• 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.

JP_

Banned
Too many people are still confusing "debating ideas" with "spreading propaganda."

https://mobile.twitter.com/ezlusztig/status/803288929357041664?lang=en

"Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascist.

She noted how decent liberals of the 1930s Germany would "fact check" the Nazis' bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual.

What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent.

So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI, naive people would counter by saying there's no evidence of that.

What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next.

Did 3 millions illegals cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game.

What Trump is saying is not that 3 million illegals voted. What he's saying is: I'm going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans."

And

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.

They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."
 
Define "Harassment".

I mean, I have seen him speak out about Liberals, feminism, Muslims, body shaming, etc. which are shitty in their own regards, but I don't think I've ever seen him harass anybody directly.

But I also don't go out of my way to watch the guy. My point is, if "harassment" is attacking subjects and you disagree, that's simply not harassment. Being a straight up asshole? Sure. But not harassment. If that were the case, I imagine somebody would have already filed suit and taken his ass down.

Did you miss the whole Leslie Jones thing?
 
Spot on. So many threads on here have people saying "Don't read the comments!", and I'm like what are the comments going to hurt you or something? Yeesh.

Yeah words do affect the mentality of people. If you think otherwise, please let me know what sorts of insecurities you have so I can constantly attack you with them.
 

Mahonay

Banned
We disagree on what makes him famous then. He got famous through negative reactions. All of the most viewed Milo content is from him going on, first British TV, and saying controversial things. I'd say most people aren't even aware of his association with GG. Basically, what BocoDragon said...Milo hasn't done one tenth the amount of damage people like Ann Coulter and Piers Morgan have done. Milo's an asshole and the shit he's done shouldn't be forgotten but he's a distraction.
I would say people like Ann Coulter are directly responsible for the tea party and then alt-right coming into existence. Her far right extremist veiws have had tremendous influence in that segment or the population.
 
I abhor Coulter, but I do not think she is in any way as dangerous as Milo. I agree that she should also not be given a pulpit, but Milo's actions as far as doxxing and actively encouraging hate and violence towards individuals are worse.

Not as dangerous doesn't means she isn't incredibly dangerous. It's not a competition.
 

MUnited83

For you.
Define "Harassment".

I mean, I have seen him speak out about Liberals, feminism, Muslims, body shaming, etc. which are shitty in their own regards, but I don't think I've ever seen him harass anybody directly.

But I also don't go out of my way to watch the guy. My point is, if "harassment" is attacking subjects and you disagree, that's simply not harassment. Being a straight up asshole? Sure. But not harassment. If that were the case, I imagine somebody would have already filed suit and taken his ass down.
I define harassment as harassment. Have you actually bothered to look up any of shitty things Milo has done over and over? He has specifically harassed and targeted specific individuals over and over and over
 
Agreed. It's harder to spout this shit when you're not yelling it into an echo chamber. Sort of like how Tomi Lahren was notably silent when she was on the show.

This. Tomi Lahren looked like a joke last week and proved that shes good at yelling into a void but not at defending her positions.

The alternative is to have 4 people sit around a desk jerking off and patting themselves on the back about how correct they are about everything.

Anybody in favor of free speech should be leery of these people claiming that they are the moral arbiters determining who is worthy of a "platform".
 

Blader

Member
He does think he's a shitty person, but that his speech shouldn't be suppressed, violently at that


you clearly have no idea what Bill's views are

Nothing you just wrote here has anything to do with what I said, much less what you bolded. Let me break it down for you: who is the audience for this segment? Is it the liberals who already hate Milo? The alt-righters who hang on his every word? Or the undecideds who don't even watch the show?

What is being gained from having Milo on this show? You said he's going to make Milo look like a clown -- to who? Who is shifting their perceptions of Milo based on this show?
 

Kinsei

Banned
Define "Harassment".

I mean, I have seen him speak out about Liberals, feminism, Muslims, body shaming, etc. which are shitty in their own regards, but I don't think I've ever seen him harass anybody directly.

But I also don't go out of my way to watch the guy. My point is, if "harassment" is attacking subjects and you disagree, that's simply not harassment. Being a straight up asshole? Sure. But not harassment. If that were the case, I imagine somebody would have already filed suit and taken his ass down.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/twitter-milo-yiannopolous-banned-leslie-jones-1.3686843

Just a couple of examples.
 
There's a whole lot of people in here essentially arguing on behalf of good faith who haven't had theirs stepped on in a manner so violent that it ventured into truly disturbing territory.

You can't just offer up good faith to everyone who says they have an idea, and not every idea is worthy of that faith.

People in here arguing like the mere presence of an idea obligates someone to give that idea equal shine to all others.

It's like this weird tumorous growth ballooning out from the misunderstanding that there can't be "wrong" opinions, and that equal consideration must be paid to those holding them, and the biggest sin in those situations isn't the dismissal or denial of those bad and wrong opinions, but the pride of the person who is so unfairly bold as to declare them wrong and shut them out.

It is, as a lot of these discussions become, a case of misplaced, confused empathy: People much more easily insert themselves into a mindset where they identify with the person being shut out of a conversation by someone convinced they're in the right, and approach the dilemma from that P.O.V. Because to them, the bigger sin in play is presumption. Pretension.

It's an pseudo-intellectual's argument for anti-intellectualism.
 
If Bill doesn't destroy him in this "debate" then he fell for his trap. Although knowing Bill's past actions he likes to fall for these traps.

There is no "destroying" someone who's followers are delusional and allergic to facts. You can't win. There's no point. It's like when Tomi Lahren was on the Daily Show and people were like "Trevor Noah destroyed her!". No, she got exactly what she wanted.
 

legacyzero

Banned
If Bill doesn't destroy him in this "debate" then he fell for his trap. Although knowing Bill's past actions he likes to fall for these traps.
Agreed. If this isn't a heated debate and making Milo answer for his shittiness, it's going to look real bad.

Which is possible, because Milo and Bill already agree on a number of issues like Islam, and the "Regressive Left".
 

DOWN

Banned
Isn't there no evidence he is Greek or Jewish? I recall seeing his original persona was under his birth last name Wagner or something and he started saying he was Jewish just to start getting away with anti-Semitic comments

But excuse me if I'm wrong
 

Ithil

Member
Define "Harassment".

I mean, I have seen him speak out about Liberals, feminism, Muslims, body shaming, etc. which are shitty in their own regards, but I don't think I've ever seen him harass anybody directly.

But I also don't go out of my way to watch the guy. My point is, if "harassment" is attacking subjects and you disagree, that's simply not harassment. Being a straight up asshole? Sure. But not harassment. If that were the case, I imagine somebody would have already filed suit and taken his ass down.

He outed a transgender student at a university by name during a speech, complete with photo of them, and encouraged the crowd to mock and bully them. For no reason other than that they were transgender.
 

Mahonay

Banned
Isn't there no evidence he is Greek or Jewish? I recall seeing his original persona was under his birth last name Wagner or something and he started saying he was Jewish just to start getting away with anti-Semitic comments

But excuse me if I'm wrong
Certainly sounds like something that scumbag would do.
 
There's a whole lot of people in here essentially arguing on behalf of good faith who haven't had theirs stepped on in a manner so violent that it ventured into truly disturbing territory.

You can't just offer up good faith to everyone who says they have an idea, and not every idea is worthy of that faith.

People in here arguing like the mere presence of an idea obligates someone to give that idea equal shine to all others.

It's like this weird tumorous growth ballooning out from the misunderstanding that there can't be "wrong" opinions, and that equal consideration must be paid to those holding them, and the biggest sin in those situations isn't the dismissal or denial of those bad and wrong opinions, but the pride of the person who is so unfairly bold as to declare them wrong and shut them out.

It is, as a lot of these discussions become, a case of misplaced, confused empathy: People much more easily insert themselves into a mindset where they identify with the person being shut out of a conversation by someone convinced they're in the right, and approach the dilemma from that P.O.V. Because to them, the bigger sin in play is presumption. Pretension.

It's an pseudo-intellectual's argument for anti-intellectualism.

I can't detect any lies here, Bobby.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Can't go around labeling people neo-nazi, and expect everyone to fall in line with that. I honestly believe that he's labeled that just to be able to justify censoring him. He has extreme dissenting views from the left, but I think his voice deserves to be heard.

For the sole reason that a lot of people agree with him.

Hearing what he has to say is an effective way to educate myself on the ways that people think. I want to know why they think that. (Besides "he's a piece of shit that's why") It's interesting, and personally valuable to absorb that information to be broken down for myself.
 
When Hitler was sat in his bunker, pants full of shit and a throat full of cyanide do you think he thought 'I hope one day we get another chance to put our argument across on HBO' makes you wonder.
 
There's a whole lot of people in here essentially arguing on behalf of good faith who haven't had theirs stepped on in a manner so violent that it ventured into truly disturbing territory.

You can't just offer up good faith to everyone who says they have an idea, and not every idea is worthy of that faith.

People in here arguing like the mere presence of an idea obligates someone to give that idea equal shine to all others.

It's like this weird tumorous growth ballooning out from the misunderstanding that there can't be "wrong" opinions, and that equal consideration must be paid to those holding them, and the biggest sin in those situations isn't the dismissal or denial of those bad and wrong opinions, but the pride of the person who is so unfairly bold as to declare them wrong and shut them out.

It is, as a lot of these discussions become, a case of misplaced, confused empathy: People much more easily insert themselves into a mindset where they identify with the person being shut out of a conversation by someone convinced they're in the right, and approach the dilemma from that P.O.V. Because to them, the bigger sin in play is presumption. Pretension.

It's an pseudo-intellectual's argument for anti-intellectualism.

Bobby, you continue to be one of the best posters on this site.
 
Bill Maher is weak, he's no Jeremy Paxman. Who's the USA equivalent of Jeremy Paxman? US media needs someone who knows how to debate and doesn't pull punches. Doesn't feel like he/she needs to be friendly.

Even Christopher Hitchens was better at talking to KKK and other alt-right/neo-nazi people like John Metzger who was basically Richard Spencer at the time with more code-wording and bringing a cuter front to the mainstream for White Aryan Resistance (WAR) and his dad who was a KKK Grand Wizard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSBHsElmkiA
 
I hate Milo, but this framing of the discussion is hyperbole.

He's not actually a neo-Nazi. This is an inaccurate label that only serves the idea that the left is hysterical and blind to facts. Milo is an anti-feminist, anti-liberal western culture supremacist. Attack him for what he really is, and you'll have more success in defeating him.

And to be frank, he's already a "media pundit". That ship has sailed, and you'd have to be a a leftist bubble to act like this is the beginning of this. He's been all over British and American media already.

Bill Maher's been giving Ann Coulter a "platform" for twenty years. This is 1:1 that. He'll get booed and jeered by Maher's audience as a heel.

At least there's one sane person in here.
 

legacyzero

Banned
The first example- yikes.

The second is one I witnessed. Double Yikes. And I'm glad Twitter finally stepped in. He got what he deserved there. But the question here is: "Would the court find it a CRIME?" Because if that's the case, he needs to answer for that.
 

cDNA

Member
If Bill doesn't destroy him in this "debate" then he fell for his trap. Although knowing Bill's past actions he likes to fall for these traps.

Bill "destroyed" many people but that is not what they care, they care to have the platform to spew their nonsense. You can think Bill "destroyed" Kellyane Conway weeks before the election in the show but what he really did was given her air to attack Hillary Clinton in front of liberal audience and create distrust in that group.
 
Yep. That is the whole point of having debates. You rarely change the view of the person you are debating but you can cause their followers to reconsider if you put forward your case well. Even if you manage to make 1% of his followers question their beliefs, thats 1% less nazi's in the world.

Naziism is not a reason-based ideology.

That's not a glib one-liner, it's a fact. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism - even militarism - have some kind of rational basis. We may agree or disagree with the basic tenants, but these ideologies flow from observations about the state of the world and attempts to remedy what are viewed as problems.

Naziism is a fantasy-based ideology, both in terms of input and output. The observations of the German Nazi party were based on Germanic mythology. Nazis held chivalric medieval German society - a society that was largely created post-facto by authors during the romantic era - as the goal that their modern society to strive for. They wanted to recreate a society that never existed in the first place.

The statements and writings produced by Nazis were also fantasy. This is particularly important for this discussion; Nazis did not say, nor intend to say, things that were true. They said things that would have to be true in order to justify their planned actions.

For instance, the idea that Jews caused Germany to lose WWI is ridiculous. It doesn't take long to take this idea apart in a debate. It has no grounding in fact, nor is it even a plausible explanation for Germany's defeat - an event whose causes were not a mystery to historians or contemporary observers. But the defeat of Germany due to Jewish sabotage is something that would have to be true in order to justify the horrific crimes that the Nazis would later perpetrate against the Jewish people.

Their view of the world is fantasy, and their statements are feverish conspiracies.

Modern fascists fall into the same exact pattern. Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopolous believe that people of European decent are genetically superior to people of other ethnicities. This is scientifically false. They believe that every achievement of the modern world is due to the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. This is an absurd misreading of history which has been discredited for decades.

The statements they make are also pure fantasy; 3 million illegal immigrants voting in the election, "Black crime" skyrocketing, Islam waging war on the West - this is all nonsense. But again, these are things that would have to be true in order to justify whatever terrors these men have planned.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

They will not say things that are true. They will not address facts. They will not acknowledge the superiority of their opponents reasoning. Instead, they will shout as loudly as possible about the evil deeds of the Jews or Trans or Blacks or Muslims until their mic is cut off (or they get slugged in the chin).

When you give fascists a platform, you are allowing someone to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and calling it free speech.
 
No idea who Bill Maher is, but inviting Milo to his show?
Yeah, incredibly stupid. He was already "exposed" by people who don't look the other way or go "but our free speech!". Letting him spew nazi propaganda bullshit on television or any public place at all is not protecting his free speech. The latter from an American law perspective sure, but not from a moral perspective.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Isn't there no evidence he is Greek or Jewish? I recall seeing his original persona was under his birth last name Wagner or something and he started saying he was Jewish just to start getting away with anti-Semitic comments

But excuse me if I'm wrong

His birthname is Hanrahan. Anybody who knows about Richard Wagner's views might be able to tell you why Milo adopted his surname to write under for a while. He's also claimed to be Catholic in the past.

This article by Helen Lewis in the New Statesman is a good place to start if you'd like to learn more about this human piece of shit: http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...annopoulos-chameleon-who-enthralled-alt-right

Naziism is not a reason-based ideology.

That's not a glib one-liner, it's a fact. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism - even militarism - have some kind of rational basis. We may agree or disagree with the basic tenants, but these ideologies flow from observations about the state of the world and attempts to remedy what are viewed as problems.

Naziism is a fantasy-based ideology, both in terms of input and output. The observations of the German Nazi party were based on Germanic mythology. Nazis held chivalric medieval German society - a society that was largely created post-facto by authors during the romantic era - as the goal that their modern society to strive for. They wanted to recreate a society that never existed in the first place.

The statements and writings produced by Nazis were also fantasy. This is particularly important for this discussion; Nazis did not say, nor intend to say, things that were true. They said things that would have to be true in order to justify their planned actions.

For instance, the idea that Jews caused Germany to lose WWI is ridiculous. It doesn't take long to take this idea apart in a debate. It has no grounding in fact, nor is it even a plausible explanation for Germany's defeat - an event whose causes were not a mystery to historians or contemporary observers. But the defeat of Germany do to Jewish sabotage is something that would have to be true in order to justify the horrific crimes that the Nazis would later perpetrate against the Jewish people.

Their view of the world is fantasy, and their statements are feverish conspiracies.

Modern fascists fall into the same exact pattern. Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopolous believe that people of European decent are superior to people of other ethnicities. This is scientifically false. They believe that every achievement of the modern world is due to the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. This is an absurd misreading of history which has been discredited for decades.

The statements they make are also pure fantasy; 3 million illegal immigrants voting in the election, "Black crime" skyrocketing, Islam waging war on the West - this is all nonsense. But again, these are things that would have to be true in order to justify whatever terrors these men have planned.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

They will not say things that are true. They will not address facts. They will not acknowledge the superiority of their opponents reasoning. Instead, they will shout as loudly as possible about the evil deeds of the Jews or Trans or Blacks or Muslims until their mic is cut off (or they get slugged in the chin).

When you give fascists a platform, you are allowing someone to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and calling it free speech.

Somebody buy this man a drink or give him a trophy or something.
 
Can't go around labeling people neo-nazi, and expect everyone to fall in line with that. I honestly believe that he's labeled that just to be able to justify censoring him. He has extreme dissenting views from the left, but I think his voice deserves to be heard.

For the sole reason that a lot of people agree with him.

Hearing what he has to say is an effective way to educate myself on the ways that people think. I want to know why they think that. (Besides "he's a piece of shit that's why") It's interesting, and personally valuable to absorb that information to be broken down for myself.

There is plenty of evidence al over the internet of what his views are, you don't have to wait for him to go on HBO to find out what they are, and why they are abhorrent and utterly worthless. A view point simply existing doesn't make it legitimate or worthy of a platform. Otherwise you might as well go "debate" the homeless schizophrenic on the corner who thinks the the CIA has sent undercover aliens to kill him.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
There's a whole lot of people in here essentially arguing on behalf of good faith who haven't had theirs stepped on in a manner so violent that it ventured into truly disturbing territory.

You can't just offer up good faith to everyone who says they have an idea, and not every idea is worthy of that faith.

People in here arguing like the mere presence of an idea obligates someone to give that idea equal shine to all others.

It's like this weird tumorous growth ballooning out from the misunderstanding that there can't be "wrong" opinions, and that equal consideration must be paid to those holding them, and the biggest sin in those situations isn't the dismissal or denial of those bad and wrong opinions, but the pride of the person who is so unfairly bold as to declare them wrong and shut them out.

It is, as a lot of these discussions become, a case of misplaced, confused empathy: People much more easily insert themselves into a mindset where they identify with the person being shut out of a conversation by someone convinced they're in the right, and approach the dilemma from that P.O.V. Because to them, the bigger sin in play is presumption. Pretension.

It's an pseudo-intellectual's argument for anti-intellectualism.

You can say this until millions of people agree with him. Then your point doesn't apply, and the opinion is worth being discussed.

There is plenty of evidence al over the internet of what his views are, you don't have to wait for him to go on HBO to find out what they are, and why they are abhorrent and utterly worthless. A view point simply existing doesn't make it legitimate or worthy of a platform. Otherwise you might as well go "debate" the homeless schizophrenic on the corner who thinks the the CIA has sent undercover aliens to kill him.

Basically all points being discussed on TV are available on the Internet.
 

Trago

Member
What exactly would we accomplish by not having him on the show? This idiot has been given a platform on several media outlets already. At the same time, having him on the show would go about as well as when Tomi Lahren was on.

This seems like a bad idea on Bill's part.
 
Milo and the people who support him don't deal in reason or rationality. Debates with people like him or Tomi Lahren are as worthless as debating with the Westboro Baptist crazies. They are not worthy of a platform.

But that's exactly what they want. His whole "thing" is centered around his ideas being censored. If you don't give him space to hang himself in his own stupidity, you're strengthening his position.

The alt right claims lack of free speech on every chance they get. If you take that away from them, they have even less to support themselves on.
 
Define "Harassment".

I mean, I have seen him speak out about Liberals, feminism, Muslims, body shaming, etc. which are shitty in their own regards, but I don't think I've ever seen him harass anybody directly.

But I also don't go out of my way to watch the guy. My point is, if "harassment" is attacking subjects and you disagree, that's simply not harassment. Being a straight up asshole? Sure. But not harassment. If that were the case, I imagine somebody would have already filed suit and taken his ass down.

Leslie Jones

Trans student

Plan for the talk at UC Berkeley was to out immigrant students before he chickened out.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-warns-campus-group-Yiannopoulos-event-could-10901517.php

The letter expressed concerns that Yiannopoulos — a British writer for the right-wing opinion site Breitbart News — will use his appearance to kick off a campaign “targeting the undocumented student community on our campus,” and linked to an article published Tuesday on the site.

The article begins: “Milo and the (conservative think tank) David Horowitz Freedom Center have teamed up to take down the growing phenomenon of ‘sanctuary campuses’ that shelter illegal immigrants from being deported.”

The UC Berkeley letter warns the Republican hosts of the event that Yiannopoulos could target individual students — holding up their photos or revealing personal information about them — during the speech that will be live-streamed, “putting students at risk.”
“Other targeted groups on our campus have experienced Horowitz’ tactic of publicizing the names and pictures of individuals on posters throughout campus property, and there is a likelihood that there will be Horowitz-backed posters pasted throughout our campus,” the letter said.

It continues: “Backed by the Freedom Center (Yiannopoulos) will call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies, starting with UC President and former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks.”​
 

JP_

Banned
But that's exactly what they want. His whole "thing" is centered around his ideas being censored. If you don't give him space to hang himself in his own stupidity, you're strengthening his position.

The alt right claims lack of free speech on every chance they get. If you take that away from them, they have even less to support themselves on.

If Maher cancels after announcing, then yeah that'd boost Milo. If Maher never considered having him on in the first place, it would not have boosted Milo in any way. If everybody followed that, Milo would just be some kid with a blog.
 
I love Maher but stop trying to have rational fucking discussions with these people. They would throw Bill himself in an oven if they could. Nothing is going to be "exposed" on Friday night. They are going to be talking past each other to their respective audiences and nothing will happen except having given Milo yet another platform to spread his bullshit.
 
But that's exactly what they want. His whole "thing" is centered around his ideas being censored. If you don't give him space to hang himself in his own stupidity, you're strengthening his position.

The alt right claims lack of free speech on every chance they get. If you take that away from them, they have even less to support themselves on.

But their claim that they are being censored is total, unsubstantiated bullshit, so I guess I don't have much faith that, even in being exposed, they won't just latch onto some other piece of irrational bullshit to push their agendas. Their entire platform is built on falsities, so how exactly do you expect them to act reasonably?
 
I like this and I can't wait. The point is for him to be debated and call him out in his bullshit. Destroying him on his platform is exactly what we need. Sometimes giving someone a platform doesn't mean "good". I'm tuning in for this one
 
I'm looking forward to this. Bill routinely brings people on the show who he disagrees with. If he made his show an echo chamber it would be boring as fuck.
 

Dali

Member
Bill Maher has been on my list of idiots I will not endorse for a while. This is just indefensible though. Well... I guess there is a defense. Ratings.

Is he so stupid he can't see by giving this pos a national... neigh... international platform he's adding some semblance of credence to his bullshit? What sort of stupid do you have to be for this?
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
If Maher cancels after announcing, then yeah that'd boost Milo. If Maher never considered having him on in the first place, it would not have boosted Milo in any way. If everybody followed that, Milo would just be some kid with a blog.

Exactly. His book sales spiked after the Berkley protests, sad to say. But that's the university's fault for even trying to have him on in the first place.

"Some kid with a blog", sigh.... imagine if Bill Maher invited the Timecube guy? Or hell, that goof Alex Jones that no one takes seriousl.... oh wait Alex Jones now has the blessings of the White House

But sure, let's keep pretending that "exposing" these clowns harms them instead of helping them
 
The alt right claims lack of free speech on every chance they get.

So, again, we're trading actual positive action (exiling/shunning this behavior) for the appearance of positive behavior in return for enabling the negative.

Continue the delusion that enabling this shit is the high road in exchange for actually taking it.
 

cDNA

Member
But that's exactly what they want. His whole "thing" is centered around his ideas being censored. If you don't give him space to hang himself in his own stupidity, you're strengthening his position.

The alt right claims lack of free speech on every chance they get. If you take that away from them, they have even less to support themselves on.

He has plenty of space in Fox news and in Breibart where he is an EDITOR, how much more space he needs and why he wants liberal show to give him time?
 

Lime

Member
Spot on. So many threads on here have people saying "Don't read the comments!", and I'm like what are the comments going to hurt you or something? Yeesh.

Oh no my mentality was affected

Wow, you're really tough. I wonder how many slurs you have to listen to every day and how much your chances in life are inhibited by your skin color or gender identity and how much you have to engage in all kinds of spaces and be silent in the face of casual discrimination..

The fact that you cannot empathize with why someone might not like to listen to hateful shit is astounding. Human communication is a thing and it affects people.
 
If Maher cancels after announcing, then yeah that'd boost Milo. If Maher never considered having him on in the first place, it would not have boosted Milo in any way. If everybody followed that, Milo would just be some kid with a blog.

It wouldn't have boosted him, but it would have maintained this idiotic notion that this idiotic people are being kept by the "hateful left wing media" from spreading their idiotic ideas.
 
I like this and I can't wait. The point is for him to be debated and call him out in his bullshit. Destroying him on his platform is exactly what we need. Sometimes giving someone a platform doesn't mean "good". I'm tuning in for this one

Yeah, I really believe the Islamaphobic racist will go in hard against the other Islamaphobic racist. Maher isn't just backwards in a lot of his thinking, but he's weak at debating too. Dude got his ass handed to him over his Islamaphobia by Ben Affleck of all fucking people.
 

Trokil

Banned
Too many people are still confusing "debating ideas" with "spreading propaganda."

https://mobile.twitter.com/ezlusztig/status/803288929357041664?lang=en

If you use Arendt as an argument, you should remember that she was talking about the banality of evil. It was not Hitler that killed the Jews it was people like Eichmann. So yes, I am not afraid of Milo or some other troll. Because he will not be the person who will actually to the things. I am more afraid of the quite smiling guy who just follows orders and by that creates a system which will kill millions. The people who will follow the leader are the problem and if you expose their leaders as idiots it is hard to take any order serious.

And the good thing is, neither people like Trump or Milo play in the same league as the nazis did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom