Milo Yiannopoulos fursona.

[Jtrekkie]

5 minutes ago, Zeke said:

You and a million other people that would want to be fudge-packed by Trump. :V

#CUMMIES4TRUMP2016 

That thought made me queasy for just a second. First time that's happened here.

[#00Buck]

13 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I am sure there's someone here that has the fashion sense of a gay club prostitute. 

You and a million other people that would want to be fudge-packed by Trump. :V

#CUMMIES4TRUMP2016 

Lewd.

Take this back to your Red Lantern you perv.

Sickos like you need to be bant. 

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Lewd.

Take this back to your Red Lantern you perv.

Sickos like you need to be bant. 

right after I watch you get your turn on the Trump-cycle. 

[#00Buck]

7 minutes ago, Zeke said:

right after I watch you get your turn on the Trump-cycle. 

I live under the Milo bus. 

Tump is my waifu. 

[Crazy Lee]

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

No, you're not. There are three users who'd fit that criteria here.

Now I'm curious...

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

No you aren't. You are a fish, and not a gay one. Just food.

You wish. At best, you are one of his fanboys that wishes to be as glorious as he is. In DC terms, he is Glorious Godfrey and you are just some Parademon tasked with being his roadie by Darkseid. 

That was amazingly nerdy...

[#00Buck]

Just now, Crazy Lee said:

Now I'm curious...

That was amazingly nerdy...

I am the Milo.

All three of them.

[Crazy Lee]

17 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I am the Milo.

All three of them.

You're cloning yourself?

Well, now we actually are doomed.

[#00Buck]

Just now, Crazy Lee said:

You're cloning yourself?

Well, now we actually are doomed.

I don't clone myself.

I reproduce with myself the old fashioned way.

After all I'm my type. 

[Rassah]

On 9/21/2016 at 8:54 PM, Crazy Lee said:

Why am I not surprised that Rassah would love this guy?

Actually, I am a bit surprised. Breitbart is pretty mainstream conservative and true believers of Trump. I'd be surprised if Rassah was any of those.

Actually I don't love that guy. I don't really know much about him other than that he speaks at various places and pisses off SJW, while being flamboyantly gay yet conservative. I missed the opportunity to meet him when we were both in Acapulco last February, so I don't know what kind of a person he actually is. Just whatever little I've seen of him in videos. I just find what he does rather amusing. Not a fan of Breitbart or any AM talk radio figures either. Most of them are just downright nasty and retarded.

 

15 hours ago, Troj said:

I think what angers me the most about Milo (and Trump, incidentally) is that he's very cavalier about ideologically cock-teasing some very dangerous and deluded people, and either doesn't understand the damage that can do, or doesn't care, or both.

You can't be responsible if you say something and some aholes commit crimes based on what you said. Free speech still trumps all, thought policing is still terrible, and those people being cockteased are terrible people whether someone says something to them or not. At least if they're egged on and come out as terrible people in public, we know whom to avoid and if needed to defend ourselves from.

 

Quote

No, you're not. There are three users who'd fit that criteria here.

I might have similar ideas to Milo, but I'm nowhere near as fabulous as him (I wish I was a flamboyant femboy in public too, but I don't have the guts), so I'm kinda curious too.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, Rassah said:

Actually I don't love that guy. I don't really know much about him other than that he speaks at various places and pisses off SJW, while being flamboyantly gay yet conservative. I missed the opportunity to meet him when we were both in Acapulco last February, so I don't know what kind of a person he actually is. Just whatever little I've seen of him in videos. I just find what he does rather amusing. Not a fan of Breitbart or any AM talk radio figures either. Most of them are just downright nasty and retarded.

 

You can't be responsible if you say something and some aholes commit crimes based on what you said. Free speech still trumps all, thought policing is still terrible, and those people being cockteased are terrible people whether someone says something to them or not. At least if they're egged on and come out as terrible people in public, we know whom to avoid and if needed to defend ourselves from.

 

I might have similar ideas to Milo, but I'm nowhere near as fabulous as him (I wish I was a flamboyant femboy in public too, but I don't have the guts), so I'm kinda curious too.

I disagree. Dr Zakir Naik ran a television channel in which he excused muslim terrorism, blamed George bush for the 9 11 attacks and instructed viewers that it was their job as muslims to 'terrorise the real terrorists'.
Unsurprisingly it later transpired that some followers had been inspired by his speeches to actual murder and terrorism.

 

If you are tacitly instructing people to be abhorrent and violent then you do deserve to be shut down. I don't think that Milo is instructing people to those ends; I just disagree with your idea that ideologues aren't responsible for what their followers do.

[Troj]

I'm an ardent defender of free speech, but even so, freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences. What we say and how we say it matters, and has an impact on the world.

People can't be expected to anticipate and correct for every possible reaction to their speech. We shouldn't expect the Beatles to anticipate that their song about a playground slide might get a drug-addled paranoid schizophrenic to plan a race war. We shouldn't expect Salinger to hold off on writing Catcher in the Rye because a psychotic religious maniac might adopt it as his personal manifesto when he goes off to kill a celebrity.

But, say, if you repeatedly declare abortion doctors to be "murderers" and "monsters" who are perpetrating a "genocide" against "innocent babies," it's totally reasonable to assume that someday, someone in your audience might take you more seriously than you take yourself. This is especially true if you've actually interacted with your audience enough to know that some of them don't have all of their oars in the water.

My general impression of Milo is is that he slides in plenty of winks, dog whistles, and inflammatory statements into his remarks knowing that his audience will react, and that he delights in causing those reactions. He also has enough contact with his audience to realize that some of them are bugfuck nuts--but, he probably finds their craziness amusing and their worship of him intoxicating, much like a person who gets to stand safely on a balcony and toss steaks down to a pack of feral Dobermans.

Does Milo "incite imminent lawless action" with his various statements? Don't know enough about his history and various statements to say, honestly.

But, even if he's staying in the legal green zones, he's still a smug, self-impressed, self-promoting little twinky asshole who is totally willing to rile up the Dobermans in order to advance his career and cult of personality, and who fancies himself hot shit because of that.

[#00Buck]

Trump lives matter!

 

[Saxon]

36 minutes ago, Troj said:

I'm an ardent defender of free speech, but even so, freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences. What we say and how we say it matters, and has an impact on the world.

People can't be expected to anticipate and correct for every possible reaction to their speech. We shouldn't expect the Beatles to anticipate that their song about a playground slide might get a drug-addled paranoid schizophrenic to plan a race war. We shouldn't expect Salinger to hold off on writing Catcher in the Rye because a psychotic religious maniac might adopt it as his personal manifesto when he goes off to kill a celebrity.

But, say, if you repeatedly declare abortion doctors to be "murderers" and "monsters" who are perpetrating a "genocide" against "innocent babies," it's totally reasonable to assume that someday, someone in your audience might take you more seriously than you take yourself. This is especially true if you've actually interacted with your audience enough to know that some of them don't have all of their oars in the water.

My general impression of Milo is is that he slides in plenty of winks, dog whistles, and inflammatory statements into his remarks knowing that his audience will react, and that he delights in causing those reactions. He also has enough contact with his audience to realize that some of them are bugfuck nuts--but, he probably finds their craziness amusing and their worship of him intoxicating, much like a person who gets to stand safely on a balcony and toss steaks down to a pack of feral Dobermans.

Does Milo "incite imminent lawless action" with their various statements? Don't know enough about his history and various statements to say, honestly, as I can only stomach so much of him in one sitting.

But, even if he's staying in the legal green zones, he's still a smug, self-promoting little twinky asshole who is totally willing to rile up the Dobermans in order to advance his career and cult of personality, and is extremely proud of his ability to do that.

I think that his comments are more puerile than inflammatory.

For example he'll call lesbians 'rug-munchers' and then say 'Oh, behave' and wink at his audience. So it's pretty tongue-in-cheek. It would be difficult to see anybody actually being inspired to go around seeking out lesbians to be nasty too as a result. I cringed a lot when I was listening to it though, because I'd rather listen to somebody's reasons and argument than Milo offering to blow a member of his audience. (Not lying about that one).
When he was discussing people faking hate crimes to score oppression points or commit insurance fraud, he also made it clear that he thought that one of the reasons it was bad was because a 'boy that cries wolf' scenario would make it more difficult for genuine victims.
So I think he just enjoys coming off as a massive shit-lord, because being a provocateur is fun; I don't see him as inciting hatred.

I think the biggest risk is that the support he's drumming up for Trump facilitates his successful election, and America then proceeds to pull out of the Paris deal and fritter away all of her money building a fortified border-wall.

 

...also it would be pretty nice to elect a candidate who supports paid sick leave...I kind of feel like useful discussions about treatment of workers and so on are drowned out by all the shit-flinging.

If I asked people whether they knew off the top of their head which candidate promised to introduce paid maternity leave if they were elected how many people here would know?

(Both candidates promised this)

[Dr. Doggo]

41 minutes ago, Troj said:

I'm an ardent defender of free speech, but even so, freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences. What we say and how we say it matters, and has an impact on the world.

If the consequences are anything more than people being upset and having their own things to say, then it's not freedom of speech.

I won't disagree with anyone for thinking of Milo as a prick, I don't care too much for him, but the greater purpose of freedom of speech is to weed out ideas that can't win with neither fact nor rhetoric. Suppressing dialogue also has a horrible habit of giving cause to, say, far more boisterous methods of expression.

[Troj]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think that his comments are more puerile than inflammatory.

For example he'll call lesbians 'rug-munchers' and then say 'Oh, behave' and wink at his audience. So it's pretty tongue-in-cheek. It would be difficult to see anybody actually being inspired to go around seeking out lesbians to be nasty too as a result. I cringed a lot when I was listening to it though, because I'd rather listen to somebody's reasons and argument than Milo offering to blow a member of his audience. (Not lying about that one).
When he was discussing people faking hate crimes to score oppression points or commit insurance fraud, he also made it clear that he thought that one of the reasons it was bad was because a 'boy that cries wolf' scenario would make it more difficult for genuine victims.
So I think he just enjoys coming off as a massive shit-lord, because being a provocateur is fun; I don't see him as inciting hatred.

I think the biggest risk is that the support he's drumming up for Trump facilitates his successful election, and America then proceeds to pull out of the Paris deal and fritter away all of her money building a fortified border-wall.

 

...also it would be pretty nice to elect a candidate who supports paid sick leave...I kind of feel like useful discussions about treatment of workers and so on are drowned out by all the shit-flinging.

If I asked people whether they knew off the top of their head which candidate promised to introduce paid maternity leave if they were elected how many people here would know?

(Both candidates promised this)

Puerile is a good word for it.

I was thinking more of when he's written scathing criticisms of a public figure, and then his followers have proceeded to slam the person with harassing emails and obnoxious Tweets--but yeah, he's definitely puerile, and proudly so.

The problem with Trump is that even if his policies aren't necessarily bad, the core idea that is fueling his campaign is highly toxic.

 

 

[Another Ampers&]

4 hours ago, Sir Gibby said:

If the consequences are anything more than people being upset and having their own things to say, then it's not freedom of speech.

I won't disagree with anyone for thinking of Milo as a prick, I don't care too much for him, but the greater purpose of freedom of speech is to weed out ideas that can't win with neither fact nor rhetoric. Suppressing dialogue also has a horrible habit of giving cause to, say, far more boisterous methods of expression.

this is...

like... based on the assumption that a person who is wrong in an argument has the emotional impetus to actually care for their wrongness and correct themselves in the face of "fact and rhetoric". Disregarding the amount of assumed intelligence you're placing on people (to recognize that they've even been beaten in an argument) you also have to disregard the emotional investment a person might have in their viewpoints, being too proud to admit they're wrong, being too proud to admit that that person is right, being able to quickly overcome personal biases in the face of being proven wrong via facts and rhetoric, when their biases could be informed by lasting damage such as trauma

I just... think this is a very naive outlook to have on the subject of free speech

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

I disagree.

Of course you would...

Quote

Dr Zakir Naik ran a television channel in which he excused muslim terrorism, blamed George bush for the 9 11 attacks and instructed viewers that it was their job as muslims to 'terrorise the real terrorists'.
Unsurprisingly it later transpired that some followers had been inspired by his speeches to actual murder and terrorism.

Did you know that playing violent video games, watching violent movies, playing D&D, and listening to rock and roll causes people to be violent and to commit murders?

Or is that wrong?

Fact is if you're a decent human being, you won't be incited to do violent things anyway, and if you're not decent human being, then you weren't very good even before someone talked you into doing something horrible. Milo and Trump didn't make a whole bunch of horrible people, they just made them come out in public, so now we know they actually exist and what kind of a problem we have with them here.

 

[Troj]

38 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

this is...

like... based on the assumption that a person who is wrong in an argument has the emotional impetus to actually care for their wrongness and correct themselves in the face of "fact and rhetoric". Disregarding the amount of assumed intelligence you're placing on people (to recognize that they've even been beaten in an argument) you also have to disregard the emotional investment a person might have in their viewpoints, being too proud to admit they're wrong, being too proud to admit that that person is right, being able to quickly overcome personal biases in the face of being proven wrong via facts and rhetoric, when their biases could be informed by lasting damage such as trauma

I just... think this is a very naive outlook to have on the subject of free speech

Free expression is one of the essential cornerstones of a free, open, and democratic society, full stop,

Free speech is free speech, even when it's emotional, irrational or unreasonable.

We start down a very dangerous slippery slope when we propose that speech needs to fulfill a certain goal or purpose in order to earn the privilege of being considered "free."

After all, if the "purpose" of free speech were to encourage the propagation of facts and reason, we'd already be shit out of luck, because humans value emotion and sentiment first and foremost, even when they also value facts and logic.

For me, the relevant dilemma and question pertains to whether certain forms of expression undermine democracy or freedom enough to justify curbing, discouraging, or even, censoring them--such as in the case, say, of sending someone death threats, or screaming "fire" in a theatre.

[#00Buck]

I side with Milo. 

I mean have you seen what the people on the opposing side are like?

Also get ready because Milo is having a funeral for Twitter

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/23/watch-live-milo-holds-twitter-funeral-florida-state-university/

RIP Twitter. 

*pours out bottle of liberal tears*

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Troj said:

Puerile is a good word for it.

I was thinking more of when he's written scathing criticisms of a public figure, and then his followers have proceeded to slam the person with harassing emails and obnoxious Tweets--but yeah, he's definitely puerile, and proudly so.

The problem with Trump is that even if his policies aren't necessarily bad, the core idea that is fueling his campaign is highly toxic.

 

 

If we're talking about a ghost-busters actor, she had herself confessed to encouraging her own followers to bully people who said they didn't like her film, so she was directly instructing her followers to be nasty to people.

I don't think it should happen to anybody, but it seems very hypocritical to become upset about it when you're doing it yourself.

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Of course you would...

Did you know that playing violent video games, watching violent movies, playing D&D, and listening to rock and roll causes people to be violent and to commit murders?

Or is that wrong?

Fact is if you're a decent human being, you won't be incited to do violent things anyway, and if you're not decent human being, then you weren't very good even before someone talked you into doing something horrible. Milo and Trump didn't make a whole bunch of horrible people, they just made them come out in public, so now we know they actually exist and what kind of a problem we have with them here.

 

So there's a difference between enjoying entertainment and the manipulative and abusive indoctrination that cult-leaders like Zakir Naik espouse. 

I don't think Milo falls in this category; I just think that cult-leaders definitely do, so I can't agree with your overall notion.

 

this is...

like... based on the assumption that a person who is wrong in an argument has the emotional impetus to actually care for their wrongness and correct themselves in the face of "fact and rhetoric". Disregarding the amount of assumed intelligence you're placing on people (to recognize that they've even been beaten in an argument) you also have to disregard the emotional investment a person might have in their viewpoints, being too proud to admit they're wrong, being too proud to admit that that person is right, being able to quickly overcome personal biases in the face of being proven wrong via facts and rhetoric, when their biases could be informed by lasting damage such as trauma

I just... think this is a very naive outlook to have on the subject of free speech

 

I think this is stochastic. Overall the vast bulk of most people will see sense. Individual people may not.

[Glowing Glass]

How the fuck is this still alive?

This entire thread makes me want to choke myself.

Everyone has their opinion for a reason. Everyone has a part of a story that others don't.

Can everyone just move on and accept differences in opinion?

No wait, this is related to politics. Nobody agrees with each other here.

[Hux]

6 minutes ago, Glowing Glass said:

How the fuck is this still alive?

This entire thread makes me want to choke myself.

Everyone has their opinion for a reason. Everyone has a part of a story that others don't.

Can everyone just move on and accept differences in opinion?

No wait, this is related to politics. Nobody agrees with each other here.

There will will only be peace when everyone who disagrees with me is dead.

#Hux4potus

[Toboe]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Of course you would...

Did you know that playing violent video games, watching violent movies, playing D&D, and listening to rock and roll causes people to be violent and to commit murders?

Or is that wrong?

Fact is if you're a decent human being, you won't be incited to do violent things anyway, and if you're not decent human being, then you weren't very good even before someone talked you into doing something horrible. Milo and Trump didn't make a whole bunch of horrible people, they just made them come out in public, so now we know they actually exist and what kind of a problem we have with them here.

 

To take it from the gray of "speech" to an, imho, more clear example:

If someone pays you to murder someone else and you do it, then you weren't very good even before that someone paid you. Doesn't mean that the "commissioner" shouldn't be punished, too.

[Troj]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

If we're talking about a ghost-busters actor, she had herself confessed to encouraging her own followers to bully people who said they didn't like her film, so she was directly instructing her followers to be nasty to people.

I don't think it should happen to anybody, but it seems very hypocritical to become upset about it when you're doing it yourself.

So there's a difference between enjoying entertainment and the manipulative and abusive indoctrination that cult-leaders like Zakir Naik espouse.

My understanding is that his followers have apparently gone after other people he's criticized in the past.

You're right that the whole Ghostbusters meltdown was more erm, complicated, given that Leslie Jones fed the trolls. (Doesn't justify or excuse the trolls' behavior, of course.)

Re: Video games and violent media, Liana K did a nice video unpacking some of the research on media's influence on behavior, and how those findings have been distorted and misquoted to push hysterical, over-inflated "violent/sexist media make people violent/sexist" claims. So, yeah, huge difference between entertainment and cult seduction.

[Rassah]

Saying that bad things done by cult members is the fault of the cult leader kinda in a small way excuses their behavior, and that just isn't right. If you rape or murder someone, we don't give you a lower sentence just because you say someone told you to. And if someone tells you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that actually only gets rid of a problem.

@Toboe paying someone is an action, with a physical incentive, not just speech.

 

I guess I'm just hoping for a world where we are responsible for our actions, and people can be held accountable for them as well. Like if some preacher talks about how abortion doctors are murderers, and some lunatic actually goes and pulls a gun on an abortion doctor, I would prefer if half a dozen other people pulled their guns on that lunatic and took him out before he could even shoot. But I guess in a world where we're all helpless, protecting ourselves from bad hurtful words is a logical conclusion.

[Saxon]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Saying that bad things done by cult members is the fault of the cult leader kinda in a small way excuses their behavior, and that just isn't right. If you rape or murder someone, we don't give you a lower sentence just because you say someone told you to. And if someone tells you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that actually only gets rid of a problem.

@Toboe paying someone is an action, with a physical incentive, not just speech.

 

I guess I'm just hoping for a world where we are responsible for our actions, and people can be held accountable for them as well. Like if some preacher talks about how abortion doctors are murderers, and some lunatic actually goes and pulls a gun on an abortion doctor, I would prefer if half a dozen other people pulled their guns on that lunatic and took him out before he could even shoot. But I guess in a world where we're all helpless, protecting ourselves from bad hurtful words is a logical conclusion.

I'm not suggesting that cult followers are exonerated when blame is placed on cult leaders; I think that both groups deserve to be blamed.
I can imagine exceptional cases, such as the brainwashing of children to be suicide bombers, where almost all of the blame would be reserved for the cult leader.

That's why I disagreed with you that people cannot be expected to be responsible for the actions of followers they inspire. Some people fully intend to inspire their followers to do bad, so those people definitely deserve to be blamed too.

 

[Toboe]

29 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

@Toboe paying someone is an action, with a physical incentive, not just speech.

And if i say "Do murder $person and i will give you $thing", without living up to it, is that speech or "an action, with a physical incentive"?

If it is an action: What if i say "For killing $person god will reward you!"?

[Rassah]

22 minutes ago, Toboe said:

And if i say "Do murder $person and i will give you $thing", without living up to it, is that speech or "an action, with a physical incentive"?

If it is an action: What if i say "For killing $person god will reward you!"?

No, if you didn't even pay and just lied, I wouldn't hold you responsible. In my view the responsibility is still 100% with the person doing the action. If only because murdering someone is such a basic concept that everyone should understand it.

[Toboe]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

No, if you didn't even pay and just lied, I wouldn't hold you responsible. In my view the responsibility is still 100% with the person doing the action.

So, lets take you n Saxon (last 2 posts as of writing) as an example...

I tell you: "If you kill Saxon right now, i will give you this envelope containing a bitcoin wallet with $amount bitcoin"

You do it.

I give you the envelope and leave.

Situation a); The envelope contains a bitcoin wallet with $amount bitcoin -> You are guilty of murder and go to jail. I am guilty of paying you for murder and go to jail

Situation b): The envelope contains nothing/a fake wallet without value -> You are guilty of murder and go to jail. I'm innocent.

 

Is my understanding of how you would judge in Situation a and b correct?

[Crazy Lee]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

I guess I'm just hoping for a world where we are responsible for our actions, and people can be held accountable for them as well. Like if some preacher talks about how abortion doctors are murderers, and some lunatic actually goes and pulls a gun on an abortion doctor, I would prefer if half a dozen other people pulled their guns on that lunatic and took him out before he could even shoot. But I guess in a world where we're all helpless, protecting ourselves from bad hurtful words is a logical conclusion.

I would say that if someone says something, but doesn't outright advocate murder or crime, but someone else misinterprets his meaning and goes out and kills someone, it would be hard to prosecute that person.

But, say you had a person at the head of some group, and he actively suggested or ordered his followers to commit crimes (murder or something), even if he doesn't pull the trigger he would be criminally liable. In fact there are laws against this and people have been sent to prison (for instance, mobsters who never killed yet directly told people to kill).

 

16 minutes ago, Rassah said:

No, if you didn't even pay and just lied, I wouldn't hold you responsible. In my view the responsibility is still 100% with the person doing the action. If only because murdering someone is such a basic concept that everyone should understand it.

Should this mean that if I hire someone to kill someone, and actually PAY them to do it, I shouldn't also get in trouble? What if I keep doing it over and over again? You're still materially participating in the crime in some way (paying money).

[#00Buck]

Pepe and Milo and Trump. 

A perfect combo.

Trump will be the b0ss of AmeriKKKa!

[Jtrekkie]

In such exceptional cases as brainwashed children, we consider the child to be incompetent due to his unique circumstances. What weight people attatch to that varies.

In other cases of speech causing violence, we conside whether the speech was likely to incite violence and if the speaker had the intention to incite violence. In the event both are true the speaker shares responsibility and the speech definitely contributed to the act, the speaker shares responsibility. The element of malice is necessary. 

If you were to offer payment fot the assassination someone, whether or not payment is made or the person is murdered you have conspired to murder that person. If the person is murdered, the assassin is guilty of murder but you helped. You can't get off that easily.

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

In such exceptional cases as brainwashed children, we consider the child to be incompetent due to his unique circumstances. What weight people attatch to that varies.

In other cases of speech causing violence, we conside whether the speech was likely to incite violence and if the speaker had the intention to incite violence. In the event both are true the speaker shares responsibility and the speech definitely contributed to the act, the speaker shares responsibility. The element of malice is necessary. 

If you were to offer payment fot the assassination someone, whether or not payment is made or the person is murdered you have conspired to murder that person. If the person is murdered, the assassin is guilty of murder but you helped. You can't get off that easily.

Well if you were going to murder someone an axe and a coffin would be good to have. 

 

[Jtrekkie]

No no no. You ax them then put them in the coffin. Do don't ax the coffin, and your certainly don't ax the guy when he's already in the coffin. Mutilating a dead body serves exactly no purpose.

 

It's like beating a dead horse or something. 

[#00Buck]

12 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

No no no. You ax them then put them in the coffin. Do don't ax the coffin, and your certainly don't ax the guy when he's already in the coffin. Mutilating a dead body serves exactly no purpose.

 

It's like beating a dead horse or something. 

This is the new way for 2016!

Milo will show you the way. 

You couldn't get a reservation at Dorsia even if you gave the maitre dee head. 

[Troj]

Two words: Charles Manson.

Riddle me this: How many people did he kill?

[Hux]

We've gotten to the point where we compare conservative provocateurs to Charles Manson.

gg furries, gg.

[Socketosis]

I've always been divided on the issue of murder through proxy.

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

And if someone tells you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that actually only gets rid of a problem.

What the fuck?

[#00Buck]

Milo is a real hero in the fight against political correctness.

 

[Another Ampers&]

2 hours ago, Hux said:

We've gotten to the point where we compare conservative provocateurs to Charles Manson.

gg furries, gg.

I feel like Troj was establishing the extreme to a rule before making a comparison

before anyone can say Milo is bad for doing X, we have to establish that X can be a bad thing, by first establishing a more extreme and thus more clear case

What's being argued by Troj right now is that a persons "free speech" can be used in a harmful way. Once that is established as the standard, we can make the comparison and contrast

[Troj]

4 hours ago, Hux said:

We've gotten to the point where we compare conservative provocateurs to Charles Manson.

gg furries, gg.

Actually, you're the one doing that.

The furries in this thread are debating killing-by-proxy.

If you want to discuss the legalities or ethics of killing-by-proxy, you should at least give Chuckie a footnote or a passing nod, because he is the classic example of that.

Otherwise, we're just going to have an endless go-around of furries concocting wild n' wacky hypothetical scenarios apropos of nothing to support their argument.

[Socketosis]

I decided to read up more on Manson since I'm only slightly familiar with him. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article:

Quote

When Manson's mother and her brother were sentenced to five years' imprisonment for robbing a Charleston, West Virginia, service station in 1939 by brandishing a ketchup bottle, Manson was placed in the home of an aunt and uncle in McMechen, West Virginia.

 

[Zeke]

On September 22, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Rassah said:

Actually I don't love that guy. I don't really know much about him other than that he speaks at various places and pisses off SJW, while being flamboyantly gay yet conservative. I missed the opportunity to meet him when we were both in Acapulco last February, so I don't know what kind of a person he actually is. Just whatever little I've seen of him in videos. I just find what he does rather amusing. Not a fan of Breitbart or any AM talk radio figures either. Most of them are just downright nasty and retarded.

From a few articles I've read talking about him (from people who were debating him, mind you), he's nice and polite outside his channer persona. When online and at his seminars, he's "In character". To me, he's just a gay version of Rush Limbaugh. 

[Socketosis]

5 minutes ago, Zeke said:

From a few articles I've read talking about him, he's nice and polite outside his channer persona. When online and at his seminars, he's "In character". To me, he's just a gay version of Rush Limbaugh. 

Which means that vet gave his dog tags to a character he perceived as genuine, I think...

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Socketosis said:

Which means that vet gave his dog tags to a character he perceived as genuine, I think...

I think so too, but what ever. 

[Crazy Lee]

I've never liked these supposed "Personas" these political pundits supposedly take.

You could argue the likes of Rush, Beck, or Savage aren't actually that crazy, and they act that way because it gets them attention and ratings. But then you have the problem that a lot of people actually take their words at face value. There's a lot of stupid people out there who take such things seriously because they have no critical thinking skills. Plenty of rednecks that, say, would honestly believe Savage when he says "Obama's a muslim and going to turn America into a muslim country with sharia law!". Then you get those idiots doing things because some guy who has a radio show and sounds "smart" said something.

[Cannakitty]

1 hour ago, Crazy Lee said:

I've never liked these supposed "Personas" these political pundits supposedly take.

You could argue the likes of Rush, Beck, or Savage aren't actually that crazy, and they act that way because it gets them attention and ratings. But then you have the problem that a lot of people actually take their words at face value.

 

So what you're saying is that they're liars.

[Zeke]

5 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

I've never liked these supposed "Personas" these political pundits supposedly take.

You could argue the likes of Rush, Beck, or Savage aren't actually that crazy, and they act that way because it gets them attention and ratings. But then you have the problem that a lot of people actually take their words at face value. There's a lot of stupid people out there who take such things seriously because they have no critical thinking skills. Plenty of rednecks that, say, would honestly believe Savage when he says "Obama's a muslim and going to turn America into a muslim country with sharia law!". Then you get those idiots doing things because some guy who has a radio show and sounds "smart" said something.

 

I think it's an astute observation given how sensationalism tends to get more attention than actual facts. it's basically click-bait. 

[#00Buck]

For everyone who thinks Milo is mean he'll tell you why he's so mean. Plus he's all about facts over sensationalism. Leftists live for sensationalism. Emotion over facts every time.