Milo Tears into Chris Paul for Supporting Hillary on 'None Taken' Podcast

I came across Milo after being completely turned off by the political coverage my normal news media sites were providing and looking for new sites. He works for a website called Breitbart, which is far and away the worst "news" site I have found on the net. Breitbart's main goal seems to be angering their audience, even if it takes manipulation and outright lies to do so. When Breitbart finally corrects their lies, they do it in a stealth manner and not in an 'update correction' manner that real journalists would use. In other words, instead of updating a story to reflect the corrections, Breitbart just edits the story without any update or correction at all.

As big a prick as Milo seems to be, the jackass college students who shut down his talks on college campuses by screaming and blowing whistles and charging and occupying the stage are, quite frankly, bigger pricks. I don't know how anyone could defend the silencing of opinion in that manner, no matter what the subject matter is.

The far left and far right are equally worthless. The far right is a lot angrier, though.

 

Yes, idealist 21 year old engineering majors who might have a naïve outlook on society due to inexepeence are the 'dregs of society.'

You are being pathetic at least in this situation.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1KrdS0Jn7dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

The question in the above instance - is hate speech protected?

If you want to burn the bible or burn crosses and lynch effigies of black people - should that be allowed when it is being done with the clear intention to stoke violence.

What these men were doing is creating a hostile environment by expressing their hate for Muslims. Is that ok in our society?

I think in this instance, it should be allowed (not by the campus but by the law). A campus has a right to disallow hate speech on their property especially from people who are not students if such speech creates an atmosphere not conducive to learning. But if they are on public property then there's not much that can be done.

I think people need to be educated on how to deal with hate speech.

 

Well a lot of times he's banned on the grounds of "Inciting Hate" and again...he's a self proclaimed troll...so why should he have a stage? He's just looking to poke and provoke and when he's provoked people claims that he's being unfairly treated.

What evidence do I have to provide to counter his argument? Are you serious? Sounds like you secretly agree with his world view that women are useless beyond sex. What evidence against it? How about every successful woman throughout history? How about that?

Also it doesn't matter if someone pays for him to troll it is still trolling.

Yeah, the DOJ disagrees with that...

Yeah, not everything on the internet is credible... you could convince yourself that Obama is a reptile wearing human skin if you were gullible enough thanks to Google.

So a self-proclaimed troll is mad that he gets banned for trolling...

It's not that the arguments can't be countered, it's that they have been countered a million times before and people have moved on from subjects such as "Are women really necessary to society beyond having babies?"

Back to how they deal with this in the world of science, a while back Bill Nye debated Ken Ham about evolution and creation. This is a bit of a problem as some other popular scientist explain.

This is really no different. Do you think the idea that women are dumber, emotionally unstable, and their main value is sex worthy of debating? Because that's the discourse Milo offers to a college campus. Sorry, I don't think it's worth discussion.

I wonder if you'd be so open to these same ideas being presented by a guy wearing a thawb, a full beard, and head scarf. My guess is a lot of conservatives wouldn't allow that.

My guess is a Christian school isn't going to allow a Muslim speaker or Jewish speaker to preach their beliefs on their grounds and vice versa. Are you against that?

They feel his speech is dangerous and not worthy of discourse. Any ways this comes down to a proud troll getting banned for trolling. Obviously he's a good troll but just like every troll people get tired of their act and wish to move on.

 

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I agree that it should be allowed, I agree that a campus (so long as it is a private school) has the right to disallow whatever speech they so choose. I agree that if they are on public property then there is not much that can be done. If you are suggesting that a private university should disallow any speech based on subject matter, I disagree (obvious exceptions that apply to all speech cases apply here as well - no fraudulent inducement to contract, no yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.)

I agree, it is what I am trying to do in this very thread.

He should have a stage because he is being invited to speak by a student group that is interested in hearing what he has to say. They are often charged for the room or otherwise make arrangements to reserve it. Finally, he should have a stage because there is no reason to deny him a stage.

He makes significantly more arguments than that, arguments that are not obviously tongue in cheek.

So what if he is trolling. The people who don't want to hear him talk are not required to attend.

The DOJ disagrees with what? That BLM spouts drivel? Hands up, don't shoot? Trayvon Martin was murdered? What do we want? Dead cops? The DOJ sees merit in that?

There is a vast gulf between everything on the internet being credible and requiring some sort of advanced degree to be able to speak about gender, sex, etc. You can read plenty of scholarship about how the wage gap is a myth, for example.

Maybe take a look at one of his talks and find out if this is the limit of his argument.

Ah yes, intellectual elitism is the way to win in the marketplace of ideas. Everyone can just say that they refuse to debate because the other side's argument is stupid. No problems will ever arise out of that. It sure is nice the way the sun orbits the Earth and everything.

Since that is not the message he presents, it is not a relevant point. Were he presenting such an argument and provided facts to back it up, I would hope someone would counter his argument, not pull the fire alarm.

I think religious schools can and do invite speakers of different religions as well as atheists. Of course I support that.

The cure for trolls is to not feed the trolls, not to try to bully them, attack them, respond to all of their messages with walls of ALL CAPS, etc. Similarly, if his opponents don't feel his message requires response, they should ignore him and allow those who do choose to listen to him to do so.

 

It's astounding, StupidMoniker shows up to defend hate speech on college campuses by outsiders who aren't even students there but doesn't understand the effect of racist economic tactics like redlining. Classic conservative tip toeing around common decency. One one hand it's your right to spew racist BS to young people because ideas and rights, on the other hand I don't care the effects of racism in action because well tough titty. Dude you need some serious soul searching.

 

Nah, not really. If the university decides he shouldn't have a stage to speak then that's the end of it. I know you can't deal with it but you should take it up with the private institutions.

Not really, no.

Umm...that's a pretty big deal is it not? Trolling implies that he's not even there to have intelligent discourse but there to rile up people and get a reaction. That is the definition of trolling.

Funny how you bring up two cases when the DOJ isn't even talking about those cases. Just ignore the entire report then I guess, very convenient.

Well you can speak about anything you like, but I'd imagine that a bunch of college educated students would appreciate an actual expert on the subject and not someone that did a few google searches. That's just me though I suppose.

I have. He makes his hate for women pretty clear.

Ah yes! Lets sit and have a debate about how 1+1=2! We can call it 1+1=?

Sorry, but some things are facts and some things are not.

Oh?

I mean this is just from one article...so this is worthy of discussion to you?

Sure, some do. Some don't. It's not a big deal either way.

Umm, yes that is why many universities decide he's not even worthy of discussion.

Any ways, your boy Milo is a pretty big hypocrite as he's for banning people on social platforms as well...

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/yiannopoulos/3359/the-internet-is-turning-us-all-into-sociopaths/

It makes a ton of sense that he's all for Trump because just like Trump you have to wonder if he believes half of the crap he spits out of his mouth. The whole "I want a cure for being gay." stuff along with his views on women in general. Just like Trump it feels like he's playing a role for an incredibly gullible audience...the same audience that Trump is playing to.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HwF9SFaKy6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I can deal with it fine. I'm not curled up in the fetal position because Milo got no platformed at Rutgers or wherever. I just find it a sad state of the American university system that they are banning speakers because, according to them, allowing them to speak would be too dangerous (because the people opposed to them act out violently, btw).

Actually yes. Yay.

He is there to raise legitimate topics of discussion, but chooses to do so in a way that he realizes will rile up the special snowflakes to do things like spread fake menstrual blood all over their faces. So no, his trolling doesn't preclude him from discussing actual issues.

Are you talking about the Baltimore report? What does that have to do with the many instances of BLM spewing nonsense?

Think of him more as a stand up comedian than a subject matter expert. Tons of colleges have comedians come (though according to Seinfeld he and many others won't take campus gigs anymore for reasons discussed by Milo). They are not providing some sort of expertise, they are there to entertain. Milo called his campus tour the Dangerous f***** tour. How seriously do you think he wants to be taken?

He makes his hate for feminism abundantly clear. I don't see that he hates women. He has repeatedly spoken about how women should be treated exactly the same as men, and generally are treated as well as or better in western society.

If the math club wants to bring in a scholar to do a proof that 1+1=2, should they be disallowed from doing so?

Yes, much of Milo's time is spent pointing out that what exists as dogma in academia is not based on fact.

Do I think the shift in sexual power dynamics that can be brought about by realistic synthetic alternatives to women is worthy of discussion? Absolutely.

I would say a university providing alternate views is critical. The whole point of higher education is critical analysis of various ideas, especially in a liberal arts education.

Then why try to ban or no platform him? Just let his event happen and ignore it. The reasons they give for banning him are not that he is unworthy of discussion, they always present it as a safety concern, generally as to what the response from the campus crybullies will be.

Perhaps his views have changed in the last four plus years. Is that possible?

I think Milo likes Trump because he pisses people off. He doesn't care about any of Trumps policy positions, he appreciates the persona in a presidential candidate. It is like watching Puck run for office.

 

It's a sad state that they are banning trolls when you previous said that the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them? What?

Funny thing, I actually came with quotes from Milo about what he's said on issue and you've yet to provide a single one about how they are "Tongue in Cheek."

You can't say incredibly offensive things and pass them off as jokes because jokes can be offensive as well.

So you're cool with Milo trolling people but not with people trolling Milo. Makes sense. Instead you call them "Special Snowflakes".

And which nonsense is this? It seems you're quite frustrated by the existence of BLM by the way, it's almost as if you wished they didn't have a platform at all.

Yeah, it's real easy to pass off his shtick as comedy but that doesn't change that he's trolling.

Seems like with some of the things he says he's attacking women, just not feminism. Any ways, hating feminism itself is hating women. The idea of feminism is that women should have equal opportunities.

You can hate a feminist that is too extreme, but to hate feminism because of some extreme fringe seems a bit silly. That would be like judging the Civil Rights movement on some extreme fringe that wants to kill white people. Would that make sense?

That's what Milo and a lot of "Anti-Feminist" do. They point out some extreme feminist that think Women should be treated better than men and then just lump them in with honest feminism and distort the entire argument.

Discussion on why a fact is a fact is different than debating a fact, the latter is what is silly and should be given no time.

Much of his time is spent trolling honestly. If he did that without the trolling he'd probably not find himself banned so much.

What's funny is that Milo never once looked at it from the female's point of view and that he never even tried. It was such an unsophisticated view of future technology. So he's telling me that there will be sexbots and that only men will take advantage of it?

Also how advanced does a robot have to be to sufficiently replace an actual human? Seems like advanced enough to have it's own motive (which is a cliche sci-fi plot played out in many movies/stories by now)

Also, he insults man by thinking the only thing that motivates him is sex. The only thing stopping any man from becoming some basement dwelling recluse is sex.

Some views are so far off the table that you really waste time discussing them. Milo's ideas are that.

No, the reasons they ban him always state that it is HIS problem.

Crybullies, lol sounds like plenty of conservatives as well. I love this whole "PC" thing because conservatives are just as PC.

Problem is he's done this before. He's just playing a role to some gullible chaps more like.

https://storify.com/x_glitch/the-gamergate-supporting-journalist-who-hates-game

Above he finds some more gullible people who are passionate about a story.

Also there is the whole issue of his views on being gay, he thinks it's something to be cured and wished he could be cured of it. I wonder why he won't put his money where his mouth is or if he's just saying what a bunch of conservatives would love to hear.

Actually his whole stance on his own sexuality is flip floppy, he's telling people that it's not self-loathing because this is just who he is and he can't change that and then one moment he's telling people that being Gay is a choice. He's just all over the place.

Oh no, he claims to like his policy positions too. I mean I'll say he claims that. I fully believe that he's a troll whose just playing to a gullible audience and right now what more gullible audience than Trumpers?

 

Do you not understand the difference between ignoring and banning? I don't get the confusion.

He doesn't say that his statements are tongue in cheek, he leaves you to figure it out for yourself. Here are dozens of people that have managed to figure it out.

I posit you can say incredibly offensive things whether or not you pass them off as jokes.

I'm cool with people trolling Milo as well. I don't think they should disrupt an event to do so. The ones that cause a brief ruckus are okay, rude but can be easily ignored. The ones that continue the disruption to the point that the event cannot take place are the aforementioned dregs.

I listed several specific bits of nonsense for you previously. Their deification of Assata Shakur and general support of Marxism and Black Seperatism is further nonsense.

Nope. You will notice I don't advocate for no platforming BLM. No one need bother, because they tend to appropriate other peoples' platforms instead of setting up their own (see Milo at Rutgers, Sanders in Seattle, the Missouri memorial for the Pulse nightclub victims, etc.)

I already said that he is admittedly trolling. So what? Trolling means you are doing something to get a rise out of someone. You are putting out bait in the hope that someone will respond. It doesn't preclude having a legitimate point. Another way to say it is that he is a provocateur (also self admitted). The way he says things is meant to provoke a reaction, that does not in and of itself invalidate what he says.

That was the idea behind first wave feminism. The idea behind modern third wave feminism is dealing with the imagined problems that exist for women in Western civilization, things like rape culture, the wage gap, mansplaining, etc.

It would be like BLM and the New Black Panther Party associating themselves with the civil rights movement to try to have a built in legitimacy.

Legitimate feminism accomplished its goals years ago. There are no rights in modern Western society held by men but not women. The reverse does not hold true.

The problem is a lot of things are declared to be facts and then debate is foreclosed.

Read the reasoning that is given for why he is banned. It is almost invariably based on the anticipated actions of those who disagree with him.

Women taking advantage of sexbots is largely irrelevant in our culture because women are essentially the gatekeepers of sex. Any reasonably attractive woman can get laid with a 100% success rate. The reverse is not true.

It has to be advanced enough for someone to be sexually satisfied enough by it that they don't feel a need to seek human sexual contact. I imagine that would vary on a person to person basis.

For some people, that may be true.

No one is being required to discus them, or even to listen to him.

UC Irvine tried to ban the College Republicans for inviting Milo to a second event, specifically citing security.

In his support of gamergate, I am reasonably certain he admitted upfront not being a gamer and that his interest was in the corruption in games journalism.

He seems to delight in being gay. I have heard him say that he was disappointed in the legalization of gay marriage because it turned many gays boring, like straight people. I imagine many people who have dealt with attacks for being gay at some point in their lives wish it was something that could be cured (how many times have we heard the argument "Who would choose to by gay?), but I don't think he currently despises his homosexuality, which should be apparent given how flamboyant he is and how he does things like call his tour the Dangerous f***** tour.

I have seen him support a ban on Muslims (citing the tendency in Muslim majority countries to kill gays) but that is about it. I don't deny he supports other positions, but have not seen it that I recall. What I have seen him reference repeatedly is his admiration of Trump's rejection of PC. Hell, he refers to Trump as Daddy, I am not sure how seriously you should take his endorsement.

 

Well explain to me how trolls are dealt with on internet forums? They are usually banned in the end. So what confusion? They don't want him to speak so they ban him.

Oh cool to know. I'll make sure that if I have any racist or sexist jokes I'll be able to just imply they are tongue in cheek! Not sure what that accomplishes, they are still racist and sexist. I guess in your world people aren't allowed to be offended by them are they are labelled as "Crybullies" or "PC" which is funny, considering Milo is against "Labels" and yet people that behind him seem to love to use them all the same.

Like mentioned before I fail to see how people disrupting an event are the dregs of society but okay.

And none of that invalidates DOJ reports or stats.

Well next time BLM protests in a public space I'll look for you to be defending their right to do it...I know I won't find you but I'll be on the look out.

It does invalidate the whole "We need to have intelligent discourse" argument that you are making though.

Because no one sits down and wants to have intelligent discourse with a troll. Point. I don't really spend my time responding to the trolls in this forum. I may disagree with you but I know you are not a troll.

He can't label himself as a troll and then wonder why people are shouting in his face instead of talking to him.

I'll just respond to this in the quote below...

I would agree but BLM and the New Black Panther Party are night and day difference. BLM is really just a hashtag that any random person can take up for better or worse. It's just a phrase that apparently successfully trolls conservatives.

Alright, this is the problem. You are speaking for women here instead of listening. You can't sit from your spot and tell women that everything is 100% fine and there is nothing left to fight for any more.

Who are you to say what is a legit issue for someone else? So should all women just be quiet and not speak on issues they feel could be better for them?

Some things just are facts though and no longer need debate.

Which is usually the reason a troll is banned from an internet forum, so it's not different.

Is it irrelevant? There would be benefits for a woman also using a sexbot, especially if said woman had her own career and wasn't looking to be a mother. A big part of feminism today is that a woman can be proud of her "Unattractiveness" and still have a happy life. Wouldn't that help the blue haired armpit 300lb feminist that Milo loves to mock?

I also disagree that it's not true. Any successful man could have just as high success rate, the difference is that Milo thinks men only do things to have sex with women. That really makes little sense to me. Since we are in a NBA forum that makes even less sense because why would Lebron work harder? Or Durant? Or Curry? They've already made it after all...

People are driven by different things, for him to just generalize it and make it seem so simple is his fault.

As for this whole future sex thing, well we are nearly there thanks to VR we may not even need robots. My guess though is that these venues will be avenues for those too hesitant, shy, reclusive to date...for both gender's.

Honestly much of it is nothing, hear it from Milo supporters you'd think some guys rushed up on the stage and punched the guy. It's usually people protesting around the event or some people getting on stage and shouting at him.

The UC Irvine is just giving excuses for him to not be there.

Rather his interest wasn't even that but to bash feminism.

Well if he does he's going to have to take some things he's said back about homosexuality. Everything they have fought for he's against, which just strikes me as odd personally. It feels more like he's just playing to a crowd.

I take little of what he does seriously I wonder if he's still just playing a role for the growing notoriety, my issue is that just like much of the alt-right he promotes backwards ideas and these people eat it up. Do I want to censor him? No. But I have no issue with people that do. Speech is powerful, history has certainly shown that. So I don't blame a university if they see how his speech can create division among students.

I mean you are a conservative right? Do you believe that Obama is "divisive" in his speech? Well then, this is how many feel about him.

 

I can tell you how I deal with trolls on internet forums, I just don't care what they have to say. I don't think I have ever called for someone to be banned, hell I don't even have anyone on an ignore list. Let people say whatever they want, the people who want to listen can, the people who don't want to listen don't have to show up.

I don't think you understand the term. You don't have to say a joke is tongue in cheek, as tongue in cheek means that your intent is ironic or flippant (which jokes are inherently). You say something is tongue in cheek when a seemingly serious argument is advanced with such intent. Furthermore, there is no need for you to have some magic refuge in order to say something racist or sexist, joke or otherwise. Say whatever you want.

People can be offended by whatever they want. I have no right to dictate how other people feel. Crybullies are people that turn their offense into a weapon. They run to an authority and say, I am offended by what that person said, so that person must suffer some consequence.

What does one have to do with the other? You asked for examples of BLM drivel and they were provided. You're welcome.

You don't need to wait, I can defend it right now. BLM absolutely can spout their drivel in a public space.

His trolling doesn't lend itself to a debate. What it does allow for is someone to hold a subsequent event wherein they ignore his trolling and address the substance of his arguments. The worst reaction for his opponents to take in order to advance their own agenda is the one they invariably seem to rely upon. Even the President of DePaul, who holds Milo in contempt and agrees with you that his ideas are not worth discussing, was disgusted by the way the protesters disrupted his event, stormed the stage, snatched a microphone from the moderator, etc.

BLM is not just a hashtag, there is a national organization with local chapters that plans events. They have leaders that have been invited to the White House to meet with President Obama. It is an actual organization founded on principles of Marxism and black nationalism that idolizes Assata Shakur and draws upon her words and teachings. Many local BLM chapters have significant crossover with the NBPP. They are not night and day, they are 6:42 p.m. and 6:43 p.m.

I can independently look at issues raised by feminists and determine if they are in fact legitimate, as can you or anyone else. Commonly raised feminist issues are: the wage gap (even spouted by President Obama, but completely false), rape culture, especially on college campuses (completely false), underrepresentation of women in STEM (no one makes people take any particular major, and in fact women are actively encouraged to enter STEM fields where there have been studies showing they will have a 2 to 1 advantage in securing a job upon graduation simply for being a woman), manspreading (how people sit on public transport, I have seen men and women take up a lot of space or very little), and mansplaining (some people are assholes and talk down to you, this is not a gender issue, it is a personality issue).

The fact is, there are no legal rights held by men in western society that are not also held by women, though the reverse is not true.

Whether or not it is different is beside the point. Someone should not be no platformed because other people can't stop themselves from being violent. To do so puts the power to shut anyone down into the hands of whoever reacts violently enough, which is a terrible system.

I think sexbots will be a massively gendered phenomenon, much like p*rnography. Not to say that women don't use p*rn, they do, but the gender balance is far from 50/50. Besides, there is no requirement that someone address something from every angle. Someone else can address what future sex technology will mean for women, or they could even ask Milo about it during the Q&A portion of his events.

The videos are there for all to see. Events have ended because they could not continue.

All we have is what they have put out.

Division should be created among students. For some reason modern universities value diversity in every aspect except diversity of thought. Silencing unpopular speech is deeply troubling to me.

I think of myself more as a libertarian than a conservative. I am not a big fan of Obama, but I don't think he should be censored. I certainly wish he wouldn't through the weight of the presidency behind some of the things he chooses to support, but elections have consequences and more people voted for him.

 

Public or private - a university exists to serve the students who attend - their mission is to educate and create a place of learning. The university is empowered to decide whom to allow on campus.

A student at a public university can not berate a professor and expect no disciplinary action.

Why? Because freedom of speech only applies to what is legal. Yes it is legal to say whatever you want with very few exceptions - that doesn't mean you can't get kicked out of a gathering - you just can't get kicked out by the gov't.

A public university is still governed by laws. If the administrator of that property says you aren't allowed, then you aren't allowed. Period. The same way the park ranger can kick you out of a national park. The same reason you can't go to a national park and disturb the peace by having a protest there. It's public property, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules.

Free speech does not give you the right to disrupt a classroom, or trespass, or even traffic. This is why demonstrations are often broken up by police and require a permit.

Free speech doesn't give these guys rights to be one place or another. It only means that they can't be prosecuted for what they say. The can be prosecuted on how they behave though.

It's funny that people talk about free speech but don't even understand what it means.

 

It's really not an issue of free speech. It's about how vile conservative speech has become over the years. The nonsense you hear with regularity on talk radio is what passes as conservatism now and the more obscure the media source becomes the more outrageous and disgusting the speech becomes. It's misogyny, racism, and homophobia at its finest. If he were an actual student at the at any of these universities there's a good chance he'd be kicked off campus for the opinions he espouses.

 

chris paul cant be dumb enough to vote for hillary can he

 

Free speech as an ideal is about the marketplace of ideas. It is not limited to first amendment protections. The ideal is worth defending, especially as it relates to a college environment. That relates more to the Milo stuff than the video, though it applies there as well.

Your points about behavior and disruption are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The people in the video were not blocking traffic, they were not going into classrooms they were not students berating a professor. They were in a public space and were not doing anything illegal. You might want to check the law on the power a public university has over limiting speech in public places, because there are public schools that have been effectively sued over this issue. FIRE pays for a bunch of lawsuits in this area and they have posted some videos that detail some of their successes.

The bigger issue to me, from the video, was that sirbaihu watched it and took issue primarily with the three Christian protesters and not with the people physically assaulting them and threatening to kill them.