What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
The sheer amount of things any normal human being would have to do to not have the moral high ground compared to Milo
What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
Seems completely uncalled for to call him a pedophile then? Maybe the also very unflattering "making excuses for pedophiles" or even "supporter of pedophilia", but calling him a pedophile seems to be an unnecessary exaggeration.
What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
Does it really matter when the person in questions argues for the "benefits" of pedophiles. I don't care if he personally is one or not, it is disgusting and he deserves the label.Seems completely uncalled for to call him a pedophile then? Maybe the also very unflattering "making excuses for pedophiles" or even "supporter of pedophilia", but calling him a pedophile seems to be an unnecessary exaggeration.
Because you open up the door for "fake news" deflection, the idea is you don't give them an inch to wiggle around.Does it really matter when the person in questions argues for the "benefits" of pedophiles. I don't care if he personally is one or not, it is disgusting and he deserves the label.
What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
Going on TV and claiming trans folk are more likely to be sexual predators is not trolling. Purposely calling trans women men is not trolling
Because you open up the door for "fake news" deflection, the idea is you don't give them an inch to wiggle around.
Yes it is trolling, he openly says he loves getting a rise out of liberals when he talks like that. If he were to say all these crazy things and nobody would react to it he would be gone tomorrow
To be honest, that interview with Bill was the first time I've ever seen him talk, and he's just not very interesting. I don't understand the fascination with him
His followers listen.
His followers caused harm.
Turning a blind eye to that only leaves the victims alone.
They were not rioting, they were defending us from fascism. Get your facts straight Bruce.His followers were not violently rioting, those idiots who did just empower him
His followers were not violently rioting, those idiots who did just empower him
Name a single valid reason anyone who isn't a pedophile would willingly go and defend pedophilia when it isn't even the topic at hand.Seems completely uncalled for to call him a pedophile then? Maybe the also very unflattering "making excuses for pedophiles" or even "supporter of pedophilia", but calling him a pedophile seems to be an unnecessary exaggeration.
He debated gay marriage with Boy George.What exactly are Milo's qualifications ? What are his achievements and why is he getting so much attention ?
They were not rioting, they were defending us from fascism. Get your facts straight Bruce.
A person who just gave a platform to M*lo and has in the past given one to other fascists like Ann Coulter and Marilyn Manson and G. Gordon Liddy.And this is the same Berkeley that banned bill maher, so that video doesn't help your case
A person who just gave a platform to M*lo and has in the past given one to other fascists like Ann Coulter and Marilyn Manson and G. Gordon Liddy.
Violently suppressing speech isn't the answer, I won't be convinced otherwise
Only the government can be accused of suppressing speech and the government isn't doing that to Milo.
As much as I hate to link to the Blaze, saw this on Evan McMullins twitter.
They put together a pretty damning collection, including Joe Rogan clips that are just as bad, actually they are worse.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...oard-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite/
Dude is fucked
Violently protesting to force a cancellation of a speech is suppressing speech
I wonder if anyone who argued vehemently for Milo to be "openly debated" now feels like a fool.
No it isn't. Protest is speech. Violence is generally illegal. Can't cry because someone is louder and more disruptive than you when you're promoting hate speech and inciting harassment. And he's not saying anything worthwhile, so there's no reason to cape for him anyway.
That clip of the beating is tad bit worrying. Atleast the police decided to fend off the attackers after awhile.They were not rioting, they were defending us from fascism. Get your facts straight Bruce.
great mental gymnastics there, protest is speech, obviously, but violently protesting to prevent someone from speech is by definition suppression
Still think there is merit to the idea that the only way to beat people like him is to expose him as the fraud that he is.
Bill totally dropped the ball, though, no question.
I think you're getting a ton of emotionally charged responses, that basically result in throwing the baby out with the bath water.What about the benefits of taking the moral high ground?
I'm not even disagreeing, no shit they're arguing in bad faith and will say fake news regardless, that doesn't mean we need to help them out with it.White supremacy ensures they already have all the wiggle room in the world, which is why he hasn't been arrested for harassment yet, and the door to fake news deflection is already wide open. You're a little late to the party with that. And the false equivalence is insulting because the distinction you're making is meaningless against an enemy completely lacking in scruples.
And the government is involved in this how? You want to keep bringing up free speech, and how does that even apply to students protesting Milo?
His followers were not violently rioting, those idiots who did just empower him
Do you think suppression of speech is something that ONLY can happen when the government is involved?
wow
Yes.Do you think suppression of speech is something that ONLY can happen when the government is involved?
Yes.
I think "ignorant" is key word here.indeed, but really ignorant people seem to think otherwise for some reason.
I think "ignorant" is key word here.
So this is not to his credit (Bill's interview was shit), but Bill books him, everyone becomes aware of this turd, and then people discover he's a pedophile? Uh...ok.
So I just watched the interview. I'd agree it was pointless, and I don't really think Milo should be given any airtime.
That said, what I think Bill was attempting to do here, is sort of what you guys are saying in this thread. Stop taking this guys bait on his moronic stuff and ignore him. Bill called him out on stuff like black lives matter being a hate group, saying it was flat out wrong.
I'm not agreeing that that was necessarily the best way to say that, but I think that's why Milo wasn't grilled on the shit that he spews. It would have been a shouting match, with liberals being outraged, and Milo's supporters being like FUCK YEAH.
So he just said you have these views and they are wrong. We should stop taking the bait.
It really seems that being announced for CPAC is what made conservatives discover it. If it was just him being on Maher's show, The Reagan Battalion isn't going to create the clip that went viral and the Daily Caller isn't going to write the article about how crappy he is.
CPAC gave conservatives a reason to care about him beyond just using him as a bludgeon to attack so called free speech hating liberals. Only thing Maher might have done is made it more likely CPAC was going to invite him to speak.
It's frustrating how Daily Caller, New York Daily News, Glenn Beck, and now CPAC apparently care more about Milo's disgusting statements than supposed liberals like Maher and other liberal pundits.
Violently suppressing speech isn't the answer, I won't be convinced otherwise
You always seem to come to the defense of fascists. Let them spread hate speech all they want bc murrica right?Violently suppressing speech isn't the answer, I won't be convinced otherwise
So this is not to his credit (Bill's interview was shit), but Bill books him, everyone becomes aware of this turd, and then people discover he's a pedophile? Uh...ok.