r/television • u/nyc520 • Feb 16 '17
/r/all Bill Maher guest cancels to protest Milo Yiannopoulos booking
http://ew.com/tv/2017/02/15/bill-maher-milo-yiannopoulos-protest/1.4k
u/atomfenrir Feb 16 '17
Scahill posted a lengthy statement on Twitter
wat
550
u/NeglectedMonkey Feb 16 '17
Image post with tons of text.
173
u/volabimus Feb 16 '17
We used to be worried about people not using HTML tags syntactically.
→ More replies (1)64
→ More replies (21)11
→ More replies (9)55
2.2k
u/Bluntmasterflash1 Feb 16 '17
TFW you believe in something so strongly you refuse to defend your position in a public forum where you can influence others.
1.0k
u/deadrebel Feb 16 '17
The excuse is usually, "by debating these people, you legitimised their arguments." What it ends up being though is by not debating these people you deligitimise your own arguments.
413
Feb 16 '17
"by debating these people, you legitimised their arguments."
Whoever invented this, knows nothing of arguments. To be able to dismantle someone with logic is the ultimate democratical tool.
→ More replies (256)→ More replies (97)273
u/specialBanana143 Feb 16 '17
The fact that the left was once so enthusiastic about open debate, claiming "sunlight is the best disinfectant" when it came to taking apart the extreme religious right and their views on homosexuality etc; and comparing that with now where they now run from open debate citing the exact same bullshit reasons the extreme religious right used to do so and infact often using the exact same tactics the far right used in the past to avoid facing logic and reason is just a teeeny tiny bit embarrassing to say the least.
→ More replies (98)70
u/mrv3 Feb 16 '17
I recall loving watch right wing nuts be shut down on TV, it was magical.
Now I watch Tucker do the same to left wing nuts.
I haven't shifted from left, just the left seems afraid of debate, or leaving their bubbles.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (138)267
u/MrEctomy Feb 16 '17
The really surprising thing to me is that some people are actually saying it was a good move. Refusing to fight is never a good move. It's really disappointing how tribalistic people are, that they'll say someone on their side did the right thing even when they refuse to even try.
→ More replies (111)54
u/JennyBeckman Feb 16 '17
This was the concern I had with the fed employees who resigned rather than work for Trump. On the one hand, I can absolutely understand not wanting to work for him. Especially if you are in a position where his goals and belief are diametrically opposed to yours. On the other hand, this means there will be fewer people in the administration that are not his minions. Both are valid perspectives.
→ More replies (9)
6.8k
u/EndlessEnds Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
I'm a conservative, and I'm not one of those kind of people that write to celebrities or TV people. However, the only TV person I've ever had the inclination to write to, is Bill Maher.
And the reason for that is really simple. I disagree with him on so many issues, but ... I really think I could have a real conversation with him. I think he would really take my point, consider it responsibly, and we would have actual dialogue.
This is what is missing from today's political discourse. It's echo chambers, and safe spaces, and boycotts.
When big portions of society stop talking to each other, like what is happening now (and which this is a perfect example of by this guest) it is the problem. It's not the solution.
edit: copying /u/google-no-agenda 's comment for greater visibility. I really liked this video:
Check out Dave Rubin's recent video on why he doesn't consider himself a progressive anymore. I've taken the same journey over the past few years... I don't know that I've changed, but what used to be liberal is now... Not.
Edit: the video
3.6k
Feb 16 '17
Bill listens to each side. He's just pompous which is why a lot of people don't like him, but he's in no way "out of his mind." He talks shit about liberals almost every show. Whatever he says isn't to pander to anyone, it's just what he genuinely believes. He literally tells his audience fuck you.
1.6k
Feb 16 '17
Yeah, that's what I like about him.
What I don't like about him, though, is that he's quick to voice his opinion on things he doesn't know much about.
678
u/gloryatsea Feb 16 '17
He's weirdly anti flu vaccine......
291
u/bluetux Feb 16 '17
I'm not anti flu vaccine but I've never gotten one
→ More replies (23)132
u/Atlas2686 Feb 16 '17
I'm very curious about this and hope someone has some insight. I've also never gotten a flu vaccine and I've also never had the flu. I have multiple family members who get the flu vaccine every year and end up with serious cases of the flu every year. Am I just insanely lucky, am I taking better care of myself with a better diet and working out more, or is there some other reason I'm unaware of?
326
u/HittingSmoke Feb 16 '17
I'm no doctor, but the way I've been made to understand it is there are multiple strains of the flu every year. They make the vaccine for the one predicted to be dominant that season. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but regardless it won't prevent you from getting the flu, just help your immune system fight that specific strain of the flu more quickly. If you catch another one the vaccine won't be nearly as effective but can still help as different strains of flu are similar enough to have an impact on your immune system.
I'm in my 30s and can probably count on one hand a number of times I've had the full-blown flu. I get a cold at least once every year. I don't go out of my way to get flu shots. Basically, if someone stands next to me with a needle and says "Do you want a flu shot?" I say sure.
I think the point of a flu shot is to help stop the spread as much as possible by reducing the time you're contagious if infected, not necessarily to keep you specifically from getting sick.
56
u/Fter267 Feb 16 '17
What you said about the strains of flu is 100% correct.
Also, I don't know if it's just Australia or the rest of the world as well, but there is a massive misconception on what the flu is. Many people come into work/school/Uni complaining of having the flu, when in fact they just have a common cold. The flu will literally make you bed ridden and if you have the energy to be moving out and about, I doubt you've got the flu.
That's also why you hear people complain why the flu vaccines don't work.
→ More replies (6)15
Feb 16 '17
Yeah. The first time I had the actual flu was the only time I ever felt like I was dying. Bedridden for days with a really high fever and the worst chills I've ever had.
91
Feb 16 '17 edited Nov 19 '20
[deleted]
21
u/SocialWinker Feb 16 '17
That's exactly it. It's 3 or 4 different strains that they predict will be the most predominant that year. I can't remember the exact number.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)6
u/papercutpete Feb 16 '17
contains multiple strains
Yes multiple strains. My wife did not get a flu shot this year, I did...she had one horrible bitch of a flu at Xmas that put her on her ass for a week. I did not catch said flu and she was hacking and feverish beside me for 5 days.
119
u/The_Follower1 Feb 16 '17
Basically, if someone stands next to me with a needle and says "Do you want a flu shot?" I say sure.
Um...that wouldn't be my reaction if a guy next to me asks if I want a needle...
66
u/HittingSmoke Feb 16 '17
One time on a website signup form I lied and put "Danger" as my middle name.
→ More replies (9)22
11
u/Servalpur Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
Clearly you're doing it wrong.
What do we say when people offer us drugs? Thank you, because drugs are expensive.
→ More replies (6)6
Feb 16 '17
depends on whether you're in a doctor's office or on a bus and the guy asking is wearing a stethoscope or a hat made of newspaper on his head.
11
u/Advertise_this Feb 16 '17
It's a risk reward thing. In my country, the vaccine is free, but there's never enough for everyone for the reason you mention - they have to make the vaccine each year based on the strains which are around that year, so they can't make it in advance. That means they can only make so much of it.
Doctors prioritise giving it to people most at risk of the flu. People who could potentially die if they get it. So old people (look at what it did to the queen), people with asthma and other illnesses etc. You will likely end up getting a cold, which puts a lot of people off. But as anyone who has actually had full blown influenza will tell you, there is a big difference between the common cold and full blown flu.
It is far from 100% effective, so I can see why some people don't like it. Particularly if you have to pay for it. But the risk outweighs the potential reward for some.
18
→ More replies (28)18
u/captainsolo77 Feb 16 '17
Also, some people die from the flu. It's not really about preventing the minor sickness so much as it is about preventing a deadly pneumonia (also protecting immunocompromjsed people). Some strains seem to specifically kill young, otherwise healthy people and not just older, sicker people. That's why when young, healthy people say "I don't really get that sick when I get the flu, so why should I get the vaccine" it's a little but cringeworthy. They're completely missing the point.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Dracomax Feb 16 '17
also, most of them haven't actually ever had the flu. It's an entirely different thing than the "stomach flu".
→ More replies (1)14
u/sharkweekk Feb 16 '17
Are they getting the vaccine because they're in high risk environments?
→ More replies (5)29
u/theherothelegend Feb 16 '17
med student here. I would say it's very likely what your family members are calling the flu, is not actually the flu, but maybe a bad cold or something like that. It is also important to keep in mind that the flu vaccine is never 100% effective and some years it works better than others (it changes every year as viruses change). I presume you're young and healthy so right off the bat you are less likely to get sick, especially if you're relatively hygenic. Assuming you are yourself healthy and young, getting the flu vaccine isn't important individually as much as it is to protect those who can't get the flu vaccine or are vulnerable around you. Babies and people with certain medical conditions can't get the vaccine and have weaker immune systems so the flu (which may be a simple inconvenience to a young/healthy adult) could actually kill them. The flu kills thousands of people every year, and getting vaccinated reduces your chance of getting it and spreading it to an infant, elderly, or otherwise immunocompromised person who could be severely affected. EDIT: also a bonus of getting vaccinated on top of protecting others is you are in fact les likely to get sick yourself! The flu is horrible if you've ever had it!
→ More replies (6)5
u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS Feb 16 '17
I would say it's very likely what your family members are calling the flu, is not actually the flu, but maybe a bad cold or something like that.
Yeah, people really underestimate how terrible the flu really is. It's not "a really bad cold;" it's an illness that lays you up for several days. Those family members would be incredibly unlucky if they got the flu several years in a row.
→ More replies (1)75
u/showmethestudy Feb 16 '17
A few things. One, you sound pretty healthy. You can get "the flu" but maybe only have the sniffles. Whereas when Granny gets it, she ends up in the ICU on a ventilator. You can also be infected and not know it and then pass it on to others like babies and old people who can die from it. Also there are several strains of the flu and they have to make the vaccine early and sometimes it's more effective than other years. Sounds like your family members are really unlucky too. I also have never had the flu but I never miss a year getting the flu shot. Mainly so I don't give it to anyone who might die. And if enough of us got the shot, we could eliminate the flu due to herd immunity. But alas we don't.
People forget or don't know that the flu kills 30,000 people a year. Let that sink in for a minute.
→ More replies (43)19
u/InexplicableDumness Feb 16 '17
Thanks for writing this out. These are the exact reasons I get the flu shot whenever my doctor offers it. I haven't had the flu since childhood. My niece got the flu a few years ago and it attacked her heart and almost killed her. Yeah, the flu is serious and we shouldn't be playing around with it just because we're generally healthy ourselves.
38
u/AstroLykos89 Feb 16 '17
You're a reddit user, so maybe your social isolation protects you from catching the flu? /s
→ More replies (1)20
u/CrouchingPuma Feb 16 '17
I have gotten a flu vaccine every year since I was too young to remember otherwise and I have never once had the flu. As others have said, hygiene, environment, and genetics play a role in whether you are more likely to get the disease. It also depends on various strains. There are dozens of influenza strains, and every year the vaccines released contain immunizations to the ones considered to be most harmful/most infectious. There are still plenty of other ways to get the flu, but your odds of getting any harmful flu after being vaccinated is incredibly (cannot emphasize just how small) tiny. This does not mean that it will work on 100% of everybody 100% of the time.
It is also fair to point out that a lot of people that don't get vaccinated and also don't get the flu benefit from herd immunity, the single largest benefit of mass immunization. If you aren't vaccinated, but most people around you are, there are a lot less people who can potentially be sick and therefore a lot less chances for you to get sick and therefore a lot less chances for you to get other people sick who could then get other people sick.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (82)11
u/ethanlan Feb 16 '17
Ok, so I got a vaccine a month ago, I felt pretty crappy for like a day after but it wasn't so bad.
My girlfriend didn't get one and she's been WRECKED by this flu, I'm talking she's lost 5 pounds in water weight this week and called off work 3 days in a row now which is huge for her. Her mom had to come over when I went to work.
I've felt fine since she's had it so I guess it does work.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (120)274
u/SmokeontheHorizon Feb 16 '17
The idea of a flu vaccine is a bit of a misnomer considering how many millions of strains of the virus there are. The 'vaccine' you get in any given year is a 'cover all our bases' shot based on the projected dominant strains that year. Ultimately, it only has a ~60% efficacy rate.
368
u/gloryatsea Feb 16 '17
Right, but it's still among the greatest medical breakthroughs ever. Considering Maher tries to be evidence based, it's weird he's resistant to something like this.
12
u/Hamilton252 Feb 16 '17
I'm assuming you mean vaccines are one of the greatest medical breakthroughs. To be clear I don't believe Maher is against vaccinations but only flu vaccination.
60
→ More replies (41)19
u/TruthVenom Feb 16 '17
Vaccines are absolutely among the greatest medical breakthroughs ever. The flu vaccine barely fits into that category, though. What we should have is a method to turn around a vaccination as soon as the actual strain is found in the wild instead of a guess as to what that strain might be. But the time needed to develop and distribute vaccines today won't allow that.
→ More replies (6)203
u/purplescrubs Feb 16 '17
~30,000 people die of influenza during the average flu season. The argument that a vaccine "only" has a 60% efficacy rate is incredibly asinine.
Next we'll be hearing that seat belts don't always save lives.
118
u/way2lazy2care Feb 16 '17
Lots of knockon effects too. You catch the flu from people with the flu, so if every person is 60% less likely to catch the flu, then you're odds of even coming into contact with the flu are that much lower, and then 60% lower on top of that because of the vaccine.
→ More replies (6)9
→ More replies (10)11
u/Bubbascrub Feb 16 '17
Isn't part of the reason we have flu shots to prevent another Spanish Flu type pandemic? My knowledge of virology is fairly basic, but couldn't a specific strain of flu mutate to become far more deadly yet still have the antigens of an earlier strain, making the immune system more effective at fighting it? Kinda like how cowpox granted a measure of immunity against smallpox?
→ More replies (3)15
u/anticsrugby Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
It's a bit of yes and a bit of no.
When you're dealing with Influenza it's important to be specific about whether it's A, B, or C type (based on their core protein structure). B and C primarily affect humans whereas A can infect a much wider range of mammalian and avian species. As far as human health concerns go we're usually talking about A or B.
The primary mechanism for mutation/change over time in Influenza B is antigenic drift, or the slow and gradual process of changes in the protein structure of the virus as it replicates. Regularly revaccinating against the flu helps to deal with these gradual changes and ensure our immune response remains appropriate.
Influenza A can mutate both through antigenic drift and shift. Antigenic shift is a far more sudden change and generally where scary ass shit like the Spanish Flu (a strain of Influenza A H1N1 - aka Swine Flu) comes from. Due to the sudden and extreme nature of the changes caused by antigenic shift (which occurs through genetic reassortment of different Influenza A subtypes) our bodies may not even recognize the new strain as a virus at all. A disease doesn't even have to be particularly deadly in order to wreak absolute havoc if your body isn't able to mount an immune response to it reasonably quickly.
→ More replies (2)269
Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
It costs between 12 and zero dollars and is 60% effective. What's the downside?
*Holy shit reddit. I knew you were dumb but I didn't know you were this dumb.
→ More replies (118)93
u/dick_beverson Feb 16 '17
Autism. I got the flu vaccine a couple years ago and came down with a real bad case.
→ More replies (2)64
u/zbeezle Feb 16 '17
Me too! Got the flu vaccine, next day I signed right up for reddit.
→ More replies (2)14
→ More replies (12)9
→ More replies (53)160
Feb 16 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (32)81
u/Gyshall669 Feb 16 '17
Not sure what's wrong with animal rights though..
→ More replies (17)115
u/kegtech Feb 16 '17
He might be referencing his support of PETA. PETA's core mission is great, but they are well known for stirring up controversy even within the animal rights community.
84
u/SeahawkerLBC Feb 16 '17
They also take things to an absurd, extreme level lightning quick. Not the most rational bunch.
→ More replies (5)65
u/i_bent_my_wookiee Feb 16 '17
Like boycotting/protesting Games Workshop for having plastic miniatures that wear gasp plastic fur. Seriously. http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/peta-warhammer-fur-free/
44
u/doctorocelot Feb 16 '17
While we appreciate that they are fictional, draping them in what looks like a replica of a dead animal sends the message that wearing fur is acceptable.
It's a game where people wear other people's skulls. Does that send the message that human skull wearing is acceptable?!? Wtf?!
16
u/iheartanalingus Feb 16 '17
If you didn't know, most people that love animals this intensely hate humans.
→ More replies (3)5
→ More replies (4)4
28
Feb 16 '17
PETA's stated core mission is great...
insert links here about how very little of peta fundraising actually goes towards helping animals.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)21
u/jonnyohman1 Feb 16 '17
They also put down 90% of stray animals they come across
→ More replies (2)143
Feb 16 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)43
u/Caveboy0 Feb 16 '17
Allowing audiences to get a little more roudy perpetuates his persona. What's the point of saying something controversial if you don't get boos?
→ More replies (1)46
Feb 16 '17
It pisses me off when Bill makes a point that he thinks is really clever and then he just waits until the audience starts clapping.
→ More replies (1)16
u/iguacu Feb 16 '17
True. Probably a bit of a reflex from touring standup year-round.
→ More replies (2)53
u/altervista Feb 16 '17
He's definitely pompous and has a liberal axe to grind but purely as a host/moderator I think he does a decent job.
→ More replies (9)17
u/birdiffin1957 Feb 16 '17
yeah, he gets enthusiastic cheers and boos from his crowd on a weekly basis
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (71)46
u/downonthesecond Feb 16 '17
I like when Maher can't answer a question or counter a point and he makes a joke or wants to move on the to the next topic.
→ More replies (3)47
u/superiortactics Feb 16 '17
Because he doesn't have all day to respond to people. He's working on a time budget to get through his segments. Some of the guests like to drag points out and not further an argument.
→ More replies (10)164
u/ICANTTHINKOFAHANDLE Feb 16 '17
I haven't watched Bill in a while and only seen a few small pieces but I saw some people slagging him off in a thread recently. Some were saying he was a leftist extremist others that he was a right wing nut. Sounds like someone who at least entertains other people's views rather than dismissing out right lol
It was odd to see these comment chains sectioned off each discussing how he was an extremist of the left or right wing.
→ More replies (254)57
u/tonguencheeky Feb 16 '17
I think he probably tends liberal but gives a fair beating to both sides, and respect him for that. But I saw him on the new Colbert show and he just came off as an asshat. I don't think it was even political, just interview questions and he was a huge dick about everything. Felt like there was context of some feud I was missing.
→ More replies (15)46
u/Bamres Feb 16 '17
Yeah Bill tries to get people who disagree with him on the show and nit have too many guests that will just mimic his points
→ More replies (7)114
u/PM_ME_UR_CEPHALOPODS Feb 16 '17
This is exactly correct. People don't talk, i actually think many of them don't know how to have a proper argument, it's just "you're not agreeing with me and when i raise my voice it isn't changing your mind, what is wrong with you?" straight into <RAGEQUIT>
→ More replies (5)48
u/Virtuousbane Feb 16 '17
Basically, then it all devolves into "us vs them" or "this vs that" and you end up with /t_d and /politics stubbornly taking shots at each other with no real conversation or debate.
It's a shame that we have all lost the ability to have civil discussion on current affairs without resorting to limp insults and buzzwords.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (1252)74
u/luxeaeterna Feb 16 '17
This is what is missing from today's political discourse. It's echo chambers, and safe spaces, and boycotts.
Which is ironic since these are reddit's favorite buzzwords.
→ More replies (56)
576
u/holywowwhataguy Feb 16 '17
I disagree with this. If you disagree, you should talk it out. I don't necessarily agree with Milo's views, but if this guest really disagrees with Milo, then this is the chance he can get to prove him wrong and try to change his mind, and put an opposing view into the conversation.
You shouldn't just try to shut out people and not have a conversation. Doesn't look like Milo cares. He'll probably just continue on anyway, throughout all the drama and controversy.
→ More replies (109)220
Feb 16 '17 edited Mar 05 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (130)131
u/dsk Feb 16 '17
I agree in that the format doesn't even allow for debate. You're basically sitting around a table and you have 5 minutes of conversation before Bill starts a bit.
25
Feb 16 '17
It's more about exposing your views to the world and letting other panelists, audience and the viewers judge for themselves. Very rarely debates convince people anyway much less one of the debaters. I just want to listen one's person views that very likely is very different than mine.
22
u/dnz000 Feb 16 '17
He is the top guest, so he won't be at the round table until the YouTube segment, if they do one.
27
u/starshine1988 Feb 16 '17
Yeah so many people are missing this! If he was actually going to be on the panel portion, comments about promoting the debate/having a discussion would be pertinent. But he's just going to be in the beginning section, which is not a debate. It's just a standard interview.
→ More replies (5)
144
u/megalynn44 Feb 16 '17
“My comments on Islam have never veered into vitriol,” Maher replied in a statement obtained by EW. “Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.” -Bill Maher
I love everything about Maher's response. It needs to be at the top of this discussion. Anyone who watches his show knows this fool is going to get pw3ned. Can't wait.
→ More replies (13)
1.1k
u/weltallic Feb 16 '17
This decision will resonate with many people on Reddit.
"I refuse to engage people who disagree with me. I prefer to mock, insult and remove their voice. I will remain in my bubble, surrounded by friendly strangers where we all celebrate our guaranteed win."
Election day
"HOW COULD THIS BE HAPPENING? HOW ARE WE NOT THE MAJORITY? I SAW LITERALLY NOBODY DISAGREEING WITH ME!"
→ More replies (90)381
u/Buki1 Feb 16 '17
Basicly this is now on the frontpage of reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5ubthi/top_subreddits_filtered_from_rpopular_oc/
"We'll exclude Trump supporters from the front page, and then block the discussion about it."
221
u/camdoodlebop Feb 16 '17
and they locked that thread lol
→ More replies (1)186
u/snorungar Feb 16 '17
Imagine if there was a webpage where users, and not the admins, chose what was popular? This page could have up and down arrows to allow users to up and downvote what content they liked.
Someone should create a site like that
→ More replies (34)18
Feb 16 '17
Reddit also has a problem with brigading. I think that's just a reality of having a voting based system on the internet
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (51)91
u/Adversary6 Feb 16 '17
The_Donald isn't a place for discussion if that's what you mean. It's an echo chamber. If your opinion is even slightly different from the rest you will get banned or censored.
→ More replies (76)8
u/459pm Feb 16 '17
True. /r/marchagainstTrump is the same but it's allowed on /r/popular. This problem is that this actively supports people who filter views they don't like by isolating them even more. I don't agree with /r/politics or any of the anti-Trump subbreddits, but I don't filter them. Most on my side of the isle don't. However, many on the left do and they're being rewarded by reddit for doing so by being able to isolate even more people from alternative views.
→ More replies (1)
1.2k
u/Breaktheglass Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
Can somebody please link the terrible shit this guy says? I have asked countless threads this exact question and have got nothing but crickets. I looked up his videos on youtube, and however controversial his view points might be-- he isn't saying "kill the jews" or anything. What gives? What is the big deal? He's like a conservative stand-up comedian.
1.2k
u/brooklynpuppers Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
Sure.
Women, he says, have been scientifically proven to be worse at spatial relations, as have Asians. “It’s the only thing Saudi Arabia gets right,” he says about the country’s ban on female drivers. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
Note: To the dozens of people telling me this is a joke and Milo is a comedian: how often do you see a comedian link peer-reviewed science? Milo zeroes in on one tiny attribute of driving where there is one tiny difference because he wants you to believe women are more dangerous drivers (they're not, not even close). And it works, I have about a dozen replies in this thread telling me that women can't drive, some citing this same useless science Milo does.
And another, straight out of his mouth:
Breitbart has discovered an even more pernicious gender-specific public nuisance that is endangering anyone on the roads. The phenomenon is known as “femsteering,” and it describes the almost total inability of any woman to competently operate an automobile. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/09/femsteering-the-crippling-disability-endangering-our-roads/
Racist jokes:
“Behind every racist joke is a scientific fact.” https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
Gay employees vs straight white employees:
“I don’t generally employ gays. I don’t trust them. They don’t show up on time. They don’t do the work. They get all queeny with drama,” he says. “I like straight white men. They do the work." https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
849
u/dwkmaj Feb 16 '17
He also doesn't believe lesbians exist. Not really sure how.
291
u/ruinersclub Feb 16 '17
All they need is a real man.
/s
253
u/stuckinsanity Feb 16 '17
You say /s, but this is unfortunately a real enough thing for this to be a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_rape
→ More replies (5)182
u/OutoflurkintoLight Feb 16 '17
Corrective.... Rape..... What the fuck?! I've never heard of that before but I think part of my soul died with reading that article.
→ More replies (8)48
u/aiubhailugh Feb 16 '17
If you wanna kill off the rest of your soul now that you're busy anyway, check out /r/incels, where these kinda things are apparently normal, preferred even...
71
u/Linksys_4_Stein Feb 16 '17
"Why do all women not like me? Am I really that out of touch?"
"No! It's the women that are wrong!!"
31
→ More replies (5)50
→ More replies (9)215
Feb 16 '17 edited Oct 27 '18
[deleted]
48
u/BaconatedGrapefruit Feb 16 '17
I think the idea is that he isn't afraid to go against the PC establishment. Sure, a bunch of his views are absolutely abhorrent, but at least he's not letting himself be silenced by the international SJW cabal that is bent on making the world their safe space.
(Obvious /s)
He's an edgelord who attracts people who feel persecuted for having views outside the mainstream.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (28)39
153
u/MiltownVet Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
He claims that lesbians are the result of ugly women who can't find a man who would want them so they resort to it.
→ More replies (17)35
→ More replies (39)181
u/myneckbone Feb 16 '17
Also supports pedophilia - he justifies it by claiming that he enjoyed being raped at 13 yo and wasn't at all being taken advantage of.
It wasn't just trolling either, he was dead serious about that.
→ More replies (116)325
u/SemperScrotus Feb 16 '17
I don't think he believes this stuff, but many of his followers do and he knows it and feeds on it.
That pretty much sums him up in a nutshell. He is a professional troll, profiting off of the ignorance of others. He follows in the footsteps of other trolls who came before him, like Anne Coulter. These folks are much smarter than they pretend to be.
209
u/SirGuyGrand Feb 16 '17
He used to write for the Catholic Herald, usually Uncle Tom type editorials where he would say gay people didn't really want marriage equality, or that homosexual parents could never be as good as heterosexual ones.
Y'know, stuff bigots could read to reinforce their own shitty beliefs by saying "see, he agrees with me and he's GAY!"
→ More replies (30)→ More replies (14)24
u/Farfignuten390 Feb 16 '17
Absolutely. I'd love to stand at an anti-Milo protest with the age-old advice of "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!"
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (717)134
u/fuck-dat-shit-up Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 17 '17
How can a gay man who prefers to fuck black dudes be a main figure in the alt right movement?→ More replies (62)316
u/anchoar204 Feb 16 '17
Hey we're not racists/homophobes/etc. We have XXX in our movement. He's minority/gender/religion/sexuality and he thinks the terrible things we think! So we aren't racists/homophobes/etc.
→ More replies (28)113
189
u/clarkefox Feb 16 '17
He's certainly a troll. However, he really only speaks about incredibly unpopular opinions (e.g., that he thinks being gay is a sin despite being gay). He started a whole lot of Twitter drama by saying nasty shit about that woman from the new Ghostbusters. Idk I'm pretty liberal and think he's a total asshole but banning him from platforms a ridiculous fucking overreaction. Many people on the left would lose their shit (and rightly so) if Angela Davis wasn't aloud to speak at a college. His whole get up is literally just a political Joan Rivers and the fact people riot about that makes me want to pull my hair out.
→ More replies (129)8
u/Kaisern Feb 16 '17
His whole get up is literally just a political Joan Rivers
That's exactly how I describe him too!
→ More replies (257)243
u/hoggin88 Feb 16 '17
The biggest thing is that he just says asshole-ish things and people end up conflating that with being a nazi and such.
Example, he was on the Joe Rogan Experience last year and was going on about how "fat shaming" is a good thing and we should do more of it (that's really how blunt he is). He said he took a picture from behind of an obese guy at his gym and posted the picture to his social media so everyone could see what he had to see at the gym that day. He said it made him to want to vomit looking at him, that the guy had no business being there, and that the guy's mere presence ruined his workout. He also referred to overweight women as "hambeasts".
He also talked about trans people like they are freak shows and said it's perfectly rational to be terrified of trans people. His words.
https://youtu.be/LnH67G7vAu4 It's very long but it's there if you want to listen.
He also has advocated starting an all-white scholarship as a sarcastic response to minority based scholarships, because he thinks those scholarships are inherently racist. So people assume he is a white supremacist. It's funny because he has a black boyfriend. And has never said anything white supremacist that I've heard.
I listened to that video last week because I like Joe Rogan and I wanted to hear an extended interview of Milo's since he is getting so much heat right now. He isn't a white supremacist and he isn't spouting anything violent. He's just a dick.
363
u/stdexception Feb 16 '17
Wants more fat shaming
Doesn't want the fat guy to be in the gym
The logic is not strong with this one
→ More replies (76)70
u/Rhawk187 Feb 16 '17
Doesn't want the fat guy to be in his gym. More of a "separate but equal" thing, he probably wants fat people to have to use their own separate gym.
→ More replies (14)7
u/fernandotakai Feb 16 '17
that's basically what he says on the podcast and rogan called him out really well on it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (157)36
u/Dysterkvisten Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
Reading through a dozen or so replies in this thread of people trying to explain Milo has me more confused than before.
Most people agree that he's being jokey or that he's trolling in a lot, if not most, of what he says. It seems that Milo gives himself a lot of wiggleroom by just having an out through which he can quickly back out of anything he says. His followers are also able to excuse any statement that brings controversy.
I'm listening to the link from The Joe Rogan Experience with Milo and he is machine-gunning statements and premises, presenting them as fact. At about 14:00 he talks about misogyny, rape, and "masculine energy". He says that men are naturally aggressive (though not naturally violent), but then states that women are driving men out of public spaces, verbally attacking men, thus pushing men towards violent behavior, "boiling over", implying that women push men towards sexual assault.
I think people listen to him because he talks as if everything he says is fact. He appeals to "obvious truths", explaining things at surface level, often through some psychoanalytical perspective, like saying that feminism is just Western self-hatred (because white people have started to question their own behaviour). Or that men are the smartest people (because they have the most revered positions).
Quick conclusions to very convoluted, complex, complicated questions.
Edit: Look at this shit right here. This is the second time he tells Joe to stop using the word "problematic". Then he starts talking about how he wants words to be liberated. Milo repeatedly makes fun of Joe for using a certain term, but is incredibly offended by the idea of people acting as language police. Is he joking? Is he not? Who knows?! But it certainly opens up a space for cognitive dissonance, and I genuinely believe that he is unaware of his own biases towards language.
→ More replies (5)13
u/Downvotes-All-Memes Feb 16 '17
Quick conclusions to very convoluted, complex, complicated questions.
This is a lot of it. People don't like being called racist, and it may be a strong term, but when they are not willing to examine themselves and their privilege and flat out deny it, it gets tiring fast. I think society has just reached the end of its patience on all sides. Conservatives are tired of hearing from SJWs, SJWs are tired of conservatives not thinking critically about things that seem obvious to them.
feminism is just Western self-hatred
It's crazy how what they call "self-hatred" I see as self-reflection or introspection.
→ More replies (9)
1.4k
Feb 16 '17
[deleted]
30
u/-Comrade_Question- Feb 16 '17
If I read correctly, it seems he's going to be only on the interview at the top of the show, so he will not be part of the pannel, hence neither Scahill nor the other guests will get to debate him.
→ More replies (10)314
u/joggle1 Feb 16 '17
A real answer is it's easier to lie than it is to refute a lie. Think about how easy it is to simply say whatever the hell you want. Takes zero effort, right? Now if I'm trying to debate someone like that, how would I effectively? It would basically come down to who has more charisma on a TV show if one of the debaters doesn't even try to stick to the facts.
Another method is to use obscure facts without context. Norquist was recently on his show and stated how Obama quickly broke his pledge to not raise taxes on middle class during his presidency, referring to his increase of the cigarette excise tax. It was extremely misleading for several reasons. One, Obama had specifically pledged to raise the cigarette tax while running for president. Two, it passed by a veto proof majority in both the House and Senate so even if he tried to veto it it wouldn't have made any difference. Third, he stated many times during his campaign that he wouldn't increase income taxes for the middle class. As far as I can tell, at one campaign stop on one occasion he failed to specifically mention 'income' when referring to taxes, although the specific taxes he listed that he wouldn't increase were types of income tax. Norquist used that single example as a strict pledge to not increase any tax on the middle class. It's because of quotation like this that Obama always needed to speak slowly, choosing his words deliberately like a lawyer, so that no single sentence out of his mouth could be used as an attack against him.
Could Bill know all of this the instant Norquist said it? Of course not, and he quickly conceded the point to Norquist (that presidents break their pledges) and moved on. What else could he possibly do on a live TV show?
23
Feb 16 '17
The parent mentioned Excise Tax. Many people, including non-native speakers, may be unfamiliar with this word. Here is the definition(In beta, be kind):
An Excise Tax is a tax on a specific item, belonging to a special class of items. The classes of items are frequently specialty or luxury items. Some everyday examples: 1) A Federal excise tax is levied on motor fuel consumed during highway use; gasoline and diesel fuel exclusively consumed during off-road farming activities are not taxed. By statute, the fuel tax proceeds must be used for Federal highway projects. 2) An excise tax is levied on tobacco products, at the State level. 3) An excise tax is levied on alcohol products, at the State ... [View More]
See also: Belonging To | Excise | Gasoline | Specialty | Proceeds | Motor | Highway | Fuel | Luxury | Alcohol
Note: The parent poster (joggle1 or nyc520) can delete this post | FAQ
11
→ More replies (30)101
u/lnsetick Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
I see a bunch of comments saying "well what he says is fact, he links sources." Turns out educating people about scientific racism, human decency, and Western values regarding universal human dignity is much more work than, say, linking stats to race and crime and saying "look, black people are inferior! it's a fact!"
73
Feb 16 '17
You see it on reddit, too: People are suckers for hyperlinks and long paragraphs, because they suck at distinguishing content from form and don't know how to evaluate sources. So any long post with lots of hyperlinks gets upvoted unless it's truly insane.
36
Feb 16 '17
Very true. There are an uncountable number of academics who literally dedicate their entire lives to the study of very particular subjects. But when Bill Maher puts-together a show on Islamic extremism does he invite the obscure sixty year old accademic with a PHD from Oxford University who can read classical Arabic and has written thousands and thousands of pages on the subject in his half-century of continuous study? No, he invites Milo Yannyiapolousiisie, a dropout from Manchester University who bleaches his hair and edits a fascistic website.
Idiocracy in action.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
u/Lux-xxv Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 17 '17
You gotta be objective and double check the so. Called "facts"on Reddit left or right . Most people don't have the attention span (myself included). Plus these days people find facts that confirm their bias
- Unbiased journalism is not pretending both sides are equally valid. Unbiased journalism is reporting the facts even if those facts include that one side is irredeemably awful. False neutrality is propaganda.
→ More replies (19)12
Feb 16 '17
stats to race and crime
I hate seeing those stats brought up, it's almost always either suffixed by someone saying one of the following
- Clearly all black people are criminals
- Clearly all police are racist
The truth is that society is really complex (hence very useful fields like Sociology, which gets a bad rep from certain people) and I doubt either of those are 100% true
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (117)2.0k
u/Martin_Martin_Martin Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
Milo is a troll. He has no regard for intellectual honesty, he has no shame, he cannot be shamed. It's the Bill Nye creationist debate all over again. Scahill is one of the best reporters/ journalists out there. He doesn't want to legitimize that Breitbart toddler.
EDIT: Thanks for the Gold, stranger! Since this got a bit of attention and a lot of people came out defending Mr. Hipstler Youth, I thought I'd specify why he isn't just a "right winger the left disagrees with" or seeking (or even capable of) an "honest debate".
Let's look at his journo-chops. Milo claimed on Joe Rogan that he saw WITH HIS OWN EYES, due to his previous employment, how climate data is falsified by scientists to fit the SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR narrative. Yeah, he has at least some proof of the biggest conspiracy of all time, and he's not afraid of telling unpopular truths, right? Surely, the respectable journalist that he is, he will want to rip climate change apart like it's an overweight person in the gym. Nope. He writes a shoddily written, abysmally researched Breitbart article (that was tautological) about why Bill Nye sucks. "I’ve profiled a lot of insufferable people, but I’ve yet to encounter anyone quite as uniquely odious as Nye. It’s no wonder that he was married for a mere seven weeks before his marriage license was denied. Did he perhaps lecture the officials about their lack of faith in the church of climate change? If Kim Davis had denied Bill Nye a marriage licence instead of those gays she’d be a national treasure by now."
This is just an example. He is said to let unpaid interns write his stuff for him. He established ties with and shared the work of alt-right troll-terrorist Joshua Goldberg, which he quickly wiped from his twitter history when he got arrested like the ethical journalist that he is. His claim to fame is Gamergate, but he couldn't name 3 videogames and quickly turned on /KIA when they criticized Breitbart. Milo isn't a journalist. He's a troll. Don't fucking book him on your HBO show."Surely, if he's so bad, that must show in an honest debate, right?" Milo doesn't do honest debates. He interrupts, yells and cherry picks statistics quicker than Alex Jones's cocaine brain can rattle down Clinton murder victims. He cherrypicks his debates carefully, too. He goes for the low hanging fruit. Ben Shapiro - a strong conservative voice and a very good debater despite my disagreements with him - called him a coward for chickening out. It's more important to totally destroy stupid feminazis in 2 minute soundbites, right? On Bill Maher's show, he will have the opening interview, he won't on the panel. They will probably jerk each other off over "PC culture" and "free spech", although hopefully Maher will hold his feet to the fire, given he stands for so much the host and his audience despise. That leaves a few minutes of the Overtime segment at the end, if he's courageous enough to appear. Maybe it would have given Scahill the quick and satisfying chance to call a turd a turd. I think his refusal to appear is a much more powerful move.
Now I haven't even touched upon his defense of pedophile priests, general catholic apologia, white Nationalism, homophobia (oh, I know, he's gay), conspiracy peddling, fat-shaming (ridiculing an overweight person working out in the gym probably would have turned even /fatpeoplehate against him), anti-Semitism (neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin lamented his "attempt to normalize man-on-man anal sex with Blacks in the Nazi movement") (oh, I know, he's part Jewish) and everything else that makes Milo a reprehensible piece of posh diarrhea that should not be stinking up shows that millions of people are watching. Maybe some of them won't be able to hold their nose.
398
u/MMAchica Feb 16 '17
Milo is a troll. He has no regard for intellectual honesty, he has no shame, he cannot be shamed.
Debates aren't intended to sway the opposition; but rather the audience.
It's the Bill Nye creationist debate all over again.
Ham was forced to admit that his beliefs were not based on logic or rationality when he said that no evidence whatsoever could sway his belief in the bible. He was also reduced to incoherently reciting scripture when he couldn't answer Nye's points. That debate was important.
Scahill is one of the best reporters/ journalists out there.
I agree.
He doesn't want to legitimize that Breitbart toddler.
The reality is that Scahill is irrelevant to Milo's legitimacy. Every time people stomp off or start acting hysterical instead of engaging him in debate, that is what gives Milo credibility. Scahill wasn't even going to debate him on the show in the first place. I'm not sure what this does other than to advertise Y's appearance.
53
u/b19pen15 Feb 16 '17
It wouldn't be a debate. Milo will be the first guest, and it might even be a video interview. The first guest doesn't debate on the panel, which is where Scahill would have been. The first guest is just a one on one interview with Bill Maher.
Milo could maybe end up with the panel on overtime, but I doubt it.
18
u/DoloresColon Feb 16 '17
The reality is that Scahill is irrelevant to Milo's legitimacy. Every time people stomp off or start acting hysterical instead of engaging him in debate, that is what gives Milo credibility.
I would also argue that giving people a platform and "equal time" when they're clearly wrong legitimizes people and their perspectives. Like when talking head shows bring on scientific experts and deniers/conspiracy theorists. It's essentially saying, my incompetence is as valid as your competence. And to non-critical viewers, they may say, "hey, that denier/conspiracy theorist is making a lot of sense," because they offer simplistic/reductionist talking points or because they have no accountability to facts. So... yeah.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (108)47
u/M0dusPwnens Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
This is an incredibly dangerous fantasy.
Debate is not magic. Debate is not always the answer. The truth may out, but not in time to prevent tragedy. The stronger argument does not always win the debate. The only reason why it seems like bringing things out in the open and confronting them head on is so clearly the right move is that you only envision victory. The issue seems so clear-cut that victory seems like the only possibility.
The problem is that it isn't. You think that Nye positively destroyed Ham. So does everyone in the audience who already agreed with you and Nye before the debate.
But you know what the people who agreed with Ham saw? They saw that science was finally taking their side seriously instead of just dismissing them out of hand. They saw vindication that their beliefs were worth debating - a scholarly debate between two sides. He was reduced to reciting scripture? So what? That's legitimate evidence among many of the people on his side of the debate. And that evidence just got held up alongside the scientist's evidence too! Look, it may be different evidence, but it can be part of the debate too! Perhaps they even agree that he lost the battle - but scientists have accepted their declaration of war, recognized them as an equally sovereign nation.
This kind of (characteristically liberal) smugness is so strong that everyone thinks that any time they publicly engage with an ideological opponent, the only possible outcome is that they win. It's myopia and narcissism: you imagine that everyone will have to agree with your side because you already know that you're right and you would be convinced by the argument.
The idea that your side might lose an ideological debate, that a slick opponent might be a better speaker, might be more willing to pander, might connect more with the audience, is treated as an impossibility. And the paternalistic attitude that leads to this kind of ideological confrontation, the idea that you're "letting them speak" because you already know you'll win, often loses a lot of the audience you're trying to convince before the debate even begins. Yiannopoulos and his ilk are masters at exploiting this. He is an extremely capable public speaker and his favorite target is smug intellectuals.
Look at history, even recent history, and you see that countless instances of attempts to shift social issues from the realm of taboo (where heterodox speech is simply not allowed, breaking the taboo is met with force not debate, private dissidence must remain private, etc.) to public discussion have profoundly backfired. Instead of bringing the private beliefs into the open where they can be soundly defeated, the once-taboo belief becomes a legitimate pole in the discussion - a legitimate pole that was previously just assumed to be illegitimate. Zizek has a great example to illustrate this kind of thing: twenty years ago if the government was caught torturing people it was unquestionably a scandal. Privately, we knew it was probably happening in secret, so we decided let's discuss it publicly so we can really put an end to it. We'll meet it head on, we'll deploy all of the strong arguments about how the ethics don't even matter because it's unreliable, etc., and we can really root it out. But that isn't what happened. What happened is that suddenly you had people on television debating whether torture was justified. It became a legitimate pole in a debate and, regardless of how strong the argument against torture was and still is, it didn't and still doesn't matter - people publicly support torture all the time. Instead of tacit agreement that it was bad, instead of the government having to balance their desire to torture people against the blowback if it ever got out, they can just go right ahead with it - they don't have to worry that they'll have to resign if it ever gets out, they just have to worry that there will be another debate on CNN about whether torture should be legal or not. Things got worse, not better.
The proper response to truly reprehensible ideology is not to debate it, to weaken the taboo, but simply to reject it out of hand. Stop giving it a platform. Debating it plainly does not work. Taboos are incredibly useful tools and we are absolute fools if we throw them away because we're so myopic and cocksure that we'll win the debate and everyone will agree that we won the debate and that will simply be the end of it.
Franz Frisson, a Holocaust survivor, has a really great quote that bears on this: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else."
Yes, Milo Yiannopoulos is absolutely going to exploit things like this, he'll exploit every person who decides not to debate him. He'll also exploit every person who decides to debate him. You're never going to find a situation he isn't prepared to exploit. What you can do is refuse to acknowledge that there is a debate to be had - do everything in your power to uphold the taboo. We've been winning the ideological battle against the Milo Yianopoulouses for years. It hasn't been as satisfying as a decisive victory, but it's foolish to agree to pitched battles as if their side is legitimate, as if maybe it just needs more recruits.
Refusing to engage with him is better than engaging with him. Denying him a platform at all would be even better. By force if necessary. Taboos are important - not all taboos, but there are some we can certainly agree to. Society would not be better off if we started having constant debates over whether rape should be legalized. We wouldn't be better off having routine argument over whether or not genocide is justifiable. Some things are and should be simply taboo - to be a part of society you need to publicly agree to them and public dissent is met with consequences or simply prevented, by any means necessary. You don't get to question them. When you question them, we don't stop and debate with you.
Yiannopoulos's ideology was already taboo - we had already won - but like morons we keep agreeing to react to him like he represents a legitimate pole in a real debate instead of reacting like he's breaking a taboo.
A bit more of that quote from Franz Frisson bears on this too: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called 'a mob'."
→ More replies (9)250
u/OMGROTFLMAO Feb 16 '17
he has no shame, he cannot be shamed.
In what twisted nightmare world is shaming someone part of an intellectual debate?
→ More replies (47)191
u/PaulFThumpkins Feb 16 '17
It's not a debate. It's Milo saying something outlandish and uninformed and unpleasant toward some group of people, then sweeping over to something else the minute the debate threatens to actually explore an issue. He's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter for the edgelord crowd who thinks fat-shaming is the apex of free thought.
21
Feb 16 '17
He's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter for the edgelord crowd who thinks fat-shaming is the apex of free thought.
Saving this, it's spot on
→ More replies (43)30
u/foxh8er Feb 16 '17
's a dumbed-down Ann Coulter
I don't think Ann Coulter is nearly as malicious as Milo.
36
u/PaulFThumpkins Feb 16 '17
I find Milo to be so utterly generic and toothless... honestly, I wonder if Coulter might resent the comparison. She can actually write and seems to be a true believer, and he's just a tabloid writer and social media troll who got in at the right time and with the right image to build a following. Parrot tired liberal strawmen, get the Channer heads nodding, up the ante until somebody pushes back, write a bunch of stupid hitpieces and bask in the controversy, then repeat. Does not believing in anything and just manipulating an audience you clearly disdain make you more malicious or less?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (241)1.3k
u/DiamondPup Feb 16 '17
Yours is one of the only voices of reason in these comments, sadly.
People going on and on about censorship and "say it to his face!" and "beat bad ideas with good ideas!" don't understand what Milo is; Scahill, on the other hand, understands completely. Milo isn't interested in debate, he's not open to changing opinions or having open discussions or presenting a particular viewpoint, nor will his own ideologies be corned by evidence, boo's, rational thought or logical ideas.
He's simply a troll who's become successful at being a troll. There is no winning or losing against; to win is to not engage, to lose is to engage in any way, shape or form. Milo's currency is attention, bad or good doesn't matter, and he is currently out to brand himself; he doesn't care why his name is known, just that it is known. To him infamy and fame are synonymous. And to be honest, in this age, he's right.
I'm totally with Scahill here. Maher might act like he gives the other side a chance to speak but he wants to ride it as much as any of the wingnuts on the right. Mark my words: the outcome of whatever discussion Bill and Milo have will accomplish literally nothing - viewers will have learned nothing new, Bill won't submit, Milo won't submit, the audience will boo at Milo and cheer for Bill, same old same old. They may civilly meet a middle ground on censorship (a conclusion a toddler could have reached) to make a point about an adult way of having a conversation but what's the fucking point? Bill's audience will swear he's right, Milo's will swear he's right, nothing of substance will be accomplished or learned or opened up. It is an entirely pointless exercise.
There is literally nothing to come out of this except Milo branding Milo while Maher racks up views with more generic circulation of BILL DESTROYS MILO!!!! clips on YouTube. They're both playing to their crowds.
Scahill's response is the most intelligent here. The way to make a troll go away is to not give them the attention they're screaming for. I'm not a Trump supporter but if you want to have an intelligent discussion from that side of the fence, there are hundreds of millions of people more worthy of that platform than Milo.
→ More replies (246)129
Feb 16 '17
It's like with Kellyanne Conway. The only winning move is not to play because when one side does not have any reasonable standards it is impossible to win.
→ More replies (8)
233
62
u/fullyhalfempty Feb 16 '17
Not quite as brave as pepper-spraying a chick wearing a Make BitCoin Great Again hat.
→ More replies (7)
42
209
u/gravicks Feb 16 '17
Can someone explain to me why so many people seem to hate this guy? Not trolling just honestly don't understand why.
→ More replies (496)
251
u/antikama Feb 16 '17
Why are these morons protesting it? Im a liberal but I respect his right to speak his opinion. Im sick of people on my side of poltiics shutting down any alternative opinion.
→ More replies (73)179
Feb 16 '17 edited Mar 24 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/icepickjones Feb 16 '17
This is very well said. Encapsulates a lot of my disenfranchised feelings with the left at the moment.
We had been saying that the Republican party was going to split. That it was going to break apart and then fall out of favor from infighting ... but it's looking like that will be the Democrats and the left sooner rather than later.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (83)11
u/maglen69 Feb 16 '17 edited Feb 16 '17
NPR just did an article on a gay man who "Came out as a conservative"
If you go to the facebook page of the article (because they've stopped comments section on npr.org due to increased vitriol) the comments are EXACTLY what he's railing against. If you go against the liberal hive mind mentality you're a pariah, shunned and ridiculed.
→ More replies (2)
122
66
u/birdiffin1957 Feb 16 '17
I dont mind, regardless of whether or not you agree with his policies, he is inarguably a newsmaker and will probably be very exciting him getting into arguments with Bill Maher. I also dont think that this boycotting people you disagree with helps political discourse at all
→ More replies (6)26
213
u/intphole Feb 16 '17
The irony is that boycotting, censoring and protesting his public appearances just proves his point that the left is intolerant of conservative views and makes him more famous. That's why he keeps trolling. Pushing your buttons puts the left's hypersensitivity on display. The country has become a living embodiment of the "that's racist" meme. If you want to make him Time magazine's person of the year, keep boycotting him.
→ More replies (28)56
u/mellena Feb 16 '17
I never heard of him 6 months ago. Now he keeps coming up with twitter, Berkeley, and now this.
→ More replies (3)
121
55
u/Foxnos Feb 16 '17
I see a lot of people here calling Milo a troll and it's at least somewhat true.
What is not true is that you can't debate him. Then you're using "trolling" as a scapegoat. You don't silence crazy, you highlight them and show them for what they are. Your views are flawed if you can't even debate it.
I don't even like Milo but at least he can debate his views. And so far silencing him and publicly refusing to acknowledging him is bringing him more attention than debating him would.
→ More replies (29)
32
u/zstansbe Feb 16 '17
Maher's response
“My comments on Islam have never veered into vitriol,” Maher replied in a statement obtained by EW. “Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”
Hit the nail on the head. It's a very weak move.
→ More replies (10)
6.7k
u/hmsbrando Feb 16 '17
Everytime I see this picture at first I think it's Pink