The Hill: Breitbart employees threaten to leave over Yiannopoulos

[The Evil Genius]

Milo is really no different than the Westboro Baptist assholes except that the GOP openly covets Milo (until recently).

I know I'm in the minority here - but free speech is and should always be limited (to not cover hate speech). 

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Milo lost his job and career because a right-wing group called the Reagan Battalion did oppo-research on him to force CPAC to drop him. They are the ones who unearthed his pedo-approving tapes.

 

It really had nothing to do with him appearing on Bill Maher's show.

 

If anything, once he was on the verge of being mainstreamed at CPAC, the few Republicans who are left that still care about basic decency, stepped in and prevented him from having a huge platform.

Oppo-research that Maher could have had done if he actually cared before having him on his show and it wasn't about celebrating how great Bill Maher is for having somebody that he "disagrees" with on his show (when the person he really "disagrees" with is really there so from Maher's perspective, they can talk about a topic that Maher agrees with him on).

 

The Reagan Battalion are the people that we should be celebrating here.  They are the people that offered the rebuttal.

 

And they did it in the context of keeping him from speaking.  It wasn't Bill Maher that was happy to let Milo say whatever he wanted on his show, while celebrating their commonality.

 

It was people that cared and understand that what Milo is saying is bad and wrong and should be prevented from spreading his hateful message.  Not the like of Bill Maher

[grego]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

his views on Islam are problematic to be kind.

 

 

where would you say he goes wrong on islam?

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I know I'm in the minority here - but free speech is and should always be limited (to not cover hate speech). 

 

i think the problem may be in the defining of hate speech. who is defining it and what are their reasons.

[DogofWar1]

Zoony is in the mold of the people who have tended to fall under Milo's prejudicial sway.  Not to say Zoony has, by all appearances he has not, nor does he appear to have any real prejudices (except against PC liberals) but he's voicing anger at the "PC Culture" which is Milo's "gateway drug."

 

Milo grew his following railing against PC colleges (whether depiction was accurate or not).

 

People who might not have been outwardly prejudiced but had latent prejudices (you know the ones, the people who won't use the N word but who will say things like "Y'know, I'm not racist but [insert racially charged thing here]) get confronted about it, and that happens across a lot of -isms and -phobias.  Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, etc.

 

What these people tend to share, both on and off college campuses, is anger at "PC Police" who confronted them about latent prejudices and indeed made them confront their own prejudices that they often didn't realize they had.  It's jarring and emotionally taxing and some don't take it too well.

 

Anyways, that's where Milo gets in the door.  He rails against PC Police and throws quips about "snowflakes" and gets lots of people nodding along.

 

Then he moves to phase 2.

 

Phase 2 generally involves railing against feminism or BlackLivesMatter or  Sharia or some other stand-in for women or african americans or Muslims.

 

Because, see, he's not railing against WOMEN, he's railing against MILITANT feminists. He throws out the extreme examples out there; examples like a woman saying men should be castrated or similar fringe stuff.  He understandably exposes some hypocrisy of the fringe (common example being military draft stuff), but then he attributes it generally to feminists.  That's when he starts the shock jock stuff.  "Feminism is a cancer."

 

Anyways, he's spent all this time priming people to oppose these stand-ins.  You might not hate women, but you end up hating feminism.  You might not hate blacks, but boy is BlackLivesMatter bad news.

 

And that's part of how he got away with his schtick for so long.  Because while most people see through his act, it also has sufficient plausible deniability that people tend to let it go.

 

Anyways, Milo got too big for his britches a while back and went after Leslie Jones, and got himself kicked off twitter.  Now he did it again and cost himself his book deal and job.

 

 

Maher should have challenged him more, absolutely.  Yes, it's a fine line when you invite someone on, you don't want to be hostile, but also don't want to be too kind.  Ultimately, Maher was too kind, he normalized Milo, and if Milo hadn't defended pedophilia he would have emerged a bigger star than before, prejudicial views and all.

 

Of course, it's possible that Milo getting such freedom to spew from Maher js what led to Milo letting his guard down and going full crazy, so maybe it was a good thing, in a roundabout way.

 

But generally speaking, no we do not want to censor people like Milo, censorship is usually bad (it can, rarely, have positive impact, but it's rare) but we DO want to challenge them.  There are tons of falsehoods and logical flaws that get thrown out by him which ought to be challenged because if left in the open they lead people to wrongheaded prejudicial notions.

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Milo is really no different than the Westboro Baptist assholes except that the GOP openly covets Milo (until recently).

I know I'm in the minority here - but free speech is and should always be limited (to not cover hate speech). 

 

Agree that Milo and the Westboro church are cut from the same cloth.  Disagree that the right to free speech should not cover hate speech.  Keep in mind the right to free speech only applies to the government.  If it only covers "nice" speech, then the right is entirely pointless.  The solution to hate speech isn't the law, it's opposing (anti-hate) speech that resonates more, is louder, better reasoned, and effectively drowns out or makes a mockery of the hate speech. :2cents.

 

 

 

With respect to DogofWar's excelling post, I would just like to note that, ironically, "I'm not PC" is just a politically correct way of saying "I am an asshole."

[Taylor703]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I think this is what it comes down too. The right wing agenda, which actually control our media, labeling anyone who disagrees a pinko commie. 

 

I have never seen Maher as a leftist. He may claim it, but his views on Islam are problematic to be kind.

 

I think what pisses me off most about Maher is that he is not anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is.

 

Wait, this is a joke right? Liberals actually believe republicans are the only ones doing this? Holy **** this is amazing. 

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Of course, it's possible that Milo getting such freedom to spew from Maher js what led to Milo letting his guard down and going full crazy, so maybe it was a good thing, in a roundabout way.

 

My impression is that the information is older.  They were out there to be found before he was on Maher's show and in that sense really even around about crediting of Maher is unfounded:

 

" “It was perfectly consensual. When I was the 14, I was the predator,” Yiannopoulos said, refusing to identity the clergy member during the September 2015 interview. "

 

" The right-wing provocateur recalled his own sexual abuse as a teen and did not appear to outright condemn similar relationships between children and men on a 2016 episode of "The Drunken Peasants" podcast. "

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-milo-yiannopoulos-speaking-fondly-pedophilia-article-1.2977071

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Milo has always been a more provocative, less intelligent, less disciplined Ann Coulter.

 

His primary problem was that once you are sending pictures of black babies to guys who just had children and laughing at Nazi jokes, it's hard to go up from there.

 

He reached a point where he can't really top himself, and his whole schtick is topping himself.

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

My impression is that the information is older.  They were out there to be found before he was on Maher's show and in that sense really even round about crediting Maher is unfounded:

I might have gotten my wires crossed on him.  He's hard to keep up with perfectly, been watching his antics for a while because I have some friends who love the guy, unfortunately.  But yeah, if I confused one interview for another then Maher doesn't even get roundabout praise.

[Bozo the kKklown]

19 minutes ago, grego said:

where would you say he goes wrong on islam?

when you think an entire religion advocates terrorism, then that is problematic.

 

11 minutes ago, Taylor703 said:

Wait, this is a joke right? Liberals actually believe republicans are the only ones doing this? Holy **** this is amazing. 

what is "doing this"?

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

6 hours ago, zoony said:

 

Which is what the left wants.

 

Hence the issue.  What liberals dont understand is that the harder they push the harder the rest of America will push back thats how we end up with idiots like Donald Trump as President and Milo as a national celebrity.  But they will not recognize this and they will whine for me pointing it out.

 

The one aspect of the right that I am vehemently on board with is the absolute pussification of our society.  Why does liberal have to be synonmous with whiny little ****?  At least Maher has shown a way to be a liberal and not be a total flapping vagina.  Agree with him or not, its what the left needs.

 

Btw, hopefully this Milo ass clown goes back to Britain.  

 

 

 

 

Yet when America was at its most conservative, you couldn't say the word "toilet" on television.

 

1. I think the idea that colleges are filled with wimpy teenagers who need a safe space if they hear a thought that they don't agree with is overblown. I think there has always been a small contingent of activists on every campus who combine passion and naivete into a ridiculous stew that annoys the vast majority. But, it's an effective narrative for the RIGHT who don't want to address the real issue, which is:

 

2. People are pissed that they can't openly say the N-word any longer.

[redskinss]

13 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

 

Yet when America was at its most conservative, you couldn't say the word "toilet" on television.

 

 

Thats a good point i never really thought much about. 

 

Conservatives are always trying to act like liberals are the only snowflakes out there but when they had more control they sure were offended by quite a lot.

 

[grego]

35 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

when you think an entire religion advocates terrorism, then that is problematic.

 

 

i think thats a problem when discussing religion. people tend to say whatever the religions name is and follow it with a generality about the religion itself, but then everyone generally understands that religions are not monoliths- within any religion, there are followers that have varying beliefs. 

 

ive heard it been explained (attempted, anyway) as 'this ideology', rather than the religion itself. still, imperfect, because you really have to define terms and be specific. ideally, one says, within X religion, X number of people believe this idea. 

 

ultimately, this is where i have heard maher and other critics end up, so, even though he doesnt believe that all muslims, for example, support terrorism, he doesnt do himself any favors by not being specific.

 

neil degrasse tyson had an interesting conversation with sam harris about this that you can find on you tube, about being more clear in your language and being sure to convey your thoughts accurately. i can see how various factors, including the speaker not being 100% clear, have lead to misconceptions about what they actually believe. 

[zoony]

2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million.

 

This is hilarious on so many levels.   Keep circling the wagons

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, zoony said:

 

This is hilarious on so many levels.   Keep circling the wagons

 

 

 

 

Dems have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections.  

 

Theyre just facts, Commander.  You're free to ignore them.

[@DCGoldPants]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

when you think an entire religion advocates terrorism, then that is problematic.

 

 

 

 

Right. If you showed another culture who didn't know much about other religions only Fawell or The 700 Club...and said "this is Christianity". They'd think "Man, those people are in a cult."

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

i think the problem may be in the defining of hate speech. who is defining it and what are their reasons.

 

Yeah, admittedly is a slippery slope and one that would be contentious to define.

 

 

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Agree that Milo and the Westboro church are cut from the same cloth.  Disagree that the right to free speech should not cover hate speech.  Keep in mind the right to free speech only applies to the government.  If it only covers "nice" speech, then the right is entirely pointless.  The solution to hate speech isn't the law, it's opposing (anti-hate) speech that resonates more, is louder, better reasoned, and effectively drowns out or makes a mockery of the hate speech. 

 

 

Ok...can we at least all agree that Pitt needs to eat **** though? And that in and of itself isn't hate speech.  

 

 

[Springfield]

Conservatives get offended over things like titties and images of the devil.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Conservatives get offended over things like titties and images of the devil.

 

And saying Happy Holidays.  

[No Excuses]

I still remember when Janet Jackson's nipple caused a mass panic attack amongst the entire right wing.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

i think thats a problem when discussing religion. people tend to say whatever the religions name is and follow it with a generality about the religion itself, but then everyone generally understands that religions are not monoliths- within any religion, there are followers that have varying beliefs. 

 

ive heard it been explained (attempted, anyway) as 'this ideology', rather than the religion itself. still, imperfect, because you really have to define terms and be specific. ideally, one says, within X religion, X number of people believe this idea. 

 

ultimately, this is where i have heard maher and other critics end up, so, even though he doesnt believe that all muslims, for example, support terrorism, he doesnt do himself any favors by not being specific.

 

neil degrasse tyson had an interesting conversation with sam harris about this that you can find on you tube, about being more clear in your language and being sure to convey your thoughts accurately. i can see how various factors, including the speaker not being 100% clear, have lead to misconceptions about what they actually believe. 

thats cool. Not to sound like an ass, but you should send this to Bill Maher because he doesnt do this. Thats why his views are problematic.

[Kilmer17]

33 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Dems have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections.  

 

Theyre just facts, Commander.  You're free to ignore them.

The GOP has won more counties, more land mass, more congressional districts etc.

 

All of which mean the same as the "popular vote"-  Nada.

[Springfield]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I still remember when Janet Jackson's nipple caused a mass panic attack amongst the entire right wing.

 

Ruined talk radio forever.

[The Evil Genius]

18 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The GOP has won more counties, more land mass, more congressional districts etc.

 

All of which mean the same as the "popular vote"-  Nada.

 

Of course, the idea that one vote = one vote is still lost on some of you.

 

1.5 million votes in Florida should mean more than 500k votes in Wyoming. Why? Because 1.5 million is more than 500k. And yet, the system is set up to make sure that 500k people voting in Wyoming have the same say as 1.5mil people voting in Florida.

 

 

edit..I'll take that one step further. In California, are you arguing that Modoc County (with a total number of votes of about 4k) is equal to say Los Angeles County (with a total votes of 2.6 million). Or is that argument about the number of counties and land mass just a little bit silly when you factor in that hardly no one lives in these locations?