be a huge gaping asshole.

You can be on the left and be a normal person or you can be a huge gaping asshole.

You can even be a gay guy, and be a normal person, be from iraq, or Syria, and for the vast vast majority of everyday people, normal person is the resting situation. Gaping asshole is the extreme of any experience.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Gaping asshole is the extreme of any experience.


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the least likely quote I would have ever thought to see while discussing politics in America.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Is it normalized though?
> 
> I would say while Bundy didn't get violent, the threat of violence and potential was very high.
> 
> ...



I personally wanted Bundy and his ilk clapped in irons.  But the easiest thing they could have done with that family was frozen their assets, but they went the other way.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the least likely quote I would have ever thought to see while discussing politics in America.


And now it's forever enshrined in signature history.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> None of that happened when millions of people marched... again, if we are taking small incidents, and then generalizing them to the whole side of a political spectrum, it is an absurd proposition.
> 
> I guess people who liked Trump got guns and took over government buildings. They had a standoff with the federal government. People on the right shot up a church in Charleston, and they blew up a federal building on OKC. Those all led to far more death and destruction.
> 
> ...



Oh, nice breaking out the wayback machine on OKC.  

Judging from the verbal support, these actions are appreciated by the mainstream majority of your party.  Perhaps you may be right, but does that put you with the same value party wise...as another silent majority?

Don't forget to throw BLM into the mix if we are waybacking for a fishing expedition... what party dominates that totally nonviolent scene...


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Oh, nice breaking out the wayback machine on OKC.
> 
> Judging from the verbal support, these actions are appreciated by the mainstream majority of your party.  Perhaps you may be right, but does that put you with the same value party wise...as another silent majority?
> 
> Don't forget to throw BLM into the mix if we are waybacking for a fishing expedition... what party dominates that totally nonviolent scene...



The OKC bombing was what I would call a sentinel event. You know like the Hitler of events. BLm blew up buildings and had armed standoffs with the government? Maybe that was those un-reported terrorist attacks. 

Seriously man. More people voted for the "libtard" that means they oblige to the socialist progressive ideology. Why isn't there politically inspired violence everywhere? In massive numbers.

Again big gaping assholes is why. Most people aren't big gaping assholes.

ETA the Hitler thing is a joke, not a serious Hitler fallacy.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> The OKC bombing was what I would call a sentinel event. You know like the Hitler of events. BLm blew up buildings and had armed standoffs with the government? Maybe that was those un-reported terrorist attacks.
> 
> Seriously man. More people voted for the "libtard" that means they oblige to the solvialist progressive ideology. Why isn't there politically inspired violence everywhere?
> 
> Again big gaping assholes is why. Most people aren't big gaping assholes.



Property cost of blm and current protests well exceeds the fiscal prices of anything you mentioned.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Property cost of blm and current protests well exceeds the fiscal prices of anything you mentioned.



How much is a human life worth? 7-9 million dollars or so...conservatively.

The lives of over hundred? 168 to be exact, just from OKC...

1.08 billion. I don't think BLM has made a dent in that.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> People on the right shot up a church in Charleston,


Whoa. People on the right did not shoot up that church. That was one shooter, an extremest, and someone that the right and the left denounced immediately. Unless you are referring to another shooting. Otherwise, No.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Whoa. People on the right did not shoot up that church. That was one shooter, an extremest, and someone that the right and the left denounced immediately. Unless you are referring to another shooting. Otherwise, No.



Exactly. My point was that generalizing is fucking stupid.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Exactly. My point was that generalizing is fucking stupid.


Ahhhh, now I see the context.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2017)

The extremes on either side dominate the conversation. We need the middle-of-the-road to  rise up and shout down the left and right 10%. Polarization favors extremists, not the majority.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

Speaking of the Bundy's: Las Vegas trial set to start in case of armed confrontation with feds over Bundy cattle

All I know is I don't see conservatives stopping people from speaking and then breaking stuff.  

Back to Milo, he can be entertaining.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

Breaking stuff, no. Conservatives at the highest levels stopped Elizabeth Warren from speaking at the senate confirmation hearing though....

I know the circumstances, but generalizing right?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Breaking stuff, no. Conservatives at the highest levels stopped Elizabeth Warren from speaking at the senate confirmation hearing though....
> 
> I know the circumstances, but generalizing right?


Yeah, because she was attacking the character of another Senator.  Tells me everything about her, already thought she was an asshole.  I'm guessing this is where the Roman Senate was, no we need to remove pens so there's no stabbings in the Senate Chamber.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah, because she was attacking the character of another Senator.  Tells me everything about her, already thought she was an asshole.  I'm guessing this is where the Roman Senate was, no we need to remove pens so there's no stabbings in the Senate Chamber.



Like I said, I know the circumstances. But we are generalizing everything here.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 9, 2017)

Stopping 1 man from speaking is worth the thousands in damages.


Berkeley Riot Organizers Say Lawbreaking Was Justified to Shut Down Milo's 1st Amendment Rights


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Stopping 1 man from speaking is worth the thousands in damages.
> 
> 
> Berkeley Riot Organizers Say Lawbreaking Was Justified to Shut Down Milo's 1st Amendment Rights



No it isn't.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> No it isn't.



They seem to think so.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 9, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> They seem to think so.



They are gaping assholes.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 9, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> They are gaping assholes.



That's an insult to all the wonderful gaping assholes in porn.


----------



## CDG (Feb 9, 2017)

More support for the riots.  How many have to support it before it's not a fringe element anymore?

UC Berkeley Student Paper Publishes Five Op-Eds Defending Violent Riots


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 9, 2017)

CDG said:


> More support for the riots.  How many have to support it before it's not a fringe element anymore?
> 
> UC Berkeley Student Paper Publishes Five Op-Eds Defending Violent Riots



Next time let the fucking place burn with them in it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 9, 2017)

CDG said:


> More support for the riots.  How many have to support it before it's not a fringe element anymore?
> 
> UC Berkeley Student Paper Publishes Five Op-Eds Defending Violent Riots



I'm already there, and have said as much in this thread.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2017)

CDG said:


> More support for the riots.  How many have to support it before it's not a fringe element anymore?
> 
> UC Berkeley Student Paper Publishes Five Op-Eds Defending Violent Riots


It's Berkeley.  They have been, and probably always will be several degrees to the left of everyone.  Do we use Liberty University or Bob Jones University to define the right?  No, we do not.  We should also not look to Berkeley as the milepost for leftism.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> It's Berkeley.  They have been, and probably always will be several degrees to the left of everyone.  Do we use Liberty University or Bob Jones University to define the right?  No, we do not.  We should also not look to Berkeley as the milepost for leftism.



So, don't use any violent protestors, don't use BLM, don't use Berkeley.  What else is not allowed to be included when talking about the left?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> So, don't use any violent protestors, don't use BLM, don't use Berkeley.  What else is not allowed to be included when talking about the left?



No shit. Lets reference fringe one off wackjobs in our defense, but all these commonplace things are fringe elements that aren't representative, and shouldn't be construed as our core membership.

Just like how everything but liberal is racist.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 10, 2017)

Have we seen more violence coming from left-leaning groups recently?  *Yes*, I think that is fair to say.
Has political violence come under the purview of the mainstream left?  *No*.

Look, the American leftist movement is a big intellectual organism, which is comprised of many different interests and movements.  A short list includes: organized labor, immigration advocates, pro-choice groups, communists, anti-fascists, environmental advocates, poverty advocates, LGBT groups, the DNC, black and hispanic supremacists, and many others in between.  I include the savory as well as the less-savory just to illustrate the scope of American leftism, and as an admission that not all leftist groups are sanguine.  Of these groups, organized labor is the largest by a huge margin.  Granted, union membership has been in decline since the 60's, but there are still almost 15 million union members in the country.

What is the size of Black Lives Matter?  What is the size of the Black Bloc?  The Berkeley editorial board?  The first one is a trick question because it's not an organized movement and is itself a mishmash of ideologies, and even then the violent elements are only part of it.  The second one is in the thousands, perhaps.  The third is made up of 16 people, excluding administration staff. 

What I'm trying to illustrate is that until advocates of this kind of political violence reach a critical mass on the left, it will continue to be in the domain of the fringe.

What @TLDR20 and others are trying to illustrate is that we don't apply the same standards to American conservatism as we do to the left.  Why don't we make a similar list for the right?  We've got business interest groups, evangelicals, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, the GOP, States Rights groups, anti-immigration, militias, the Tea Party, pro-life groups, and others.  During the Tea Party ascendancy, did the left say "Look, this is now conservatism"?  Do we define conservatism through a mixture of militias, anarcho-capitalists, and white nationalists?  No, we do not.  Nor should we.

Now, if you suddenly have an influential person of power (either politically or economically) on either side begin to advocate violence, then you can start to figure that violence is in the process of being legitimized.  Like, if Obama or Clinton came out tomorrow and said "Yeah, let's burn this place down," then you would have a fair argument.  The same principle would apply if the Kochs, Peter Thiel, or Newt Gingrich began speaking on behalf the Volksfront.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> During the Tea Party ascendancy, did the left say "Look, this is now conservatism"?  Do we define conservatism through a mixture of militias, anarcho-capitalists, and white nationalists?  No, we do not.  Nor should we.



Last I checked, the majority of the commentary coming from the left on anyone who supports Trump, or identifies as conservative, labels them as "racist", "bigots", "misogynists", "deplorable", "sexist", "ignorant", etc.  You seem to be confusing the fact that you and @TLDR20 are in the minority with what the majority is saying/doing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> Last I checked, the majority of the commentary coming from the left on anyone who supports Trump, or identifies as conservative, labels them as "racist", "bigots", "misogynists", "deplorable", "sexist", "ignorant", etc.  You seem to be confusing the fact that you and @TLDR20 are in the minority with what the majority is saying/doing.



You are generalizing. The majority says that those on who voted for President Trump are all racists? Or do they say they voted for someone who is those things. 

I think that the President has said some ignorant, sexist, bigoted bullshit. I don't think everyone who voted for him believes those same things. Maybe I am in the minority who can differentiate there. Shouldn't you also try and differentiate between what is the minority of opinion in widely held beliefs, and what the majority actually believes?

Do you not see a double standard being applied? If I wanted to, and it would be easy, every time someone who supports Trump did say something racist, mysoginist, or ignorant, I could hold it up as an example of the "right". I don't do that because it isn't representative of the right. Now when the President says those things, or his cabinet, or advisors, I will ALWAYS point it out. But if some dude from Ohio, or David Duke says something dumb, I don't post on here attempting to generalize it to 49% of the voting population.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 10, 2017)

This is the libtard life-



			
				Kevin Plank said:
			
		

> I think he’s highly passionate, to have such a pro-business President is something that is a real asset for the country. People can really grab that opportunity. He wants to build things, he wants to make bold decisions and be really decisive. I’m a big fan of people that operate in the world of publish and iterate versus think, think, think, think, think. So there’s a lot that I respect there.



Now...the controversy of a Pro Business President-


			
				The Rock said:
			
		

> I appreciate and welcome the feedback from people who disagree (and agree) with Kevin Plank's words on CNBC, but these are neither my words, nor my beliefs. His words were divisive and lacking in perspective. Inadvertently creating a situation where the personal political opinions of UA’s partners and its employees were overshadowed by the comments of its CEO. A good company is not solely defined by its CEO. A good company is not defined by the athlete or celebrity who partners with them. A good company is not a single person. A good company is a team, a group of brothers and sisters committed to working together each and every day to provide for their families and one another and the clients they serve.
> We don’t partner with a brand casually. I partner with brands I trust and with people who share my same values. That means a commitment to diversity, inclusion, community, open-mindedness and some serious hard work. But it doesn't mean that I or my team will always agree with the opinion of everyone who works there, including its executives. Great leaders inspire and galvanize the masses during turbulent times, they don't cause people to divide and disband.  My responsibility here is not only to the global audience we serve, but also to the thousands of workers who pour blood, sweat, and tears into making Under Armour strong. A diverse group of hardworking men and women who possess integrity, respect and compassion for one another and the world they live in. Debate is healthy. But in a time of widespread disagreement, so is loyalty. I feel an obligation to stand with this diverse team, the American and global workers, who are the beating heart and soul of Under Armour and the reason I chose to partner with them.





			
				Misty Copeland said:
			
		

> I have always appreciated the great support and platform that Under Armour has given me to represent my community, gender, and career on the world stage. However, I strongly disagree with Kevin Plank's recent comments in support of Trump as recently reported. Those of you who have supported and followed my career know that the one topic I've never backed away from speaking openly about is the importance of diversity and inclusion. It is imperative to me that my partners and sponsors share this belief. I have spoken at length with Kevin privately about the matter, but as someone who takes my responsibility as a role model very seriously, it is important to me that he, and UA, take public action to clearly communicate and reflect our common values in order for us to effectively continue to work towards our shared goal of trying to motivate ALL people to be their best selves.





			
				Steph Curry said:
			
		

> I spent all day yesterday on the phone with countless people at Under Armour, countless people in Kevin Plank’s camp, my team, trying to understand what was going on and where everybody stood on the issue. There is no amount of money, there is no platform I wouldn’t jump off if it wasn’t in line with who I am,” Curry said.“... It’s a fine line but it’s about how we’re operating: how inclusive we are, what we stand for. He’s the President. There are going to be people that are tied to them. But are we promoting change? Are we doing things that are going to look out for everybody? And not being so self-serving that it’s only about making money, selling shoes, doing this and that. That’s not the priority. It's about changing lives. I think we can continue to do that.



Since I actually listened to the interview in its entirety, I do not understand the controversy created by that statement in context.  I don't know what Curry wants clarified.  Even in a vacuum, that's not offensive. Getting offended about literally nothing.  These three people can influence a lot people.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> You are generalizing. The majority says that those on who voted for President Trump are all racists? Or do they say they voted for someone who is those things.
> 
> I think that the President has said some ignorant, sexist, bigoted bullshit. I don't think everyone who voted for him believes those same things. Maybe I am in the minority who can differentiate there. Shouldn't you also try and differentiate between what is the minority of opinion in widely held beliefs, and what the majority actually believes?
> 
> Do you not see a double standard being applied? If I wanted to, and it would be easy, every time someone who supports Trump did say something racist, mysoginist, or ignorant, I could hold it up as an example of the "right". I don't do that because it isn't representative of the right. Now when the President says those things, or his cabinet, or advisors, I will ALWAYS point it out. But if some dude from Ohio, or David Duke says something dumb, I don't post on here attempting to generalize it to 49% of the voting population.



You're right, I am generalizing.  I am generalizing because the majority of the commentary I notice says the same things.  You and SaltUSMC are the minority left.  The ones who can have an intelligent, reasoned debate with minimal emotion.  You, IMHO, represent the minority left.  The majority left is not those things.  That's my point.  I do not put you guys in the same category, but I believe you are unintentionally being a bit blind to what is happening in leftist America.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> You're right, I am generalizing.  I am generalizing because the majority of the commentary I notice says the same things.  You and SaltUSMC are the minority left.  The ones who can have an intelligent, reasoned debate with minimal emotion.  You, IMHO, represent the minority left.  The majority left is not those things.  That's my point.  I do not put you guys in the same category, but I believe you are unintentionally being a bit blind to what is happening in leftist America.



I do get where you are coming from. There is no snark here: if all you see is articles characterizing something you may like or agree with as all those negative things, you may think that is the majority viewpoint. BUT: as was shown, sometimes our media is much more partisan than the average person. The commentary is often much more biased than that of most people. Most of it almost all "liberals" are more centrist than is portrayed here. It seems to me that often one cannot even have an opposing viewpoint without being a "libtard" or a "racist redneck" in reality the enormous majority of both parties is full of people like you and I that CAN have a rational discussion.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2017)

If I see one more instance of "libtard" or whatever else is used to describe both liberals or conservatives alike, Ima start dropping bombs. FFS, no one can make a point without junior high-level name calling? Christ, I'm just to the left of a Mongol warlord on some issues and the name calling bullshit is old. "Libtards" or "Nazis" for the right, do y'all have idea how ridiculous you sound?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 10, 2017)

Je suis libtard!


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Je suis libtard!



Don't feed the animals.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I do get where you are coming from. There is no snark here: if all you see is articles characterizing something you may like or agree with as all those negative things, you may think that is the majority viewpoint. BUT: as was shown, sometimes our media is much more partisan than the average person. The commentary is often much more biased than that of most people. Most of it almost all "liberals" are more centrist than is portrayed here. It seems to me that often one cannot even have an opposing viewpoint without being a "libtard" or a "racist redneck" in reality the enormous majority of both parties is full of people like you and I that CAN have a rational discussion.




The few times I have attempted to engage in intelligent discourse regarding liberal viewpoints, with liberals, anywhere other than here.... has degraded on their part towards privilege checks, racism cries, etc etc etc. Without fail, even when I remain as textually/verbally neutral as physically possible.

Ya'll here are more of a minority than you honestly understand, methinks.


----------



## CDG (Feb 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I do get where you are coming from. There is no snark here: if all you see is articles characterizing something you may like or agree with as all those negative things, you may think that is the majority viewpoint. BUT: as was shown, sometimes our media is much more partisan than the average person. The commentary is often much more biased than that of most people. Most of it almost all "liberals" are more centrist than is portrayed here. It seems to me that often one cannot even have an opposing viewpoint without being a "libtard" or a "racist redneck" in reality the enormous majority of both parties is full of people like you and I that CAN have a rational discussion.





Ranger Psych said:


> The few times I have attempted to engage in intelligent discourse regarding liberal viewpoints, with liberals, anywhere other than here.... has degraded on their part towards privilege checks, racism cries, etc etc etc. Without fail, even when I remain as textually/verbally neutral as physically possible.
> 
> Ya'll here are more of a minority than you honestly understand, methinks.



@Ranger Psych nailed it.  I am not on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media where people engage in debates on these matters.  However, what I have experienced through talking to people at work, at a bar, at a restaurant, etc. is along the lines of what RP said.

@TLDR20, you are correct about the media being more partisan than the average person.  The average person gets their viewpoints from the media though.  The majority of us here on this site, and unanimously the senior members/staff, are all natural skeptics who will research things to determine what they believe.  They eschew party lines, labels, and demographics in favor of logical thought.  That is more and more rare these days.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 11, 2017)

This one sums it all up on the double standards...:blkeye::wall:


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

Interesting read:  "the Milo playbook"


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

also interesting read:  op-eds in the campus paper, condemning in no uncertain terms the violence at Berkeley.

Wait, that's not what they were doing at all.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 11, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Interesting read:  "the Milo playbook"



I'll take everything in that with a grain of salt.  Tucker Max is the king of misogyny and douchebaggery.  Seems this is just an attempt to save face or garner publicity for the writer.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 11, 2017)

The best part was Betsy DeVos getting accosted by liberals on the street and the DailyKos calling it awesome...I think that's a libidiot for you.

Watch Betsy DeVos get a lesson in resistance as protesters block entrance to a D.C. school

Also on the tucker maxx piece...this guy is saying he wrote the playbook for a guy who claims to have used a whole bottle of KY for one back door trip...I don't think he did that.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The best part was Betsy DeVos getting accosted by liberals on the street and the DailyKos calling it awesome...I think that's a libidiot for you.
> 
> Watch Betsy DeVos get a lesson in resistance as protesters block entrance to a D.C. school
> 
> Also on the tucker maxx piece...this guy is saying he wrote the playbook for a guy who claims to have used a whole bottle of KY for one back door trip...I don't think he did that.



Did you ignore @AWP's post. Libidiot is the same as libtard.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The best part was Betsy DeVos getting accosted by liberals on the street and the DailyKos calling it awesome...I think t*hat's a libidiot *for you.
> 
> Watch Betsy DeVos get a lesson in resistance as protesters block entrance to a D.C. school
> 
> Also on the tucker maxx piece...this guy is saying he wrote the playbook for a guy who claims to have used a whole bottle of KY for one back door trip...I don't think he did that.




Come on brother we can do better than that.  The name calling detracts from the message.  "Liberal" is an appropriate term, "libtard," "libidiot" and the like don't really do much to advance the discussion.


----------



## AWP (Feb 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Did you ignore @AWP's post. Libidiot is the same as libtard.



I was just giving him some warning points and you went and stole my kill.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2017)

AWP said:


> I was just giving him some warning points and you went and stole my kill.



Wasn't me.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 11, 2017)

I feel like this just happened for real...


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2017)

For total transparency: on this site we have a warning system. If a member gets 5 or more warning points they are automatically banned. That is what happened here. There was no bias. No punishment for opposing thinking. Just straight: don't do this, he did that, got warnings, moved past the threshold...


----------



## AWP (Feb 11, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> For total transparency: on this site we have a warning system. If a member gets 5 or more warning points they are automatically banned. That is what happened here. There was no bias. No punishment for opposing thinking. Just straight: don't do this, he did that, got warnings, moved past the threshold...



 I dropped too many points, thinking the ban threshold was higher. This on me.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 12, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> The few times I have attempted to engage in intelligent discourse regarding liberal viewpoints, with liberals, anywhere other than here.... has degraded on their part towards privilege checks, racism cries, etc etc etc. Without fail, even when I remain as textually/verbally neutral as physically possible.
> 
> Ya'll here are more of a minority than you honestly understand, methinks.


Dude, I would say the same thing and _I classify myself as a liberal. _It's the most frustrating thing. Well, the second most- when someone gets frustrated with me because I have good points/counterpoints to their not-well-thought-out-argument and they just resort to name calling. THAT is pretty frustrating, but that's frustrating with any topic.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 12, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I'll take everything in that with a grain of salt.  Tucker Max is the king of misogyny and douchebaggery.  Seems this is just an attempt to save face or garner publicity for the writer.


While that is true, the successful marketing of that douchebaggery (and asshattery, possibly fuckwittery) things and the parallel to Milo is a pretty good read. 

I have read all of Tucker's books too, I just feel differently about them now than I did when I first read them.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> If I see one more instance of "libtard" or whatever else is used to describe both liberals or conservatives alike, Ima start dropping bombs. FFS, no one can make a point without junior high-level name calling? Christ, I'm just to the left of a Mongol warlord on some issues and the name calling bullshit is old. "Libtards" or "Nazis" for the right, do y'all have idea how ridiculous you sound?




But I use that word in like 90% of my posting on here...:wall:

Can I still use fuck nuggets? 

What did you do to my Cav Scout occifer? 

And I'll agree with the rest that Salt USMC, TLDR, Amlove, are far more capable of debating and presenting well thought out points of view, than 99% of the liberal folks I've talked with the past few years. I've honestly rethought my position on a few things due to their posting on here. Although I will miss insulting them with my favorite word that is no longer allowed to be posted here. I mean you can call them cunts thanks to pardus, but don't you dare call them Lib....


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 12, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Dude, I would say the same thing and _I classify myself as a liberal. _It's the most frustrating thing. Well, the second most- when someone gets frustrated with me because I have good points/counterpoints to their not-well-thought-out-argument and they just resort to name calling. THAT is pretty frustrating, but that's frustrating with any topic.



Thats exactly the problem. I don't even bother bringing _opposing_ facts, just trying to discuss what makes them wrong I mean think the way they do, and they can't produce any rational cause.

Edited to add opposing, and fix tablet typos etc.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 12, 2017)

Politics makes people of all sides do that. Politics makes people cunts.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 12, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Politics makes people of all sides do that. Politics makes people cunts.



Like Meryl Streep calling all Trump supporters Nazi Brownshirts?


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 12, 2017)

Yeah exactly.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 12, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Like Meryl Streep calling all Trump supporters Nazi Brownshirts?


Where was the brownshirts mention?  I didn't hear it in this video.


----------



## AWP (Feb 12, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Where was the brownshirts mention?  I didn't hear it in this video.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/movies/meryl-streep-brownshirts-trump-golden-globes.html?_r=0

Meryl Streep Delivers Another Epic Anti-Trump Rant


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 15, 2017)

This should be a good watch.

Controversial Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos Lands Spot On HBO’s ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’


----------



## Grunt (Feb 15, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Like Meryl Streep calling all Trump supporters Nazi Brownshirts?



When she speaks, all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice...wah wha wha wha wha....


----------



## Gunz (Feb 15, 2017)

She's overrated.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 15, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> She's overrated.


Like, as an actress? 

I'm not exactly a fan of hers but I'd say she's at least accurately rated.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2017)

I think  that was a joke, like a reference to what the President said about her.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 16, 2017)

It was a joke I stole from The Donald.

And maybe she's not overrated as an actress, but she's a has-been. Her movies have been dogs since the late 80's. I mean how many people are running out the door to see _Florence Foster Jenkins_? Has-been movie stars _hate_ not being the center of attention. That's why they _do _shit, like adopt a cause or go into rehab or get a sex change or make controversial political statements. Anything to get the old mug on Access Hollywood.

What was it Merlin told Morgan La Fey? "When you're forgotten, you cease to exist."


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 16, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> It was a joke I stole from The Donald.
> 
> And maybe she's not overrated as an actress, but she's a has-been. Her movies have been dogs since the late 80's. I mean how many people are running out the door to see _Florence Foster Jenkins_? Has-been movie stars _hate_ not being the center of attention. That's why they _do _shit, like adopt a cause or go into rehab or get a sex change or make controversial political statements. Anything to get the old mug on Access Hollywood.
> 
> What was it Merlin told Morgan La Fey? "When you're forgotten, you cease to exist."



She may be overrated but the reason people listen to her, and she continues to get awards is the same as the reason people like Trump. She is successful. Her movies have grossed over 2 billion dollars: Lifetime Gross Total (53): $2,038,349,083. 

That is a lot of money. People go see movies because she is in them. For studios that is a cash cow.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2017)

She's a good actress, but that doesn't mean I care about her opinion. I care about her acting IF I'm watching something she's in, not her political opinions. A problem in America is we cannot separate our opinions of an actor/ actress' performance from their political views. I can like an actor/ actress but HATE their self-righteous bully platforms.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 16, 2017)

Regardless, of which side of the aisle they come from politically...I don't want to hear about their complaints or support for their political leanings. Go to a political rally or some other event for that.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2017)

"Boycotters are the reason liberals lose elections."



> “liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech.”


Bill Maher Defends MILO Invitation: Boycotters 'Reason Liberals Lose Elections' - Breitbart


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 17, 2017)

Back to explaining Milo.  It's pretty simple, he's a hard right conservative who also happens to be gay.  He comes prepared to defend his position with facts and the left hates the fact that someone can speak eloquently and destroy their views.  He's pretty unemotional, whereas the opposition wants to play to emotions.

To be honest.  Bill Maher just had Tomi Lahren on his show, I stopped watching it awhile ago.

I would propose we delete or merge to a new thread called: Why is the Left Emotional, since this thread is about Milo.  ETA: 




#MakeClubRugbyGreatAgain...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 18, 2017)

Bill Maher used to raise my blood pressure, not so much anymore.  He's a liberal who is willing and able to critique his own kind.  

Milo Yiannopoulos spars with Bill Maher, attacks female comics - Entertainment Weekly
Milo Yiannopoulos Spars With Bill Maher, Attacks Female Comics

I enjoyed his interview with Milo and even more, Maher's response to  Jeremy Scahill's written statement about bailing on his scheduled appearance because Milo was going to be there:

_In response, Maher released his own statement. “Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”_


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 18, 2017)

I will preface that I have yet to watch this:


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 18, 2017)

His interview was good but Milo confronting the panel was better.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 18, 2017)

Larry Wilmore ate that dudes lunch. That's what happens when people who think they're funny go against people who actually are...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 18, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> Larry Wilmore ate that dudes lunch. That's what happens when people who think they're funny go against people who actually are...


I disagree. When you yell, you lost the argument.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I disagree. When you yell, you lost the argument.


He didn't yell. He did make sure some smarmy little Nazis fuck didn't talk over him. That's the difference coming up doing open mics where you have to be able to talk shit in person vs gaining fame being an interest troll where you can hide behind a keyboard.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 18, 2017)

You think Milo's a Nazi...he wasn't funny, all he did was raise his volume and cuss him out.  He almost had a point, almost.

Whatever man, keep on the cussing train.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 18, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> You think Milo's a Nazi...he wasn't funny, all he did was raise his volume and cuss him out.  He almost had a point, almost.
> 
> Whatever man, keep on the cussing train.


I'll take Larry saying fuck over someone saying the vile shit Milo says 10/10 times. Also can we please stop talking about how intelligent that Backstreet Boy reject is? He admits to being nothing more than a troll. That's the antithesis of intelligence.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 19, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> He didn't yell. He did make sure some smarmy little Nazis fuck didn't talk over him. That's the difference coming up doing open mics where you have to be able to talk shit in person vs gaining fame being an interest troll where you can hide behind a keyboard.


Except he isn't hiding behind a keyboard. Did you not see what happened at Berkeley?  He has said nothing vile. In what way exactly is he a Nazi? How does a gay, Jewish, black boyfriend having guy equate to a Nazi or white supremacist? I suggest you revisit the definition of a Nazi and use it to accurately label someone. Wilmore was the first to open an uncivilized broadside in what was supposed to be an open discussion on several topics. Not a hate fest of fuck yous because he has a different opinion. I guess free speech is only ok when it conforms to your social agenda?


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2017)

Larry's biggest problem is he allowed a Grade A troll to bother him and his response was a "GFY." It's a case of the message being lost or degraded by the presentation. It was emotional and personal and no doubt beloved by all who dislike Milo, but could have/ should have been handled better. Intellectually he won the argument, emotionally he lost the battle. Larry fell into Milo's trap.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 19, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> Except he isn't hiding behind a keyboard. Did you not see what happened at Berkeley?  He has said nothing vile. In what way exactly is he a Nazi? How does a gay, Jewish, black boyfriend having guy equate to a Nazi or white supremacist? I suggest you revisit the definition of a Nazi and use it to accurately label someone. Wilmore was the first to open an uncivilized broadside in what was supposed to be an open discussion on several topics. Not a hate fest of fuck yous because he has a different opinion. I guess free speech is only ok when it conforms to your social agenda?



My comment regarding "hiding behind a keyboard" is in regards to his entrance into the public conscience. He came up by being nothing more than a troll who moved from the internet and into the real world. He isn't like Wilmore or Maher who have decades of performance experience and it shows- milo can giggle and throw verbal jabs and talking points about Trans people being sexual predators, and that's about it. 

I use the term Nazis in association with him due to his own association with the "alt right." That whole movement needs that label applied to them. If he doesn't want the label applied to him, then don't associate with that group. Not just saying "oh they all hate me." That doesn't cut it. 

Don't conflate Larry telling him to go fuck himself with "stifling free speech" or whatever you seem to be getting at. Milo has every right to hate speech and Larry has the same right to tell him to fuck off. I agree with AWP in his assessment that it may have just played into Milo's hands.


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> I use the term Nazis in association with him due to his own association with the "alt right." That whole movement needs that label applied to them.



I disagree with this 100%. Comparing any group to the Nazis is a bogus, garbage argument designed for an emotional response. When the alt right starts gassing people we can think about applying the label but until then anyone who makes the comparison has automatically lost me. They aren't even in the same galaxy.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 19, 2017)

DasBoot said:


> My comment regarding "hiding behind a keyboard" is in regards to his entrance into the public conscience. He came up by being nothing more than a troll who moved from the internet and into the real world. He isn't like Wilmore or Maher who have decades of performance experience and it shows- milo can giggle and throw verbal jabs and talking points about Trans people being sexual predators, and that's about it.
> 
> I use the term Nazis in association with him due to his own association with the "alt right." That whole movement needs that label applied to them. If he doesn't want the label applied to him, then don't associate with that group. Not just saying "oh they all hate me." That doesn't cut it.
> 
> Don't conflate Larry telling him to go fuck himself with "stifling free speech" or whatever you seem to be getting at. Milo has every right to hate speech and Larry has the same right to tell him to fuck off. I agree with AWP in his assessment that it may have just played into Milo's hands.


Decades of experience doing what? Exactly the same thing Milo did, except they used a different medium to get started. They got on stage and told jokes and trolled people (albeit to a much smaller extent) and talked about sensitive issues (racism, sexuality, religion, ect.). Remember Maher's comments after 9/11? Yeah, same shit different medium. Personally, I don't agree with his comments on Trans, nor his interpretation of the statistics. However, it doesn't matter.

Your use of the term is still incorrect. Period. He has stated many times that he is not part of the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right hates him, the only ones to label him as such are people that want to vilify him and censor him under the guise of him being a Nazi. Which is more than obviously not the case. Your definition does not cut it in any literal or academic context. To quote my old LT "next slide please".

ETA: Let me be clear then, I am sure you had no problem with what Maher, and Wilmore's content when they say what they like. Just because Milo says something you don't like doesn't mean he can't say it using the same forum (public speaking) the other two have.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2017)

AWP said:


> Larry's biggest problem is he allowed a Grade A troll to bother him and his response was a "GFY." It's a case of the message being lost or degraded by the presentation. It was emotional and personal and no doubt beloved by all who dislike Milo, but could have/ should have been handled better. Intellectually he won the argument, emotionally he lost the battle. Larry fell into Milo's trap.


He didn't attempt an intellectual argument, he almost did, and then he went full emotional.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2017)

AWP said:


> If I see one more instance of "libtard" or whatever else is used to describe both liberals or conservatives alike, Ima start dropping bombs. FFS, no one can make a point without junior high-level name calling? Christ, I'm just to the left of a Mongol warlord on some issues and the name calling bullshit is old. "Libtards" or "Nazis" for the right, do y'all have idea how ridiculous you sound?





DasBoot said:


> He didn't yell. He did make sure some smarmy little Nazis fuck didn't talk over him. That's the difference coming up doing open mics where you have to be able to talk shit in person vs gaining fame being an interest troll where you can hide behind a keyboard.



@DasBoot did you not read this? 
Not only is that statement fucking ridiculous to make, but it goes directly against an order from a member of staff. Knock it off! Got it?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 19, 2017)

Larry and Milo's back and forth highlights a very annoying and stupid dynamic in today's culture. 

Anyone remember what prompted Larry's "so emotional" GFY comment?
Milo told Bill he had to start inviting smarter people on, because the board he had that day had a low IQ. Larry said, "First of all, GFY if you haven't heard some of the things these smart people here have said." 

The troll can say anything they want with no sourcing, no factual backup, no need to follow logic. It's the ultimate impunity, because all you have to do is scramble to the high ground of "You're emotional! I was only trolling you lost your composure you lose!" If you can get there first, you win. 

Why is it that those being trolled have to behave with Dali Llama like calmness while the troll, completely uninhibited by the constraints of truth, logic or decorum can make personal attacks? 

Larry wasn't "emotional", he told Milo to go fuck himself in response to Milo being a dick (which is his schtick). The fact that Larry really did own Milo on that show isn't nullified by the fact that he got aggressive in the face of aggression.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2017)

Larry started yelling much sooner than that.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 19, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Larry started yelling much sooner than that.


I just watched the entire clip again, and if you're charactarizing anything Larry is doing as 'yelling' or being out of control emotionally, can I ask at what time/point in the interview that was? 

Milo had been interrupting and launching into his 'pithy/snarky/bitchy tone' rhetoric, and Larry called him out for being as much. 

As soon as that happens (after the initial GFY comment), what does Milo do? Immediate personal attacks against the panel- because, like all trolls, they're one trick ponies when they're on their heels. 

There are times when Milo is good, and measured, and funny- but those times often happen while trolling 19 year olds on liberal campuses, giving rehearsed answers to unoriginal questions. In this instance, it seems like he was weighed, measured, and found wanting. 

The real star of that whole exchange was former intelligence dude. Milo had nothing for that guy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2017)

Former Counter Intel guy was good.


----------



## CDG (Feb 19, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> I just watched the entire clip again, and if you're charactarizing anything Larry is doing as 'yelling' or being out of control emotionally, can I ask at what time/point in the interview that was?
> 
> Milo had been interrupting and launching into his 'pithy/snarky/bitchy tone' rhetoric, and Larry called him out for being as much.
> 
> ...



Hard agree.  Milo is good when the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, and/or are prone to obvious emotional outbursts.  I disagree with what Larry Wilmore was saying about transgender, and I agreed with what Milo was saying about transgender.  I do think it's a psychiatric disorder.  However, Milo calling the panel stupid and saying Bill Maher needed to start bringing on higher IQ guests was well deserving of the "GFY" from Wilmore.  Milo is a one-trick pony who was vastly outmatched by everyone else on the panel.  His constant giggling, side glances at Bill hoping for a save, and general dancing around the issues was evident of someone not comfortable in the deep end. I like some of the other videos Milo has out there.  I enjoy seeing him mock college students who are only as sure of their world views as their most recent Liberal Arts class, but he's not a serious intellectual, comedian, or political analyst.  I think his 15 minutes of fame are coming to an end, and people defending him as this bastion of intellectualism show a lot of ignorance by doing so.


----------



## CDG (Feb 19, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Larry started yelling much sooner than that.



Come on.  There was no yelling in that.  There was an elevated decibel level of a voice to be heard, after being called "stupid".  That's not the same as yelling.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 20, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Former Counter Intel guy was good.


Agreed, he did well. 

Now, where in the video did Larry become emotional/started yelling?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 20, 2017)

Is this the general thread for discussing Milo-related news?

Apparently Milo made a few remarks last year defending pedophilia and sexual abuse

He was going to be a speaker at this year's CPAC, but after the remarks were brought to light, he was disinvited
BREAKING: Milo Yiannopoulos Disinvited From CPAC Over Pedophilia Commentary


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 20, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Is this the general thread for discussing Milo-related news?



It might as well be now.  I've changed the thread title to better represent the thread drift from 'explaining' him, to instead discussing him.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 20, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Is this the general thread for discussing Milo-related news?
> 
> Apparently Milo made a few remarks last year defending pedophilia and sexual abuse
> 
> ...



Can you believe it.  Those liberal assholes at CPAC and their PC police have done it again!  Stifling the free speech of this great patriot because they don't like the truth bombs he's dropping on them.  All these snowflakes getting offended because of all the facts he's laying on them about man-on-boy love.  Yet another clear example of the liberals (damn I wish we could still say lib**rds on this site) denying free speech and shutting down any voice not their own.

I guess you could make the argument failing to give someone a platform is not the same as stifling their free speech.  You could also say that someone has the right to say as offensive shit as they want but just because they frequently target people you don't agree with doesn't make their speech any more insightful or free from reproach as any other.  Still, that's the kind of supposed 'logic' these Berkley liberals at CPAC are always trying to condescend to the rest of us real Americans.

It is kind of weird that liberals would use 'conservative' in their acronym and invite so many Republicans to CPAC every year but who can understand such people...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 20, 2017)

In regards to the CPAC, this is what we call vetting.

In regards to Berkeley, they granted him the venue and then let liberals and anarchists disrupt the venue.  They could have denied the venue.  If you read the Berkeley paper over the next week they were much worse than anything he had to say at the time.  So I get it, and I agree with it.


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2017)

Threads like this make me hate being a Mod.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It might as well be now.  I've changed the thread title to better represent the thread drift from 'explaining' him, to instead discussing him.



In the future, please leave thread changes to the staff.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 20, 2017)

AWP said:


> In the future, please leave thread changes to the staff.


Understood.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2017)

Not defending or demonizing Milo but I've been reading some interesting articles on this situation this morning.  This whole thing is crazy.  

4chan knew of the media's attacks on Milo before-hand

Pedophile Supporter? The Mainstream Media Hit Job On Milo Yiannopoulos Explained | We Are Change

And while we're demonizing paedophile sympathizers. 

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime

The pedophile I could not help: He was not a monster or a molester. The system destroyed him anyway


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 21, 2017)

As per the transcript of the video in question, he's ok with the age of consent laws as they are, and yet he acknowledges May-December underage relationships in the way that he did.  Sounds to me like he never really came to terms with getting ass-fucked by his priest when he was 14.  Can someone tell me if this dichotomy is common amongst childhood sexual abuse survivors?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> As per the transcript of the video in question, he's ok with the age of consent laws as they are, and yet he acknowledges May-December underage relationships in the way that he did.  Sounds to me like he never really came to terms with getting ass-fucked by his priest when he was 14.  Can someone tell me if this dichotomy is common amongst childhood sexual abuse survivors?


Just by listening to Dr Drew on the old love line back in the day, victims of Sexual Assault, people with Daddy and Mommy problems tend to be attracted towards those type of people.  Not sure if that helps.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> As per the transcript of the video in question, he's ok with the age of consent laws as they are, and yet he acknowledges May-December underage relationships in the way that he did.  Sounds to me like he never really came to terms with getting ass-fucked by his priest when he was 14.  Can someone tell me if this dichotomy is common amongst childhood sexual abuse survivors?



I think another major issue with trying to understand him, is that he's from the UK and age of consent there is 16.  He has the European mentality towards sexuality, which is very open towards sexualizing youth and completely opposed to American views on it.  And now within a year gone from a random YouTube dude in the UK to an international influential media personality focused in the US.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 21, 2017)

Just a thought: since Milo is a U.K. citizen, and probably here on a work visa, does his firing from Breitbart mean that he'll have to be deported?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 21, 2017)

Milo resigns from Breitbart.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I think another major issue with trying to understand him, is that he's from the UK and age of consent there is 16.  He has the European mentality towards sexuality, which is very open towards sexualizing youth and completely opposed to American views on it.  And now within a year gone from a random YouTube dude in the UK to an international influential media personality focused in the US.


Age of consent in a lot of states in 16. Not that it matters: Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Just a thought: since Milo is a U.K. citizen, and probably here on a work visa, does his firing from Breitbart mean that he'll have to be deported?



Not sure how it works but according to his press conference @amlove21 posted, he's on an O-1B Visa and starting his own media entity.

O-1 Visa: Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 21, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Not sure how it works but according to his press conference @amlove21 posted, he's on an O-1B Visa and starting his own media entity.
> 
> O-1 Visa: Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement


Good to know!


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 21, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> I think another major issue with trying to understand him, is that he's from the UK and age of consent there is 16.  He has the European mentality towards sexuality, which is very open towards sexualizing youth and completely opposed to American views on it.  And now within a year gone from a random YouTube dude in the UK to an international influential media personality focused in the US.



I would argue that the UK view is very different to the Euro view (and I wouldn't say that Euros necessarily sexualise youth, either).


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I would argue that the UK view is very different to the Euro view (and I wouldn't say that Euros necessarily sexualise youth, either).



Completely disagree and you probably misunderstood my meaning.   The UK and Europe normalize sexuality at an early age.  The benefit is the normalized use of contraception and results in lowered youth pregnancy.  It's been normal for a long time.  Just look at European fashion, magazines, etc. Also consider the # of European countries that the age of consent under 16 out numbers those at 16 or higher.

Yes I know it's Wikipedia but it's a complete list.  Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia


  It's only been the last couple decades that sexualisation of youth in North America has grown but it's due to media and the normalization/education never followed.  It's only recently that there's been any push for it to change.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 21, 2017)

I don't think we'll ever agree on this one because it's very subjective so we'll just leave it here, eh.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 27, 2017)

A great discussion with Milo's personal security and the Drinkin' Bros.  

Drinkin' Bros. by Ross Patterson, Mat Best, Jarred Taylor, Vincent Vargas on iTunes


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 27, 2017)

I bet if Milo Self-Publishes his book on Amazon Kindle that thing hit's the top in a minute.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 28, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Not defending or demonizing Milo but I've been reading some interesting articles on this situation this morning. This whole thing is crazy.
> 
> 4chan knew of the media's attacks on Milo before-hand
> 
> Pedophile Supporter? The Mainstream Media Hit Job On Milo Yiannopoulos Explained | We Are Change


I don't understand that this hasn't gotten any attention. I guess because milo still fucked up all the same but the idea that there are shadowy political operatives trying to do shit like this is creepy. Then again that's been happening for a while so I should probably be desensitized to it.

I think Gavin McInnes and Joe Rogan had a good talk on the whole debacle.(even though they never got into the hit job)






That being said, milo is still a cunt IMO, he started up a college fund for exclusively white males, then put all the money in his bank account and has yet to even allow people to apply for the scholarship.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 28, 2017)

@carlo amedio it takes time to set up a scholarship.  It actually just finished taking applications for the pilot program.

Application Launch - Privilege Grant


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 28, 2017)

carlo amedio said:


> That being said, milo is still a cunt IMO, he started up a college fund for exclusively white males, then put all the money in his bank account and has yet to even allow people to apply for the scholarship.



Oh, you got allegations eh.  How about we not spew stuff without a cited source.  But seriously what's the problem with scholarships set up for white males?  There's scholarships for people with blue eyes out there, there's scholarships for exclusively every race out there except, maybe, one for white males.  Get off your high horse, it takes time to fund an endowment so that is sustainable, but I suppose you know all about fundraising too.

Geeze louise.


----------



## carlo amedio (Feb 28, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> @carlo amedio it takes time to set up a scholarship.  It actually just finished taking applications for the pilot program.
> 
> Application Launch - Privilege Grant


Wow, I didn't know, guess I was wrong on that one. He's still a cunt IMO, he tweeted a picture of ben Shapiro's new baby being black to call him a cuck and He called a CIA agent an idiot on bill maher just because the guy disagreed with him.



ThunderHorse said:


> Oh, you got allegations eh. How about we not spew stuff without a cited source. But seriously what's the problem with scholarships set up for white males? There's scholarships for people with blue eyes out there, there's scholarships for exclusively every race out there except, maybe, one for white males. Get off your high horse, it takes time to fund an endowment so that is sustainable, but I suppose you know all about fundraising too.



As I've already admitted I was wrong, but as for sources, ill leave a link to where I got it from. I think I can be forgiven for buying into it. Yes I should have cited a source:

Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos Takes $100,000 for Charity, Gives $0

As for the scholarship itself, no I'm not against it, all scholarships based on race or gender are racist and sexist, and that is the very reason he created his to make a point.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 28, 2017)

Scholarship endowments are managed by hedgefunds, 50x$2,500=$125,000.  To build a sustainable model takes time.   But that's not your point.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2017)

I think I regret starting this thread.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2017)

STOP!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 3, 2017)

Not really Milo, but pretty much in the same line of the left shutting down every conservative writer from speaking at collegiate campuses:

Conservative Writer Charles Murray Slams Middlebury Students Who Shut Down His Talk

A Professor Who Attended Charles Murray’s Middlebury Talk Is Now Wearing a Neck Brace. Protesters Attacked Her.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 3, 2017)

Charles Murray is a tool. But this shit has to stop. Kids need to realize that hearing other ideas is not the same as agreeing with them. It takes a sophistication to be able to hear an argument without agreeing with it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 3, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Charles Murray is a tool. But this shit has to stop. Kids need to realize that hearing other ideas is not the same as agreeing with them. It takes a sophistication to be able to hear an argument without agreeing with it.



I tend to agree, but I don't think it takes sophistication to be able to hear a contrary argument, it just takes basic human decency. The sophistication comes in realizing that the opposing view has just as much right to be heard as yours does.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 3, 2017)

Shutting out contrary voices isn't all that new - what's changed is the level of violence involved, which draws more attention when it happens.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 3, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Shutting out contrary voices isn't all that new - what's changed is the level of violence involved, which draws more attention when it happens.



What's been interesting to me is that the left seems to be doing what it claims it fears from the right, particularly the politically-motivated violence and the low toleration for dissent.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 3, 2017)

Charles Murray has pretty controversial ideas linking race and IQ. Which is pretty much total bullshit. If I was on the right I wouldn't want him being considered in the same camp as me. I'm surprised any academic facility invited him at all, but once invited he should be able to speak...


----------



## AWP (Mar 3, 2017)

I think our society is confusing free speech with opposition to other POV's much in the same way we think equality and diversity are the same thing. "Free speech" isn't limited to supporting your opinion while shouting down an opposing view.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 3, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> What's been interesting to me is that the left seems to be doing what it claims it fears from the right, particularly the politically-motivated violence and the low toleration for dissent.


The left is doing it as private citizens.  The right is doing it from an official government positions.  There's a big difference there.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 3, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> The left is doing it as private citizens.  The right is doing it from an official government positions.  There's a big difference there.



The right-dominated government is violently assaulting American citizens whose political views differ from their own and are conspiring to deny American citizens their fundamental rights under the Constitution?  That's news to me brother.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 3, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> The right-dominated government is violently assaulting American citizens whose political views differ from their own and are conspiring to deny American citizens their fundamental rights under the Constitution?  That's news to me brother.


Sorry, should've clarified that I was talking about the "low tolerance for dissent" part and not the former part.  That is inexcusable.


----------

