• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Milo Yiannopoulos is Going on Real Time with Bill Maher

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cyframe

Member
Harris seems dangerous and angry? Point me to one example of Harris acting anything like the people foaming at the mouth to call him an islamaphobe. The left are becoming as intolerant as the far right. Dialogue and nuance doesn't matter. Fucking gross.

Just because he isn't "foaming" it doesn't mean that he isn't harboring regressive and arguably (not really arguable honestly) views on Muslims. He flat out doesn't think Islamaphobia is real. Even Bill was like, wait for a second here.

His laser focus on combating extremism(in his mind) has lead to him either overlooking or mitigating islamophobic attitudes that harm those who are deemed in that demographic.
 

Trokil

Banned

Not as a reward at the moment, but as a symbol it still is. As I said the Luftwaffe and the Bundeswehr are using it.

Show clips of him saying stupid shit and pick apart his statements without giving him the chance to worm his way out of it. It meets all of your criteria.

Edit: I mean do all of that without having him on the show.

Who should do that. Maher has a debate show, so he can not do that. Which media outlet should do that and why? Talking about him gives him a platform as well, if msnbc would talk about him, they would take him seriously.
 

Trokil

Banned
He's wearing it as a medal/award....

The version with the crown of the German emperor, so what would that say. That he supports the German empire?

It's like with the book. Kershaw's books are not in any way positive about Hitler, there is the name on the cover, but again not something a Nazi would actually read, because it does not make you a fan of Hitler. It is a history book about the 2nd world war.

All of it seems to direct in one way, he is trolling and people are falling for it.
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.
 

Loudninja

Member
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things.
No they dont,there is nothing to talk about here it pure hate.

People dont have to give him a platform or anyone else that spews this garbage.
 

Cyframe

Member
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things.

My apologies for posting so much, but why wander into a thread and make a comment like this, and you, don't know who this person is?

No one has an issue with talking to someone with an opposing view, but Milo is on a completely different level because he leads violent brigades against people.
 
On a recent episode he went off on liberals who take issue with cultural appropriation, as if he could ever identify with the issue. Then as if to make a statement, he made an unfunny joke about an "OK Chinese Restaurant" that might be serving mystery meat, a stereotype probably alluding to dog meat . And he often says in exasperation "liberals!" So he's not as "liberal as it gets" by any stretch.

calling out liberals doesn't mean you're not a liberal
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

Milo isn't prevented from talking by having one less platform. He has
-Twitter
-YouTube
-4chan
-Breitbart
-Daytime TV

and several others. In fact he has a lot more of a voice than most people who stand against hate and "oppressed" is the last thing Milo is.

Come on son
 

Trokil

Banned
But if he has all those platforms, where he is unopposed, why is it so terrible that he is getting no on a show where he is opposed.

He already has more than enough platforms, so why should this now change everything? He was at the Republican National Convention he already is legitimized by them, so what would Maher change?
 
I'm really frustrated by people treating every piece of evidence against Milo in a vacuum.

Yes, the cross is not just a Nazi symbol, and that's a great counterpoint if the person wearing it doesn't pose with books on Hitler, makes Holocaust jokes, and writes anti-Semitic poetry.
Just don't call him a Nazi even with all of that, you're gonna trigger some people :p
 

Brakke

Banned
Milo's still permed from Twitter or nah?

I'm really frustrated by people treating every piece of evidence against Milo in a vacuum.

Yes, the cross is not just a Nazi symbol, and that's a great counterpoint if the person wearing it doesn't pose with books on Hitler, makes Holocaust jokes, and writes anti-Semitic poetry.

The trick with him is where do you stop when you're zooming out for context? You got all those things you cited, but then we also got Milo tweeting and joking a lot about having sex with black men. Which, you know, obviously isn't compatible with any kind of Nazi ideology. Milo doesn't present a coherent front. So which of it is true and sincere and which of it is performed stunt to provide "cover" for the rest? I claim it doesn't matter at all what he holds in his heart (which is probably just personal enrichment?), dude is all performance.

I think the GamerGate connection is useful to understanding him. Milo obviously doesn't give half a shit about video games in any sense, he certainly doesn't give a shit about "ethics in games journalism". But he did realize he could get a bunch of coverage and money by pandering to those idiots and exploiting their (nonsense) feelings of marginalization.

But yeah. If we take him in as a whole and conclude he's a chaos agent more than anything, we're willingly walking into the same trap he set for GamerGaters. Dude clearly intentionally builds himself cover and outs and opacity. So instead of reading him, we should read how his fans read him. At the end of the day, Milo is stirring up hate and resentment primarily among people who are dumb, impressionable, marginalized, often unhinged, and sometimes straight up evil. And that makes him dangerous, and that should be enough.
 

Arkage

Banned
Just because he isn't "foaming" it doesn't mean that he isn't harboring regressive and arguably (not really arguable honestly) views on Muslims. He flat out doesn't think Islamaphobia is real. Even Bill was like, wait for a second here.

His laser focus on combating extremism(in his mind) has lead to him either overlooking or mitigating islamophobic attitudes that harm those who are deemed in that demographic.


I feel like this is way off topic. I honestly shouldn't have even used Harris' name knowing the reaction it would get here. But in any case, Harris never said Islamophobia isn't real, and Bill wasn't like "wait for a second here." In the interview Harris starts by saying Islamophobia has become a meme people use now for anyone who criticizes Islam or its doctrines. He argues that the word has lost its intended meaning due to misuse and overuse by the left.

Then Ben Affleck directly asks him "So you're saying Islamophobia is not a real thing."

Harris says "We're not denying that certain people are bigotted against Muslims as people. And [this bigotry] is a problem."

This video of the interview is here: https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=38

Next time you want to slander him, directly link us to his written word or interview. Harris is constantly stereotyped as a bigot with false quotes and stories just like the one you invented out of thin air.
 
But if he has all those platforms, where he is unopposed, why is it so terrible that he is getting no on a show where he is opposed.

He already has more than enough platforms, so why should this now change everything? He was at the Republican National Convention he already is legitimized by them, so what would Maher change?

He's not unopposed. Maher inviting him onto his show so they can both profit isn't really opposing him either.
 
The version with the crown of the German emperor, so what would that say. That he supports the German empire?

It's like with the book. Kershaw's books are not in any way positive about Hitler, there is the name on the cover, but again not something a Nazi would actually read, because it does not make you a fan of Hitler. It is a history book about the 2nd world war.

All of it seems to direct in one way, he is trolling and people are falling for it.

You're obviously here to defend white supremacists.
 
Okay, not "nothing but", however he's mainly a provocateur and the point is that he likes to provoke people at every turn.



I haven't seen his anti-semitic statements, but I'm sure you have them handy for me. And no, it's not a Nazi icon. It's still the logo of the luftwaffe for crying out loud.

Look, I don't like this guy one bit, but I think calling him a nazi is inane and counter productive.

I guess you don't think the swastika is a nazi icon either.
 
I'm really frustrated by people treating every piece of evidence against Milo in a vacuum.

Yes, the cross is not just a Nazi symbol, and that's a great counterpoint if the person wearing it doesn't pose with books on Hitler, makes Holocaust jokes, and writes anti-Semitic poetry.
It's pretty bizarre, I mean it's obvious at this point this guy is a Neo-Nazi as well as a misogynist asshole. Not sure why anyone would defend him tbh
 
Fascists defend fascists.
Pretty much, especially people taking the 'all sides' approach. Milo doesn't have a 'side', his 'side' is just hatred and bigotry, finding that hatred in others and then directing it toward people he doesn't like in the form of awful harassment. There is a mountain of evidence that this is what he does. Defending him is defending hatred, fullstop.
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

Adelaide Kramer was in the audience during an event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where she used to be a student, when the speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, projected a photograph of her on the wall. He then launched into a hateful tirade against Kramer, calling her a "tranny." The photo had been taken early in her transition, and the audience—a room filled by her classmates—laughed as Yiannopoulos degraded her.

...

The attack went on. Earlier in 2016, Kramer had filed a complaint against the school for preventing her from using the women's locker room, and Yiannopoulos suggested that Kramer's presence in women's spaces on campus was predatory. "Milo made this implication that I'm just in there to check out women," Kramer tells Broadly. The moment Yiannopoulos publicly singled her out was painful, and she immediately felt unsafe: "I realized, Shit, coming here to protest with my presence was a mistake."

"I should not have come in here," she recalls thinking. "I should have stayed outside." That's where her friends were—outside, protesting the fact that Yiannopoulos was allowed to speak. "I didn't know if I was going to get attacked or not. I was just like, 'Dear god, I hope nobody recognizes me.'"

"When you have a room full of people that are just laughing at you as if you're some freak of nature, like you have some kind of mental illness—which is how he described me—it's like, I don't even know how to describe it, but it was way too much," Kramer continues.

...

When Yiannopoulos first mentioned Kramer's name, Kramer thought that the college administrators—who she says were present in the audience—would immediately put a stop to his presentation. Instead, she says, Yiannopoulos, was allowed to continue. The following day, Chancellor Mone sent out an email to the school, explaining both his legal obligation to allow speakers of all political views to express their opinions and the importance of protecting free speech. He also added that he disagrees with Yiannopoulos' views and condemns hate-mongering, and insisted that he wouldn't "stand silently by" while a student is "personally and wrongfully attacked."

Kramer viewed Mone's email as insufficient; in return, she sent her own email to the school, lampooning Mone for his decision to allow Yiannopolous to speak in the first place. "Milo has a supremely extensive, highly-documented track record of doing precisely this," Kramer wrote, explaining that the targeted harassment should be no surprise. "As I've already said, you knew this would happen. We told you it would. And we told you again. And again."

Today, Kramer is moving on, but she feels that what happened to her was wrong. "I think verbal assault should be called verbal assault," she explains, adding that it "doesn't add anything constructive to speech; verbal assault is damaging [and] leads people to suicide."

...

Kramer says that she (unsurprisingly) received a deluge of hateful messages from people after Yiannopoulos targeted her—

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/trans-student-harassed-by-milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-out

Do you understand how foolish you sound?
 

SeanC

Member
The version with the crown of the German emperor, so what would that say. That he supports the German empire?

No I would say he got up one day and tried to find something he could wear online that can express his favoritism towards the idea of white supremacy but can simultaneously shield him from explicitly announcing his white supremacy.

You know.,.what most racist cowards do and have always done. It's the same way he uses "I can't be anti-semetic because I'm Jewish!" And "I can't be racist because I fuck black dudes!" Crap he puts out there.

And you know, let's say he is just trolling. In that case who the fuck cares what we label a despicable troll? If he wants to troll as a nazi then we call him a nazi and if he bitches about it tough shit.
 

Cyframe

Member
I feel like this is way off topic. I honestly shouldn't have even used Harris' name knowing the reaction it would get here. But in any case, Harris never said Islamophobia isn't real, and Bill wasn't like "wait for a second here." In the interview Harris starts by saying Islamophobia has become a meme people use now for anyone who criticizes Islam or its doctrines. He argues that the word has lost its intended meaning due to misuse and overuse by the left.

Then Ben Affleck directly asks him "So you're saying Islamophobia is not a real thing."

Harris says "We're not denying that certain people are bigotted against Muslims as people. And [this bigotry] is a problem."

This video of the interview is here: https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=38

Next time you want to slander him, directly link us to his written word or interview. Harris is constantly stereotyped as a bigot with false quotes and stories just like the one you invented out of thin air.

Now, who's overreacting? Nothing that I or the other poster stated is slander. Slander means a very specific thing, that I fabricated an account. I didn't.

I wasn't referencing the account with Ben, I was talking about an overtime segment with Tomi Lauren

https://youtu.be/-GtHoQ7Sw0c?t=460

He calls, his words, that Islamophobia is a word we shouldn't use, that it's propaganda. And before the linked timestamp he's barely moved by a personal account of Muslims being attacked. And undercuts their overall narrative.

I should have linked this from the start, so that was a mistake on my part. But I have no reason to lie. And I don't really see him, viewing Muslims in a favorable or sympathetic light. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.

My apologies for going off topic.
 
Adelaide Kramer was in the audience during an event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where she used to be a student, when the speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, projected a photograph of her on the wall. He then launched into a hateful tirade against Kramer, calling her a "tranny." The photo had been taken early in her transition, and the audience—a room filled by her classmates—laughed as Yiannopoulos degraded her.

...

The attack went on. Earlier in 2016, Kramer had filed a complaint against the school for preventing her from using the women's locker room, and Yiannopoulos suggested that Kramer's presence in women's spaces on campus was predatory. "Milo made this implication that I'm just in there to check out women," Kramer tells Broadly. The moment Yiannopoulos publicly singled her out was painful, and she immediately felt unsafe: "I realized, Shit, coming here to protest with my presence was a mistake."

"I should not have come in here," she recalls thinking. "I should have stayed outside." That's where her friends were—outside, protesting the fact that Yiannopoulos was allowed to speak. "I didn't know if I was going to get attacked or not. I was just like, 'Dear god, I hope nobody recognizes me.'"

"When you have a room full of people that are just laughing at you as if you're some freak of nature, like you have some kind of mental illness—which is how he described me—it's like, I don't even know how to describe it, but it was way too much," Kramer continues.

...

When Yiannopoulos first mentioned Kramer's name, Kramer thought that the college administrators—who she says were present in the audience—would immediately put a stop to his presentation. Instead, she says, Yiannopoulos, was allowed to continue. The following day, Chancellor Mone sent out an email to the school, explaining both his legal obligation to allow speakers of all political views to express their opinions and the importance of protecting free speech. He also added that he disagrees with Yiannopoulos' views and condemns hate-mongering, and insisted that he wouldn't "stand silently by" while a student is "personally and wrongfully attacked."

Kramer viewed Mone's email as insufficient; in return, she sent her own email to the school, lampooning Mone for his decision to allow Yiannopolous to speak in the first place. "Milo has a supremely extensive, highly-documented track record of doing precisely this," Kramer wrote, explaining that the targeted harassment should be no surprise. "As I've already said, you knew this would happen. We told you it would. And we told you again. And again."

Today, Kramer is moving on, but she feels that what happened to her was wrong. "I think verbal assault should be called verbal assault," she explains, adding that it "doesn't add anything constructive to speech; verbal assault is damaging [and] leads people to suicide."

...

Kramer says that she (unsurprisingly) received a deluge of hateful messages from people after Yiannopoulos targeted her—

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/trans-student-harassed-by-milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-out

Do you understand how foolish you sound?

My friend was in the audience. He said that Milo was basically yelling at her the entire time. Like he was just confused as fuck that she even existed or defied him by even being there.

There's speech, and then there's hate speech.

Milo is hate speech.
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

You wanna know what bums me out? When people post in detail about what Milo does, which includes outing a trans student in front of a large audience, forcing them to withdraw from their higher education, and we get this shit about how that doesn't matter, any collateral damage is acceptable as long as we have the free flow of ideas, no matter if those ideas consist of nothing more than target painting for Gamergate, a loose cohort of internet psychopaths who gleefuly mail bomb threats, death threats, swat people and generally hound them until their personal and professional lives become intolerable.

You aren't telling anybody in this thread an argument that wasn't discredited in 2014.
 

Jombie

Member
It will only benefit Milo either way. Rational people already hate him and his supporters will agree with any and everything he has to say.
 

Arkage

Banned
Now, who's overreacting? Nothing that I or the other poster stated is slander. Slander means a very specific thing, that I fabricated an account. I didn't.

I wasn't referencing the account with Ben, I was talking about an overtime segment with Tomi Lauren

https://youtu.be/-GtHoQ7Sw0c?t=460

He calls, his words, that Islamophobia is a word we shouldn't use, that it's propaganda. And before the linked timestamp he's barely moved by a personal account of Muslims being attacked. And undercuts their overall narrative.

I should have linked this from the start, so that was a mistake on my part. But I have no reason to lie. And I don't really see him, viewing Muslims in a favorable or sympathetic light. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.

My apologies for going off topic.

Well as I said both Harris and Maher agree bigotry against Muslims exists and is important to address. Harris is probably hung up on the word due to the left constantly lobbing it against him for over a decade to delegitimize his opinions. As for him viewing Muslims favorably or sympathetically, he has stated multiple times over podcast and written word (and in that interview you linked) that Muslims themselves are the biggest victims of Islamic terror by a large margin. He also cowrote a book recently with a Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, who is also ironically labelled Islamophobic by the left due to his criticisms of the religion. Him and Maher were also both against the ban.

He also says in that interview you linked, "When most [Americans] think of Muslims, they think of non-white people who, in our society, are a tiny minority, and therefore, they're deserving, and right so, they're deserving of the double protection of the white majority thinking 'wait a minute, am I begin a bigoted asshole here?' And that sort of self-scrutiny is appropriate."
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

Everyone deserves a chance to talk, but everyone also deserves the right to react to the things people say and do. It's not like Milo is some unknown quantity. He's a vile bully who has almost certainly riled up people to the point of committing violence and other hate crimes. Trying to prevent him from spreading his hateful messages that are completely harmful to human society should not be discouraged.
 

Hackworth

Member
My friend was in the audience. He said that Milo was basically yelling at her the entire time. Like he was just confused as fuck that she even existed or defied him by even being there.

There's speech, and then there's hate speech.

Milo is hate speech.
Yeah, he's been riling people up and painting targets for at least three years now, hosts have to stop thinking like Milo is some new debater with new ideas because he's just a professional griefer.
 
Yeah, he's been riling people up and painting targets for at least three years now, hosts have to stop thinking like Milo is some new debater with new ideas because he's just a professional griefer.

I'm pretty sure that if he could get away with it, he'd be telling these people to kill themselves.
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

Choosing not to have someone on your show isn't "preventing" him from speaking.
 
Milo is a troll and isn't well spoken or thought provoking. The best way to combat his kind is to just let him speak and look dumb. He thrives off of controversy and student protests.
 

Arkage

Banned
Yeah, he's been riling people up and painting targets for at least three years now, hosts have to stop thinking like Milo is some new debater with new ideas because he's just a professional griefer.

But that should be the whole point of the debate. To show he's all bluster and no substance, much like Trump himself. When Milo uses his platforms, whether twitter or facebook or Brietbart, there is literally no pushback against what he is saying because those are echo chambers he carefully cultivates. The only pushback he comes in contact with has been protestors that scream things at him. This is not an effective strategy for demonstrating to his followers that he's full of shit, and in fact probably has the opposite effect of reinforcing his criticisms of the left. A debate against someone who's going to tear into him and show that he has no rational substance behind his ranting rhetoric is exactly what needs to happen. I don't know if Maher is able to be that person, but I hope he tries.
 

~Kinggi~

Banned
Surprised this thread is so large. Bill doesnt attract that large an audience usually but hey i guess bring in the nazi and we golden right!?


Not sure how to feel yet on this. Im a big fan of Bill, im a hardcore liberal and he pretty much nails it 90%+ of the time. But if Milo is able to spew his shit and Bill waves it off loosely im gonna have to seriously reevaluate me watching him. It would be a damn shame cause there arent many lights in this trump darkness.
 
I'm really frustrated by people treating every piece of evidence against Milo in a vacuum.

Yes, the cross is not just a Nazi symbol, and that's a great counterpoint if the person wearing it doesn't pose with books on Hitler, makes Holocaust jokes, and writes anti-Semitic poetry.

Just like when having a police scanner in your car is illegal, you're not gonna get charged unless you committed another crime in conjunction with it

but lol at those trying to defend the use of the Iron Cross, we know exact-a-fuckingly what it means to Milo
 
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.

Dude, stfu.

Seriously, Milo has done enough damage, this people don't deserve the validation because their point should be non-existent in these times.
 
My friend was in the audience. He said that Milo was basically yelling at her the entire time. Like he was just confused as fuck that she even existed or defied him by even being there.

There's speech, and then there's hate speech.

Milo is hate speech.

The entire Milo UWM talk is online at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM

I don't know why but the first 25 minutes is just the logo. I'm not going to waste 2 hours watch this dude talk but at 49:20 he talks about the trans student you are discussing for about 2 minutes, including showing the picture of her from the interview she did on the local news station when she filed her Title IX complaint against the university.

People will have to judge for themselves how offensive it is and whether you would ever debate him.
 
Milo is a troll and isn't well spoken or thought provoking. The best way to combat his kind is to just let him speak and look dumb. He thrives off of controversy and student protests.

Or: You can muffle his voice as hard as you can, while shouting over the top of whatever mewling noises he's making about all the bullshit he's pushing, and then even further amplifying the voices of the people his harrassment has negatively affected.

This idea that there's only one correct way to handle someone espousing fascist, homophobic, bigoted rhetoric, and that way involves letting them spew, unimpeded, from mainstream-provided platforms, is a misguided one.

I'm honestly unsure how it is people keep arriving at this super-simplistic "solution" especially in February, 2017.
 

grumble

Member
Mixed reactions. First, giving him a platform to be an asshole is enabling him. Talking about this controversy also enables him by making him famous and interesting. Denying him provokes calls of the oppressive left.

I'd just not go to his events, not tune into the show, not talk about him and if asked, encourage others to do the same. Bill maher wouldn't have him on if he didn't think it would have everyone in this thread eager to watch it.
 

TaterTots

Banned
If the show was just guests who 100% aligned with Maher it would be pretty boring. We need people to be called out.....though Milo is pretty popular anyway and has a massive following. Not like Bill is promoting some guy on Youtube with 500 views per video.
 
He could get shredded on Bill Maher and it wouldn't matter. It will get spun into a net positive among the people that wanna think a certain way. So, basically a win-win for Milo.
 
If the show was just guests who 100% aligned with Maher it would be pretty boring.

You can have people who disagree with Maher without having white supremacist facists on, either. You can have someone relatively sane and not completely poisoned by horseshit on to argue Milo's defense without having Milo himself on to spew.

This weird either/or doesn't make any sense. The idea that the alternative to not having Milo on is 100% agreement isn't based in reality. You can have someone who disagrees without opening the doors to fascists.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.
19814503-standard.png

CWzMnVYWwAAlC_p.png

19814327-standard.png

milo.jpg

tumblr_o2xn8bd4nu1u3dylso1_500.jpg

Milo_Yiannopoulos.jpg

FOH with the both sides now it's tme to be reasonable bullshit!!!!
 
Again, Maher has been inviting really far right guests onto his show since like the history of forever. Its what the show was built on. I dont see why the sudden outrage. Coulter has been on many times before and have other crazy right wing people. The panel usually has ways of shutting them down for an applause.

Liberals have to stop having these stupid infighting with each other and stop calling shit bigotted when it really isnt.

I read Quins reply in the prior page and search her thread on twitter. Again, calling Maher an Islamophobia doesnt help the cause at all. The right can at least stay somewhat united even against the worst president in history. Liberals cant unite until everyone agrees with everything people want you to agree with. Its sad. Maher hasnt changed his position on religion and never will. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
 

Monocle

Member
This whole new trend I've noticed lately of preventing people from TALKING, is really bumming me out. I completely understand the feelings and dislike towards certain people, but everyone should have the right to speak wherever they want. It's what we need more of, discussion and understanding from all sides.

This is all super similar to when I would hear far-right religious entrenched folks trying to stop the "vile atheist heathens" from speaking on shows, because they are spreading their message of a sinful life and being against god.

There are some people out there that I absolutely dislike and would really wish they would stop speaking out, but I absolutely believe they should be able to without opposition.

There are strong views on all sides... but all sides deserve to be able to talk about it... Like it or not, there are people like this that exist and shunning them out is not the way to get through things and make society better.
Stop defending bigots and social arsonists.
 

~Kinggi~

Banned
I mean above post (crossing eden) is why i hoping Bill does his homework and realizes who he is dealing with. Listen, i have no doubt in my mind if Bill knows what the fuck is going on he wont stand for it, like, there is no way in hell Bill condones the shit that comes out of Milo. Just not who the guy is. So hopefully he has taken the time since he booked the dude to study up cause when he was on Van Jones he seemed to act like he didnt know much beyond he was potentially a seriously awful person.
 

JP_

Banned
If the show was just guests who 100% aligned with Maher it would be pretty boring.
Avik Roy, David Frum, Ana Navarro, and many other legitimate voices from the right are available. He has people like them on all the time. Milo is different and if you don't understand why, you should do more research.
 
Again, Maher has been inviting really far right guests onto his show since like the history of forever. Its what the show was built on. I dont see why the sudden outrage.

You really don't, huh?

You don't look around at 2017 and automatically understand why a fascist troll who routinely weaponizes his followers to harass innocents would be reason for protest?

That "sudden outrage" (which isn't sudden at all, it's a years-long response to his gamergate abuses) really doesn't make any sense to you at all? You can't see your way towards even mildly understanding the pushback, considering where we are right now, and the tenor of the country in general?

That context carries no weight with you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom