Milo Yiannopoulos

[The Dad Fisherman]

It was sarcasm dude, learn to recognize it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

But the Right, excuse me the Ctrl-Alt-Right has written the playbook and practiced relentlessly. Not that the Left is immune from it but they look like rookies side by side.

Haha - the right is so far behind the left in social / meme stirring. They invented it. Fact is both sides do it but one side is particularly adept at having the media perpetuate it

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

It was sarcasm dude, learn to recognize it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then your sarcasm is a product.

[wdmso]

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story..

I apologize for misinterpreting your juxtaposition of the photo with the rest of your post. Perhaps, you should have noted, in the first place, that it was not Milo's post? Your text would have been more coherent that way. Perhaps, you can see how a reader could have "interpreted" it the way John and I did?

That's the problem with "interpretation" outside of the text. Similar to the problem of imposing personal opinion on the text of the Constitution.

and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.




I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Would Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Then your sarcasm is a product.

No, I'm Irish.....it's my heritage
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service

"Please extend to the Secretary my congratulations for her testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I watched with great admiration as she dealt with a tough and personally painful issue in a fair, candid, and determined manner,"

“I was especially impressed by her ability to turn aside the obvious efforts to politicize the events in Benghazi, reminding Americans of the tremendous sacrifice made by Chris Stevens and his colleagues but also insisting that our ability to play a positive role in the world and protect U.S. interests requires a willingness to take risks.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified.

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Spence, did the head of the FBI state that she was "extremely careless", yes or no?

Maybe she didn't break the law. Maybe. But the FBI affirmed that she was extremely careless with sensitive information.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

And the fact that (1) 2 days before the announcement, Bill was on the Attorney General's plane for a private chat , and (2) the day after the announcement, the Hilary campaign said they'd consider keeping Loretta Lunch as AG...those things speak for themselves.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

If you're trying to hide things you delete them. The FBI shouldn't have had to recover her work emails. They should not have been deleted.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

No, Spence, another investigation would reveal that you sent that email.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Stop making excuses.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Again, you demonstrate the problem in resorting to personal interpretation rather than accurately citing and understanding text. What speech by Milo intended to stoke hatred or promote violence? You might think his words could or would intentionally stoke hatred or violence, even though they don't specifically say to hate or be violent. But if there is no clear and concrete evidence that the speech intended hate or violence, you are fallaciously imposing your interpretation on the text.

And your printing the word "attack" in red and capitalizing it is vastly over-emphasizing some negative, violent connotation of the word. It comes across as a personal reaction which may not accurately describe the nature of what you call an attack. Milo has explained that the particular category of person whom he paints with provocative language is not the object/subject. The provocation is. From what little I've read or heard by him, he has no animosities against your listed categories, nor would he make a point of verbally abusing or "attacking" a categorical attribute. His provocations are against various attitudes and "memes" of what he calls the regressive left.

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response.. ^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats then rants on about Importing Muslims how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response..

Actually, I do like your responses. They make Milo's point. They say more about you than about him.

^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats

They were not caveats. They were the substance of his position. That you characterize them as caveats shows either your lack of comprehension or your bigotry.

then rants on about Importing Muslims

Again, another characterization by you--not reasons for his opinion, but just rants. He gives very specific reasons why he thinks Islam is incompatible with Western culture and why it is dangerous to import it to Western society.

Most Americans would think it is dangerous to import Nazis and their culture to our country. Most would once have thought the same about Communists. Why? Aren't those systems antithetical to and destructive of our way of life?

If you think Islam is a compatible system of government (and Islam is not merely a religion, it is a political system), you can passionately give your reasons why you believe that. I don't think you would appreciate your reasons called a rant.

how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

The Left, Progressives included, have been willing and effective agents of chaos. The Left has always required the destruction of free society. The Left is authoritarian not libertarian. It has to impose its authority over any pocket of libertarian culture. Free people are a threat to its notion of an orderly society--to its notions of justice, fairness, equality. Freedom, actually, to authoritarians, IS chaos.

The Left doesn't consider its smashing of cultural liberalism as chaos, even though it creates an ensuing chaos. Because that is merely a necessary step along the way to its version of order and justice.

So, yes, Milo sees himself as an agent of chaos. But it is a libertarian chaos, the chaos of freedom. You have to open-mindedly listen to his serious discussions to understand that. If you just dismiss the idea that he is serious about actual freedom for all, including the categories you've brought up (being "gay,"he is one of those categories) because of his provocative method of stirring up the pot, you will miss that ultimately important point.

[PaulS]

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

"Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas"

As I said, not every red state is a utopia. I don't know anyone moving to Kansas. I know a LOT of people moving from CT to the Carolinas, GA, TN, FL, and TX.

"the path to prosperity is a blue state"

That statement is a demonstrably false joke. Say it as many times as you like, post that absurd article as many times as you like. The facts spit in the face of that premise. Look at CT, RI, Mass, IL, Michigan, etc. CT has had unchecked liberalism for 40 years. And we are on the edge of bankruptcy, despite having high incomes (and our high incomes have zip to do with liberalism, and everything to do with proximity to Manhattan).

"You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. "

A better statement would be "the non-poor flee the cities for a variety of reasons". And many of those reasons, are a direct result of liberalism. Liberalism makes it impossibly expensive to live in a city, so people who aren't poor, leave.

You are proving my point, not rejecting it. There is a reason why anyone who isn't poor, flees the city.

And the state of CT isn't one city. It is a state. A state with tons of money. But unable to pay its bails, and a state with insanely high taxes. A state that workers are fleeing. Again, liberalism.

You can't make that wrong, and you can't admit that I have a point. That puts you in a real pickle.

"conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor "

You and I have discussed this, it it also a pathetic, demonstrably false, joke of a statement. We discussed the study "who Really Cares", published in the same New York Times that you cited, which shows that conservatives are actually a bit more charitable, than liberals.

You have seen this study. we have discussed it. Yet you still say "conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor ". Again, you spout the same crap, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, you cannot admit that you are wrong.

Why does the Catholic Church give so much help to the poor? Mother Theresa was just made a saint last week, for her lifelong dedication to the poor. Would you say she has no empathy for the poor? Or are you going to suggest that she (a devout Catholic, rabidly anti-abortion) is a liberal?

You couldn't have done more to perpetuate the liberal stereotype. Rely on inane statements (like 'conservatives have no empathy for the poor') and ignore all facts to the contrary.

Liberals have just done swell in CT, and in Hartford especially. Those policies show all kinds of empathy for the poor. Instead of asking if there's ANYTHING to be gained by adopting conservative principles, you bash conservatives, and keep dumping already-failed liberalism on the poor, knowing that it will only make things worse. If that's a sign of empathy, sorry, I don't see it.

You just got clobbered.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


.

From the article...

"the key drivers of growth are science, education and innovation, not low taxes, lax regulations or greater exploitation of natural resources."

Yes Paul, science/education/innovation drive growth. No one disputes that. Perfect example, here in CT, we have a lot of science and education, which is another reason why we have high incomes. But when you measure the quality of life in a state, you can't just look at incomes (that would be like estimating the health of a company by only looking at the left side- assets- of the balance sheet). You need to look at debt and taxes, too. Because what good is a better-paying job, if the raise is more than offset by taxes and housing costs?

What CT is turning into, is a place with 2 kinds of residents...those wealthy enough to absorb any tax increase the liberals in Hartford can think of, and urban poor who clean the pools of the first group. is that a good end result?

CT is one of the very few states in the nation that is losing population. And we aren't losing welfare recipients who figured out they can get a better deal in NC. We are losing white collar, middle class workers. As that tax base shrinks, the debt burden for each citizen becomes greater, which exacerbates tax increases, which incentivizes more people to leave, etc...It's a self-perpetuating spiral. And it can all be avoided, with fiscal responsibility. And contrary to what liberals think, being "fiscally responsible" doesn't mean that you watch people starve to death in the street. It means you don't do asinine things that benefit no one. For example, you don't let any public employees retire at age 45, you don't give them fatter pensions that what you can afford, etc...

try all you want to make that sinister or callous. But it's not.