Friend of mine, who is also the president of of College Democrats of Maryland, recently wrote a huff post op-ed that got a lot of different views/shit from the campus in general.
Heres the op-ed that kind of leads to the interview: [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/im-a-liberal-and-i-want-milo-yiannopoulos-on-my-campus_us_5898a3dbe4b061551b3e011c[/URL]
[video=youtube;L2ZBZR0MaUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2ZBZR0MaUQ[/video]
Opinions?
Bunch of fucking crybabies the lot of them let him have his damn speech
It's a nice sentiment, but the idea that people can even debate Milo is just kind of naive.
There's really no way to deal with him other than ignoring him. He just provokes people. Let him fade away.
Milo might be a bit of a jerk, but it's quite necessary for differing opinions to exist. I'm glad to know that some folks still realize this.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51805855]Bunch of fucking crybabies the lot of them let him have his damn speech[/QUOTE]
People are labeling him a white supremacist / anti-(infinite spectrum of shit here) for this. He's one of the most down-to-earth, well spoken, and well meaning guys I've met in my college career. Matt Teitelbaum, that is...not Milo.
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;51805943]People are labeling him a white supremacist / anti-(infinite spectrum of shit here) for this. He's one of the most down-to-earth, well spoken, and well meaning guys I've met in my college career.[/QUOTE]
Ok, the man is no saint, let's make that clear first. I do agree that he has a right to say what he has to say, and that he should be allowed to speak in colleges, and that having him actually say what he has to say is the best way to actually deal with him, but Milo Yiannopolous is a scumbag working for a shit tabloid who does nothing but spit vitriol with every thing he says or writes.
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;51805943]People are labeling him a white supremacist / anti-(infinite spectrum of shit here) for this. He's one of the most down-to-earth, well spoken, and well meaning guys I've met in my college career.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear, you're talking about Matt, the person in this video, and not Milo, right?
Given the context of it being someone you've met, I'd assume you mean Matt.
[QUOTE=BrandoJack;51806129]Just to be clear, you're talking about Matt, the person in this video, and not Milo, right?
Given the context of it being someone you've met, I'd assume you mean Matt.[/QUOTE]
Yea my bad, edited it
[editline]10th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Bang;51806073]Ok, the man is no saint, let's make that clear first. I do agree that he has a right to say what he has to say, and that he should be allowed to speak in colleges, and that having him actually say what he has to say is the best way to actually deal with him, but Milo Yiannopolous is a scumbag working for a shit tabloid who does nothing but spit vitriol with every thing he says or writes.[/QUOTE]
I meant Matt Teitelbaum. People are calling him a white supremacist because he wants Milo on campus.
I still wouldn't want Milo on my campus, not because his opinions aren't the same as mine, I'm part of PolSoc, I spend my free time drinking with people who have radically different opinions to mine. I wouldn't want him around because he's a professional troll who is intentionally provocative for profit, riding off controversy after controversy with no actual substance to his career.
never heard of him but i'm loving some of his previous huffington post articles
"Politicians Are Always Giving College Students the Shaft: Why Shouldn’t They?"
"Yes, an Unpaid Internship Is a Job"
"Pro-Life Does Not Equal Anti-Woman"
Milo is a professional troll. By reacting violently and in a triggered rage, people are literally feeding him. When people take his bait, he makes money and sells books. Which pays for his food, rent and makes him richer.
Want this guy to go away? Get rid of the corruption within the left, stop the turbo sjw non sense and replace identity politics with conflict resolution, individual rights, and worker rights.
Do this and I assure you Milo will be out o a job and starve.
Regarding the reporters example poll showing that 50% of college liberals believed "there are limits to free speech, such as hate speech". How does that tie in specifically to the Milo situation? Surely most people would agree that hate speech is bad, or is that not so much a thing in the US?
[QUOTE=Tobylol;51806827]Regarding the reporters example poll showing that 50% of college liberals believed "there are limits to free speech, such as hate speech". How does that tie in specifically to the Milo situation? Surely most people would agree that hate speech is bad, or is that not so much a thing in the US?[/QUOTE]
Remember when Clinton turned criticisms about her wall street relations as sexist remarks?
Free speech exists as a means to expose abuse of power. Once that's taken away for whatever reason, it giving permission for the worst to rule over you.
[QUOTE=Tobylol;51806827]Regarding the reporters example poll showing that 50% of college liberals believed "there are limits to free speech, such as hate speech". How does that tie in specifically to the Milo situation? Surely most people would agree that hate speech is bad, or is that not so much a thing in the US?[/QUOTE]
He's saying that 50% of college liberals must be regressive because they are against hate speech being protected.
I'd kinda like to see that poll myself though because the way Tucker worded makes it muddles the meaning a little bit. I think its hard to accurately assume beliefs based on the question asked.
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;51805324]Opinions?[/QUOTE]
Well, he starts right off by doing a no true Scotsman, with "real" liberals. Then, Tucker says "There are polls that say that it's not a minority," and the gentleman does a poor job at addressing that and just says "Again, it's a minority." Tucker brings up the idea that "actual leaders" aren't discussing it, and the gentleman sorta implies "Well, I'm a leader, and I'm saying that." Don't think so. (Though I could be wrong.)
At the end, Tucker also says that it's not just a PR problem, and I think he's right for different reasons that he may mean, and I think that the other gentleman is missing the point a bit; I don't wanna go too crazy with conspiracy theories here but I think most of the PR problem is coming from Right-wing media successfully making it look like Liberals are a bigger problem than they are. You can look at our own Tudd posting every little example of every violent Liberal ever as an example of this. Right-wingers tend to inflate these stories to make things appear larger than they are. Just open conversation ain't gonna fix that sort of battle, and I think in a minor way he is buying in to a bit of that Republican propaganda.
I like the dude's sentiment but his argument wouldn't convince me and I'm not sure if he's coming from the right place.
[editline]10th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tobylol;51806827]Regarding the reporters example poll showing that 50% of college liberals believed "there are limits to free speech, such as hate speech". How does that tie in specifically to the Milo situation? Surely most people would agree that hate speech is bad, or is that not so much a thing in the US?[/QUOTE]
This is the point I would contest. What does hate speech mean? Do all liberals agree on the same definition of hate speech? Do some think hate speech is "You should kill that Jew", or do some others think hate speech is "I disagree with you!" The poll itself as presented by Tucker is very open to interpretation and not a solid foundation to make a claim off of.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51806849]Remember when Clinton turned criticisms about her wall street relations as sexist remarks?
Free speech exists as a means to expose abuse of power. Once that's taken away for whatever reason, it giving permission for the worst to rule over you.[/QUOTE]
yeah but there's a difference between shitty campaign tactics and actual hate speech though, which is what I am referring to. Dunno it just seems strange to me. In Sweden which is where I come from there are laws against such, and hate speech is defined as:
"publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate, nor statements made in a completely private sphere. There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights."
Obviously it's difficult to judge on a case to case basis, but I don't see how supporting such a legislation is particularly regressive or radical. Unless Milo has explicitly expressed hatred towards any specific minority then I would not consider his speeches hateful per se, and thus the two matters don't necessarily interlock.
[QUOTE=Tobylol;51807109]yeah but there's a difference between shitty campaign tactics and actual hate speech though, which is what I am referring to. Dunno it just seems strange to me. In Sweden which is where I come from there are laws against such, and hate speech is defined as:
"publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate, nor statements made in a completely private sphere. There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights."
Obviously it's difficult to judge on a case to case basis, but I don't see how supporting such a legislation is particularly regressive or radical. Unless Milo has explicitly expressed hatred towards any specific minority then I would not consider his speeches hateful per se, and thus the two matters don't nececorrectmesserlock.[/QUOTE]
My view is teach those at the receiving end to be more skilled at dealing with those who are jerks or more legal tools to pursue reparations. Lawsuits and such.
Do realize political correctmess is psychological abuse glossed up with the rhetoric of compassion. I did say conflict resolution is better then PC. IMO anyways.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51807150]My view is teach those at the receiving end to be more skilled at dealing with those who are jerks or more legal tools to pursue reparations. Lawsuits and such.
Do realize political correctmess is psychological abuse glossed up with the rhetoric of compassion. I did say conflict resolution is better then PC. IMO anyways.[/QUOTE]
but if someone is juridically able to sue someone else over "hurt feelings" doesn't that indicate a society which -by your definition- is anti free speech? Or how do you define "dealing with jerks"? Because isn't "more legal tools to pursue reparations. Lawsuits and such" pretty much the definition of what is available in a society where hate speech is recognized as a legal term.
Also, I'm sorry to hear that not being able to say the n word or call a trans person by their preferred pronoun without expecting any negative social backlash is psychological abuse to you. Sometimes people cling onto a political movement so hard that their opinions reach almost absurd levels of extreme, and this happens sometimes in the progressive left. Partially because the ideology itself sympathizes with people who are disenfranchised and\or have low self esteem and tells these people "hey dw its the patriarchys fault that you are sad and awkward" (and most people here might disagree but this is not completely untrue in a lot of ways). There are some progressives who imo get outraged over trivial shit, and when that deafens any attempt at a discussion then thats a problem. But outside of college protests, edgy blog posts and tumblr, this is rarely how it goes in reality. My point is that in any group there are extremists, but I don't think there's any agenda behind PC culture except for trying to be more respectful.
sorry for the ramble. Its six in the morning and I haven't slept at all. Hopefully my paragraph is still somewhat coherent.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51805888]It's a nice sentiment, but the idea that people can even debate Milo is just kind of naive.
There's really no way to deal with him other than ignoring him. He just provokes people. Let him fade away.[/QUOTE]
He's been in entirely reasonable interviews, strong disagreements included, before.
As long as his opponents don't try to smear him or freak out, he really can't do much.
[QUOTE=Tobylol;51807573]
Also, I'm sorry to hear that not being able to say the n word or call a trans person by their preferred pronoun without expecting any negative social backlash is psychological abuse to you. Sometimes people cling onto a political movement so hard that their opinions r.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry you re a not American. It must be tough not to know how to be moral and kind.
That OK. When you were raised atheist, its difficult to know better.
But hey I'm here to help. You wouldn't want to be considered an unkind and horrid person would you?
Cause without faith its very difficult to be righteous .
See what I did there?
I implied if you are not of my views, you must be scum.
Its a dirty tactic cults use called emotional blackmail. If you truly want end bigotry, end using such loaded comments.
Bigotry is the end result of emotional trauma. Its wrong to beat down some one cause they re black and it's wrong to imply people are shit for having different views on solving similar problems.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51806413]I still wouldn't want Milo on my campus, not because his opinions aren't the same as mine, I'm part of PolSoc, I spend my free time drinking with people who have radically different opinions to mine. I wouldn't want him around because he's a professional troll who is intentionally provocative for profit, riding off controversy after controversy with no actual substance to his career.[/QUOTE]
Right. Generally when you invite a speaker to your campus it's because they are shedding light on something or trying to start a discussion amongst the student body.
Milo literally cannot do that. His positions are inherently illogical and undebateable because his entire shtick is trying to annoy, offend and provoke people. Not actually discuss something or promote debate.
You shouldn't have to allow people who are there to do nothing but instigate speak. Giving them a platform gives them the power and attention they so dearly crave.
it's actually very easy to debate milo because when he starts losing steam he immediately moves to using humor or talking about how gay he is
ideas dont hurt anyone any more than molotov cocktails and commercial grade fireworks. just let the man speak and give him as little attention as possible if you dont like what he's got to say. or debate him in a 1 on 1 calmly without screaming. i know thats difficult for some students nowadays, but come on.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51808038]I'm sorry you re a not American. It must be tough not to know how to be moral and kind.
That OK. When you were raised atheist, its difficult to know better.
But hey I'm here to help. You wouldn't want to be considered an unkind and horrid person would you?
Cause without faith its very difficult to be righteous .
See what I did there?
I implied if you are not of my views, you must be scum.
Its a dirty tactic cults use called emotional blackmail. If you truly want end bigotry, end using such loaded comments.
Bigotry is the end result of emotional trauma. Its wrong to beat down some one cause they re black and it's wrong to imply people are shit for having different views on solving similar problems.[/QUOTE]
Sorry man, I realize I came across as a bit of an ass. Although honestly, that statement is still kinda laughable. The difference between your examples is you just made all of that up, where as I was referring to something you just wrote. You just said that political correctness is psychological abuse to you, or maybe I misinterpreted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
