Anyone else a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos?

Post Reply New Topic

Communists (who I would like to call pure-statists) are adamant historians, who studied past empires to the tee, stripped them of all bias, and borrowed from their methods.

They might be considered in two stages -- Leninism and Stalinism, demoralization and utilitarianism, democracy and republic.

I believe that the pendulum of history may swing in Milo's direction and then some. I am saying this, in the impartial and methodical sense. I have biases, and they do not favor Milo, per se.

It's not like the many modern feminists that he targets are innocent, though. If they give it, they are open to taking it. That's the good thing about this freedom of speech stuff.

I also find how people think it's ok for him to do these things because he's gay. It shows the anti-intellectual stance of the privilege movement.

Anyone should be able to criticize anyone based on anything, no matter how high the criticized are in the privileged stack and how low the criticizer, and the argument should be based on ITS OWN MERITS (excuse the caps, but that's the important part).

If the argument is sound and logical, it can stand on its own.

You do know that a lot of self proclaimed feminists on the internet do the very same thing to other women, right?
Namely the ones who don't think and do and say exactly everything that they want.

He openly mocks people and ideas he thinks are stupid, regardless of gender or source, but I don't recall him professing hatred for women.

This witch hunt mentality does you no favours. If you have legitimate criticisms of Milo, put the pitchfork down and present them.

K, so because some feminists "hate men" that means it's ok to talk about all women like they are garbage? That's some interesting reasoning you've got going there.

Did you read that article I posted of his--it wasn't about feminists, it was about all women that use birth control and it was full of hate.

Some overt and disgusting hatred was expressed in the article written by him that I posted. That's not a pitchfork, it's his own words.

He's done very well for himself. To think but five years ago he was stood at the side of the road with a near-illegible sign reading 'will talk shite for food'. Now he talks and writes shite for money, paid to by people who like his shite because they know idiots will queue up to pay (or click the clickbait) to hear him talk shite about people they're scared of, barking in approval like lobotomised seals.

Only it never is, is it? The Milo's and the SJWs of this world have fundamental philosophical differences. but you don't make money by setting out to examine those fundamental differences in a considered, balanced fashion. You make money, though not 'sound, logical arguments', by snark and appeals to incredulity.

Which is good news for those looking to ching! ching! ching! cash in on this stuff, and for those who are too lazy or dull witted to think up their own snark.

Researchers have claimed that women on birth control make riskier choices, in terms of a mate.

Does this make any of Milo's claims factually accurate, whether or not they were shtick, said in a spirit of meanness.

Are they living up to the misogyny, even if that is casual.

I see--so now that I've expressed disinterest in speaking to you further in another thread in which you expressed transphobia and contempt for trans people, you're following me around to comment in threads that I've just commented in trying to get me to talk to you more even though I've said I'm not interested. That's not creepy or trollish at all.

I will reiterate: I'm not interested in having conversations with creepy transphobic trolls, thanks. Please stop trying to talk to me.

Just because an argument is logical doesn't mean it's true.

You can create logic out of crap sometimes, if you have the rhetorical knowledge.

Indeed. Most of what passes for a 'sound, logical argument' is just something that somewhat apes logical form, firmed up with some basic rhetorical build/tempo work. The actual content is still GIGO.



Does it matter? The likes of Milo are not remotely interested in the 'factual accuracy' of their claims, so I don't see why anyone else should be.

The misogyny is pathological. To ask if even a single woman is 'living up to' it is to misunderstand where the issue is.

A "respectable" troll does not offend the group of people counter to those he/she is trying to expose. This is bad taste and earns poor marks in the world of trolldom.

Milo acts a bully and so he is for all practical purposes a bully (or simply a hateful person if he is not a troll). He may state some factual points here and there but his whole purpose is provocation for self-motivation He gets ways too much attention.

Which part of the article do you believe contains "overt and disgusting hatred"? The tone is certainly derisive and condescending, but that's a provocative stylistic decision rather than evidence of "hatred".

Again, he has not professed hatred for women within the article, nor has he implied it. The assertion that he "openly hates women" is not a reasonable one.

From my cursory glance, he speaks out against modern feminism for the most part, by confronting them with opinions that they might dislike.

The article you provided is an opinion piece no doubt, with some citations for his points; leaps of logic abound, of course.

I don't see much hate, just that birth control might have a deleterious effect based on the author's stance.

Really, the article is him TRYING TO HELP women by showing them the negative effects of birth control (it's a drug after all). That's not hateful.

It'd be nice to see John Oliver be met with the same hostility as his right-wing equivalent.

It's condescending, and it treats women as sexual objects. It's also clueless, since he's saying that using birth control, a pretty good sign one is sexually active, leads to women missing out on "man meat" when they gain weight and become unattractive. Like they need BS sex advice from a gay idiot.