Quote from: Flee on July 22, 2016, 08:39:15 AM

Well then. He sure sounds like an absolutely delightful person.

He actually is, unless you're the kind of person that gets easily offended.  Obviously no one has to agree with him completely, and I can understand why people might not like his boisterousness or flamboyancy, but he knows what he's talking about and he doesn't get his facts wrong (which is why he's never been sued).  Seems like most people want to here the quips he makes than the actual facts he brings to the table unlike the people he debates.

^ his debates I like

his talks and interviews are a bit over the top for me

Quote from: Icy on July 22, 2016, 10:00:34 AM

Quote from: Mordo on July 22, 2016, 09:46:02 AM

His twitter should be reinstated though. It's obvious they've had it in for him since day one.

No. No it shouldn't.

Please elaborate what twitter rules he violated then.

Because all I recall him doing is mildly insult a shitty actress and comedian.

He is not responsible for the stormfaggots' twitter crusade of racial abuse.

he must have triggered icy too hard

Quote from: Mordo on July 22, 2016, 10:35:09 AM

Quote from: Icy on July 22, 2016, 10:00:34 AM

Quote from: Mordo on July 22, 2016, 09:46:02 AM

His twitter should be reinstated though. It's obvious they've had it in for him since day one.

No. No it shouldn't.

Please elaborate what twitter rules he violated then.

If I had direct knowledge of Twitter's decision making, I would. Based on what I've read, it was over a violation of a harassment clause in the terms and conditions. I don't pretend to know who Milo is, because Breitbart is the literal bottom of the barrel when it comes to political reporting.

The reason I said that he shouldn't be unbanned is because Twitter has no reason to. They aren't obligated to host users who make what are arguably racist, hateful statements. He's welcome to continue said posts on his own site or blog, no one is stopping him there.

See, this argument would work if he had actually violated Twitter's terms of service. So far they seem to be ridiculously opaque and contradictory. An ISIS account can exist but a mildly rude comment can't? Sure, they can ban who they like, doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with their verdict.

I was watching the drama when it went down, I'm well aware of what he said first hand. It was something along the lines of "your movie's shit and you look masculine." Categorising that as racial abuse or harassment is really stretching it.

Bans are handed out on a seemingly serendipitous whim.

big words are fun but you only look smart when you use them properly

So I wonder if it's going to get brought up how only Milo's coverage of the Nice attack was taken down for using the image of the girl in the bodybag that most if not all news outlets used on twitter, and then say Twitter wasn't out to get him.

I'm going to ignore the last two pages and focus on the main topic made by Cindy 2.0(or whatever the Hell that one girl's username was a few months ago that sperged the fuck out about r/Trump). I didn't even know who Milo was until page 2.

In what way were Milo's supporters BTFO? That the individual called these people low-test virgins? How sad it must be that someone has to waste a legitimate question on attacking people who don't hold the same view as him, downright fucking pathetic. If those individuals are as low as he claimed they were he might as well have been insulting an autistic child. Either that's the case or the anonymous questioner is a butthurt douche and the OP is just as pathetic for busting a nut over it.

Quote from: Casper on July 22, 2016, 10:15:35 AM

Quote from: Flee on July 22, 2016, 08:39:15 AM

Well then. He sure sounds like an absolutely delightful person.

He actually is, unless you're the kind of person that gets easily offended.  Obviously no one has to agree with him completely, and I can understand why people might not like his boisterousness or flamboyancy, but he knows what he's talking about and he doesn't get his facts wrong (which is why he's never been sued).  Seems like most people want to here the quips he makes than the actual facts he brings to the table unlike the people he debates.

I'm far from easily offended and he seems like a rather unpleasant and obnoxious person banking on rudeness and flamboyancy as "assets". Shame, because he looks like a good public speaker. I don't know much about his opinions, but him supporting Trump and his comments on gun control don't inspire much confidence.

You were against Brexit too, yeah you probably wouldn't like him. But his "rudeness" mostly comes from speaking truths some people don't want to hear, much like Trump.  But then again, why listen to what he has to say and let him speak for himself when you can just go read totally and completely unbiased opinions from people who barely know who he is.

Quote from: Casper on July 22, 2016, 12:27:25 PM

You were against Brexit too, yeah you probably wouldn't like him.

I almost wish you didn't say that, because I've lost even more confidence in him now. "Brexit will stop mass immigration from Muslim countries", "Britain suffered economically by being part of the EU", "undemocratic and unelected bureaucrats", "Brexit is a blow that will break the EU and globalism", "UK fighting tyrannical continental empires", "everyone wants the housing market to crash" on top of some of his other statements?... Damn, for a man you've been praising as a herald of brutal but unpopular facts, he has no clue what he's talking about on some of these issues and appears to bank heavily on populist buzzwords.

Quote

But his "rudeness" mostly comes from speaking truths some people don't want to hear, much like Trump.

No, his rudeness does not come from him speaking "truths", which I can already tell are not always particularly truthful at all. It comes him from doing things like taking the stage and saying "I've come here with a speech I've prepared tonight. Ahem. Feminism and its supporters are cancer. Thank you!" along with bullying people online and making intentionally offensive statements with no discussion value whatsoever. I've seen enough of your posts to understand you are eager to support people like him, but this whole "people don't like him because he's right, smart and speaks the unpopular truth libtards don't want to hear" theme is just clueless.

Quote

But then again, why listen to what he has to say and let him speak for himself when you can just go read totally and completely unbiased opinions from people who barely know who he is.

Well, I have been spending this past hour reading his articles and watching his speeches and debates. I have read the grand total of zero opinion pieces on him (aside from one coming from one of his own supporters who just couldn't ignore his comments about Brexit any longer and factchecked him) and haven't taken anyone's posts in this thread for granted.

He's said some decent things that I agree with, but being rude and speaking over other doesn't make you right. It just makes you obnoxious. Lacking a filter and blatantly insulting people doesn't make you a champion of free speech and destroyer of political correctness. It just makes you a douche. The man is a gifted speaker with some good ideas, but his demeanor is embarrassing and a testament to the poor state certain politics are in.

Okay, I'm not doing point for point bullshit.  Personally, I don't know enough about Brexit.
And being prepared with facts from credible sources like the FBI is being truthful.  Seeing the effects of the Islamic infestation of europe and reading from the Quran to find what it stands for is being truthful.  Feminism is a cancer that he's stated over and over, explaining why he believes so, backing up his claims with studies and even seeing what the movement is producing. His arguments aren't just "Feminism is cancer, thank you" and then he leaves.

 He takes hardline points because clearly coming only with facts like the right tends to no work with those obsessed with feelings, and he ups the ante to get people to listen.  And yeah, I do like that he can rile people up with statistics and opinions that offends them.  But guess what, too bad.  Being polite about topics that aren't nice and cozy isn't an obligation.  I understand people aren't going to like his personality.  But presenting objective information in a brash manner doesn't make the information any less credible. 

The whole point of his Dangerous Faggot tour is to remind us here in the US that we have the right to free speech and to not let it get over taken by people pussyfooting around overly, and factually sensitive "libtards".  No, he doesn't have a filter, but you don't need one in this country to be correct.  People act like he's only recently become outspoken or "obnoxious" when he's been like this all his career.  Being rude and speaking over other doesn't make you right, but it doesn't make you wrong when you are right.  Just take a look at his "protesters" and see if they bring up anything of value and discussion to him.  Politics has been in a bad state for a while, before Milo showed up late last year.  But people whine and make a commotion about him because for once the bs is coming from a different opinion that knows how to back itself up and stand its ground.

Quote from: Casper on July 22, 2016, 02:42:43 PM

His arguments aren't just "Feminism is cancer, thank you" and then he leaves.

I figured you'd know what I was talking about, as it's apparently a pretty famous "speech" of his. I also never said he's wrong. I appreciate people bringing facts into these debates and saying what needs to be said, as I strive to do so myself. But when we started talking about him, it was about how delightful of a person he is. Facts are facts. They can't be rude or offensive. The way in which you present them, however, is a different story altogether. My post was directed specifically at you calling him a delightful person for those who aren't easily offended. I disagree. You're painting him as this person doing nothing but presenting cold hard facts and statistics. I'm not that interested in the whole feminism topic but looking at his comments about things I'm very familiar with like Brexit and gun control, I'm seeing a lot of exaggerations, buzzwords and simply incorrect statements, which really don't coincide with the man of brutal facts he's presenting himself as.

Quote

He takes hardline points because clearly coming only with facts like the right tends to

Utterly ridiculous and black/white statements like that really make me want to not discuss things with you. This attitude of "us versus them", "our facts against their feelings" and "we the good guys against the clueless other" are exactly the kind of toxicity that is destroying modern politics. How in the world is there supposed to be an open and honest discussion or solution when you've already let your bias turn the entirety of society and politics into this war between the pitiful left versus the factual right? I call out bullshit where I see it, whether it's leftist or right wing, and I've seen at least as much of it come from the conservative side as from the left. Neither side can be viewed as "tending to bring facts", as there's just as many lies coming from the right as the left, something clearly evidenced by your preferred presidential candidate who was awarded the "Lie of the Year" award by the non-partisan PolitiFact after only having 14% of his big statements rated true/half true and who literally couldn't talk for two minutes without making a false claim during his big nomination speech yesterday.

Quote

And yeah, I do like that he can rile people up with statistics and opinions that offends them.

Are you sure that the only explanation here is that these people are getting offended over Milo's undeniable facts and truths, and not over things like him making blatant insults, mockeries or deliberately offensive attacks on people? People getting offended over the research he presents are stupid. And I'm sure there's plenty of them on both sides of these debates. But don't be so gullible as to think that this is nothing but a pitiful regressive reaction to the truth instead of to his demeanor, attacks and inflammatory comments made for the sole purpose of getting people worked up.

Quote

But guess what, too bad.  Being polite about topics that aren't nice and cozy isn't an obligation.  I understand people aren't going to like his personality.  But presenting objective information in a brash manner doesn't make the information any less credible.

I never claimed otherwise. I just think it's immature, pitiful and saying a lot about the kind of person he is.

Props to him for confronting emotion with facts. I fully support that. But his attittude? His comments? His actions? They're downright embarassing. And so is this idea that he is this champion of truth and fact, as I've already seen him get things wrong on topics I'm particularly interested in. Like most other media personalities, Milo has a clear agenda. He will see what he wants to see in evidence, ignore research to the contrary of the point he's making and is bound to cherrypick and present information in a way that supports his rhetoric. It's the reason why I don't follow any particular "personality" on either side of these debates. Don't forget that.

Alright,  I really don't care for these back and forth walls of text.  You say his "famous speech" as if there were no other discussion going on afterwards.  I find him quite a delightful person, even if I don't agree with him on everything.  He's willing to have discussions, and if someone's going to start something, he sticks with "don't back down, double down."  He does present facts and gives opinions and jokes based in facts.  Like I said, I can understand why some people don't like his personality, like how people don't like Trump's personality and then turn it into something untrue.

Black and white is a perfectly fine starting point.  By no means should the rule of that be followed to a t, but viewing everything as grey complicates things. It's not necessarily 'us vs them' like people try to make Trump look on immigration, but it's a simpler vantage point than starting with 'everyone is a person'.  I don't believe that its just Left vs Right, there's good and there's trash on both sides.  But as Milo demonstrates through his tour, it's become much more prevalent, at least here, among the left. By which I mean his protesters and their lack of intellectual discourse.  No, he does not shout them down because they bring nothing to discuss, rather they try to attack him either verbally or physically, just as they did with Steven Crowder and Christina Hoff Sommers, for God's sake. 

And Politifact is not unbiased, hardly anyone with an opinion on Trump is.  And even though Trump had statistics that were mostly accurate, I don't expect him to not make exaggerations because he even says in The Art of the Deal it's what he does.  But he at least stands firm with his beliefs unlike the alternative candidate who flip-flops from election to election and had a rigged party to get her the nomination, being proven through the DNC Leaks.

And who cares if someone's offended over what Milo says?  His insults and jokes come from a factual basis, like lesbians being more violent in domestic abuse numbers or blacks having big dicks and not knowing their dads.  His remarks shouldn't get people worked up, they're just words.  They hold no power unless these sensitive snowflakes give them power.  And people revere him because he speaks for these people, like with Trump.  To sound cliche, he says what they're thinking, and he's not afraid to do so.  He's in a position to represent these people that next to no one else can or does.  Hell he's leading a pride parade through a muslim ghetto in Sweden in the next few weeks. Why? Because he's standing up for the people our governments have turned their backs on.  No kidding he's a provocateur, but he's trying to get something done, even if it's to only bring people's attention to it, rather than bury away what's actually going on.