I've sourced with links my information that shows what he has done in the past, and what he will do in the future.
Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I've sourced with links my information that shows what he has done in the past, and what he will do in the future.
You've sourced with links what he is going to do in the future? Can you tell me where you get this time travelling information from please? Because I have some money I want to invest in the stock market.
Man of Honour
Yes, but that doesn't mean that preventing speech is free speech.
Why do you think that allowing speech is supporting it? That's obviously not true because nobody can support all speech.
I wish it was that simple. Unfortunately, there are intelligent people who use hate speech as a tool and there are intelligent people who believe it.
I don't support hate speech either. But I do support freedom of speech, so I wouldn't forcibly stop hate speech. Two different things.
While that's not true, the world would probably be a better place if everyone thought it was.
There's another problem with forcibly preventing hate speech - who has that extreme power?
To use a topical example, is it hate speech to say that protestors who aren't violent deserve respect? Someone thought so, since they sprayed Mace in the face of the person who said that in order to suppress their speech. Speaking in favour of sexual equality has also been classed as hate speech on the grounds that it's anti-feminist. I'd consider most or maybe even all of feminism to be hate speech, since it exists for the purpose of promoting prejudice and discrimination against a biological group. Hate speech is in the ear of the beholder. The power to forcibly suppress speech is a dangerous thing. I'm far from convinced that it's even possible, let alone certain, that it can be used wisely and fairly.
Hurfdurf provides a perfect example. He's using this thread to post lies and propaganda designed to promote violence and irrational prejudice. Is that hate speech? Who should have the power to make that decision? If it is hate speech, should it be banned? Or should hurfdurf be jailed? Or should he be treated the way he thinks others should be treated, i.e. beaten in order to suppress his speech? Who decides and how?
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with this article on the matter. Most sensible thing to ever come from from the Huff Post 
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ulos-on-my-campus_us_5898a3dbe4b061551b3e011c
.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ulos-on-my-campus_us_5898a3dbe4b061551b3e011c
Soldato
Kind of loses a bit of its message by making the Frog an actual Nazi.
EDIT: Ah, I misread it. I thought you were criticising the people on the Left who try to shut down speech or respond with violence. Actually you are condoning that behaviour? And also calling Milo to a Nazi. Lovely. :/ Now I don't like him or many of his views, but I don't call him a Nazi.
Soldato
Hurfdurf, it's very simple. You don't get to inflict violence on someone who is not themselves engaged in violence. Doing so is not being part of some noble resistance movement, it's just thuggery.
But okay, maybe you're not convinced by the ethical argument. Then please consider some pragmatic reasons not to do it.
1) If you set the standard for it being okay to punch someone at "I find their politics outrageous", then there's nothing stopping them doing it back to you. If you've established this standard, then you can't very well cry "help help I'm being oppressed", because it was your side that started it!
2) It strengthens their support. The natural immediate reaction most people have when seeing someone being assaulted, is to sympathise with the victim. It makes them a martyr. Those of an intellectual bent will wonder what that person said to provoke this, and make efforts to find out. Take the latest example, Milo's book sales sky rocketed after the Berkeley incident. Linkage. That sure taught him a lesson, right?
3) What happens when we run out of nazis to punch? Inflicting violence with a sense of righteousness must be one of the best feelings in the world, and you better believe there will be those who get drunk on this feeling. So who will they punch when there are no more nazis left? I think they will turn on each other. The definition of nazi will be expanded to mean "anyone to the right of me and my chums". Already, the term is being applied to anyone who unironically mutters "build a wall" or "make america great again". It is even being applied to a gay man who takes black lovers, so clearly it has already lost some of its meaning.
4) It doesn't prove them wrong. It proves you're afraid of what they might say. It proves you don't believe you can win an argument with them. It proves you don't think the facts are on your side.
The point is, even if your sense of ethics allows for assaulting people whom you suspect of Wrongthink, there are still very good reasons for not actually doing it.
But okay, maybe you're not convinced by the ethical argument. Then please consider some pragmatic reasons not to do it.
1) If you set the standard for it being okay to punch someone at "I find their politics outrageous", then there's nothing stopping them doing it back to you. If you've established this standard, then you can't very well cry "help help I'm being oppressed", because it was your side that started it!
2) It strengthens their support. The natural immediate reaction most people have when seeing someone being assaulted, is to sympathise with the victim. It makes them a martyr. Those of an intellectual bent will wonder what that person said to provoke this, and make efforts to find out. Take the latest example, Milo's book sales sky rocketed after the Berkeley incident. Linkage. That sure taught him a lesson, right?
3) What happens when we run out of nazis to punch? Inflicting violence with a sense of righteousness must be one of the best feelings in the world, and you better believe there will be those who get drunk on this feeling. So who will they punch when there are no more nazis left? I think they will turn on each other. The definition of nazi will be expanded to mean "anyone to the right of me and my chums". Already, the term is being applied to anyone who unironically mutters "build a wall" or "make america great again". It is even being applied to a gay man who takes black lovers, so clearly it has already lost some of its meaning.
4) It doesn't prove them wrong. It proves you're afraid of what they might say. It proves you don't believe you can win an argument with them. It proves you don't think the facts are on your side.
The point is, even if your sense of ethics allows for assaulting people whom you suspect of Wrongthink, there are still very good reasons for not actually doing it.
Soldato
^ Great post but whether the morons on either side will pay attention to common sense and decency is anyone's guess.
No you haven't, you posted a fake picture a mosned about him calling out a trans student. The rest of your post was what ifs. You've not established anything.
I don't particularly like Milo but I don't think he's calling for the gassing of a certain group of people or anything. I think the fact that he's right wing but openly into getting bummed by black dudes overloads the far leftist peoples' brains.
I can't help but think that there is delicious irony in the behaviour of the likes of UAF. Anything right of Ghandi seems to be open season for violent protest these days.
I can't help but think that there is delicious irony in the behaviour of the likes of UAF. Anything right of Ghandi seems to be open season for violent protest these days.
So are people still defending him itt?
Not only is he a transphobic, racist and been photographed in his youth apparently wearing nazi memorabilia, now his views on pedophilea have resulted in him losing his massive book deal (at horrendous cost to the publisher) and has been disinvited from CPAC. Or is promoting pedophilia free speech as well?
Not only is he a transphobic, racist and been photographed in his youth apparently wearing nazi memorabilia, now his views on pedophilea have resulted in him losing his massive book deal (at horrendous cost to the publisher) and has been disinvited from CPAC. Or is promoting pedophilia free speech as well?
Soldato
I personally felt that he was simply being a bit crass about what Paedophilia actually means, which does not literally and technically include anyone currently in Puberty, this term would be hebephilia - not that its morally much better, but that people seem to use the former to just mean everything in a sort of "I don't know my own language" rant.
Saying that, he's said a few other things which, i honestly don't know considering his brash style.
You're obsessed with this Nazi thing, a quick Google suggests he's wearing an Iron cross that predates the Nazis. Still don't worry about facts if it gets in the way of you being able to scream 'nazi' at someone whose political views you don't like.
There's a good article here on Classic Liberalism v Regressive Liberalism.
https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/classical-liberalism-vs-progressive-liberalism/
"In nearly every case, progressive liberals are more likely to support using the coercive power of the state to force society to be structured according to their will, and yet somehow they see themselves as good and just for doing so."
In short classic Liberals are Libertarian whilst 'modern' Liberals are authoritarian.
https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/classical-liberalism-vs-progressive-liberalism/
"In nearly every case, progressive liberals are more likely to support using the coercive power of the state to force society to be structured according to their will, and yet somehow they see themselves as good and just for doing so."
In short classic Liberals are Libertarian whilst 'modern' Liberals are authoritarian.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
I really don't feel like Milo did himself any favours on the Bill Maher show. Painful to watch for me tbh.
He's quite charming and funny though and perfect for the left to take snippets of what he says and explode over it. Every time a soundbite is used by the left to define someones whole argument and personality then rational people just laugh at you. Instead of trying to jump to conclusions using cherry picked soundbites, the left needs to engage in the arguments and realise the context of what is being said.
Milo is controversial he is rude and crude and only suitable for adults who can take it all with a pinch of salt and are open to ideas and arguments. Lighten up, he hasn't killed or harmed anyone, try being outraged with people who do.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,416
So he basically said he learned to give good head by being abused by a priest?
That's pretty wrong whatever way you look at it.
That's pretty wrong whatever way you look at it.
Caporegime
Haven't really been following this, got a bit bored of Milo stories tbh, however if that's an accurate summary then doesn't it make him the victim here?