POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Criticism

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I'll just have pie.

Jenn, the Douglas comment criticism is really a stretch. Trump makes actual mistakes, but I guess that's just not enough to keep the haters busy.

Are you saying my grammatical explanation is a 'stretch', or the way people perceived his comment was a 'stretch'?

I agree Chump is no stranger to mistakes; who is?

Context is YUGE and the media is known for cherry picking or actual misinterpretation.

My favorite has been the comment on the Mexican rapists.

Their and they're. Try it out folks. Sometimes you have to read the words rather than hear them, especially with the booby Trump. I will be making more comments related to this thread later. Gotta go now.

'Booby Trump' ... Love it!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I'll just have pie.

Jenn, the Douglas comment criticism is really a stretch. Trump makes actual mistakes, but I guess that's just not enough to keep the haters busy.

Are you saying my grammatical explanation is a 'stretch', or the way people perceived his comment was a 'stretch'?

I agree Chump is no stranger to mistakes; who is?

Context is YUGE and the media is known for cherry picking or actual misinterpretation.

My favorite has been the comment on the Mexican rapists.

Their and they're. Try it out folks. Sometimes you have to read the words rather than hear them, especially with the booby Trump. I will be making more comments related to this thread later. Gotta go now.

'Booby Trump' ... Love it!

 

[AnnaH]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Jenn, the criticism of Trump's statement was the stretch, not your explanation.

 

[jaaron]

Re:

Getting to your comments and what I assume are your questions/confusion ... I'm breaking this down into 'chunks' (separated by the tilde lines) to make it more 'mentally digestible', as your post - jaaron - was one heck of a 'gumbo' comprising two or more different threads/discussions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the purposes of this post - everyone is wearing the exact same clothes; not a liberal outfit and not a conservative outfit, and we're not men or women, theists or atheists, hetero or LGBTQ, etc.; if you cannot do that, then just excuse yourself now ... because today's lesson isn't about politics or anything else; it's about INTERPRETATION.

I

was banging my head against the wall - not specifically AT you - but because I worked professionally in journalism for several years; as such - on serious discussions - I'm careful with my words to articulate exactly what I mean; I'm responsible for what I say/write, not how you/others intentionally or ignorantly (meaning 'lacking awareness') choose to interpret it. And keep in mind, this IS the internet; the only way to convey inflection is through the use of emoticons, or posting pictures.

I strive to base my positions (opinions) objectively on fact, law and precedent. I read what others post and respond based on those things; not solely because of my personal opinions, but if YOU (collectively) don't read things objectively (e.g. without your own bias), you don't get that. So, it is rather frustrating when others skim something in their mere haste to chew it up eagerly searching for some excuse to further cry about Chump or assume I'm his 'cheerleader' simply because I'm a conservative, then complain that they don't understand, can't follow thought, wash, rinse & repeat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There IS a difference between 'hard news' and 'opinion'. If you're seriously interested in understanding the differences, perhaps this will help you: http://drc.centerfornewsliteracy.org/content/lesson-5-news-vs-opinion & http://drc.centerfornewsliteracy.org/content/ethics-opinion-journalist

Thank you so much for that, and your efforts to correct my 'ignorant' 'meaning lack of awareness' interpretation. However, I'd suggest you go back to banging your head against the wall, because I would imagine a few posts on a message board are unlikely to accomplish much where my LLM in media law and two year MS in journalism apparently failed.

]Why should you care which is which can be summed up by the following statements:
The goal of news reporting is to give you the information you need for your role in our democratic society.
The goal of opinion journalism is to help you make up your mind about that information.
Like reporters, opinion journalists should provide facts, using the discipline of verification to tell the stories that help us with the work of self-governance. But the goal of opinion journalists is to use what they’ve learned to suggest solutions to civic problems and promote and provoke discussion by picking sides and arguing forcefully. In other words, Opinion journalism is, by definition, one-sided.
You may be misled if you only hear one side of the situation.

and

Not only is Opinion to be quarantined from news reporting by labels…it must not, in the interest of arguing a side of a debate, misrepresent facts or the context that helps people make sense of facts.

I can NOT stress the latter enough, especially as it pertains to Milo's writings as well as any other 'Opinion' piece someone relies or cites. That doesn't mean "don't read them"; it means "use caution" if you do. I read opinion pieces from several perspectives: the writing as a whole, the points of the writing, and the writer's agenda being fair/objective or biased by beliefs.

Here is the point, and it's a simple one. I don't think anyone here is under the misimpression that Mr. Yiannopolous's articles are fact. There is no question that they are opinion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that your adoption of Mary Poppins' suggestion that we look only at the substance and not the commentary did not make sense in this non-analogous situation. In the previous situation, she was suggesting that the transcript should be looked at without respect to the surrounding commentary. I agree that in this case, the transcript was incomplete, although only in that Mr. Trump's introductions of the other people were omitted. In the second situation, Mr. Yiannoplolous's writings and interview are primary sources. Having read them and listened to his interview, there is nothing surrounding them that we need to disregard. Our opinions of him, for better or for worse, are based on his own written and spoken words. Not any editorialising surrounding them.

This seems like a relatively simple concept?

]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, that's not what I said, and I find your abilities not even close to magic. My initial point was that the two situations (this and the MaryPoppins one) are not analogous. That MaryPoppins' point, in the other thread, was that primary sources are essentially facts of record. A transcript of a speech is a primary source, a record of fact. An article that discusses the speech is a secondary source. Secondary sources can be either factual or editorial/opinion in nature. She suggested in the first instance, that you go straight to the primary source and ignore the opinion. You made the same suggestion in this instance. What we are trying to explain is that the interview and Mr. Yiannopolous's essays are both primary sources. They speak for themselves. There is nothing--no fluff, no editorializing--around them that we need overlook. They do speak for themselves.

My "magic abilities" comment was a joke; that's why I used this fella -->

Here, the concept of 'skimming past BS to get the point' is the same. Both of the "BHM" articles and the Milo article re: BC are all editorial/opinion pieces that you can skip over the media/writers' bias and/or BS, get the gist of the position, and move on with life. I actually agree with Mary on that point. The "article" (for argument's sake) that mary first posted was not the complete transcript which included additional details with regard to the overall event, and I think THAT is what you/others are missing, and if you REALLY & TRULY give a darn about facts, truth, etc., you SHOULD make a point to understand this. If you just want to look for something else to bash Chump with then just go to HuffPo and quit reading this now, as I'm making a sincere attempt to help you.

Here is the link to the Deadspin piece, from which Mary copied & pasted the "remarks": (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370) and here is the actual FULL transcript (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/01/remarks-president-trump-african-american-history-month-listening-session). Her 'version' is missing facts that - again - if you actually care about truth, facts, context, etc., you CAN find in the full transcript.

In point of fact, her first posting was from Deadspin. The One Hot Mess posting is on the last page of the thread, and it's a humorous twitter account that someone set up in response.

I really don't think you understand the concepts under discussion here.

The Guardian BHM article is opinion with a link to the transcript (fact), MaryPoppins' first posting gave the transcript (fact, but without context).
She suggested you read the transcript and ignore the opinion/editorialising around it.
You suggested we apply this same concept to Mr. Yiannopolous.
Mr. Yiannaopolous's articles are opinion. No one is disputing that. There is no media writer to add bias/or BS. There is no fact to weed out. Unless you are suggesting someone research whether his claims are scientifically accurate, which you have said yourself you don't care to do. And in which case, you are talking apples and oranges.

I am going to try to put this in different terms.
If someone gave me a gift in a box, and I said, based on the fact that I didn't like the box, 'I don't like this gift', someone would more than likely tell me that I shouldn't decide that until I'd taken the gift out of the box and evaluated it irrespective of the box. That's the BHM situation.

If someone gave me a gift with no box, and I said, 'I don't like this gift', I would actually already be talking about the gift. There is no box in this instance. That's your Milo Yiannopolous situation.

They are not the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the Black History Month thread, MaryPoppins posted a link to President Trump's now infamous 'Frederick Douglass' is my best bud speech. That link was to the website Deadspin. The site had a full transcript of the speech, with the only commentary a small note at the top that President Trump had given a speech for Black History Month, and explaining the method of transcription.

No, her Fred Douglass link did NOT go to Deadspin; it went to a site called "one hot mess" (sounds legit ). And it did not have a full transcript of the BHM remarks nor a link to them; it was just about the 'Douglass' debacle.

Her post (minus the satirical tweets for brevity):

Frederick Douglass Opens Twitter Account from Beyond the Grave to Troll President Trump
...
http://onehotmessalaska.blogspot.com/2017/02/frederick-douglass-opens-twitter.html

This link edited/abbreviated the Chump quote to:

"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.

followed by all the pretend back & forth between Douglass & Chump.

Now, the actual FULL Chump quote:

I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice -- Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.

Context matters: Chump was talking about the new National Museum of African American History & Culture, as well as the historic figures who are recognized in it. Would you like to guess who one of those "historic figures" is? That's right, Frederick Douglass.

Contractions matter: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice...". Who's is a contraction for "who has", because yes, Mr. Douglass is no longer with us today, may he RIP. And Chump was inferring that Mr. Douglass' legacy is becoming more recognized.

Grammar matters:The above is further supported by Chump's use of the word 'done' vs 'doing' - the first meaning "past" and the latter meaning "present". IF Chump was inferring Mr. Douglass actually was "alive & well" and still doing an amazing job, he would have said "...an example of somebody who's doing an amazing job ...". He did not. And it's troubling to me that there are so many people who lack basic comprehension of very basic grammar concepts, and actually form opinions as a basis for their "beliefs" and vote on such ignorance.

But on the bright side, perhaps those who do not understand contractions and misinterpreted the comment have actually done something good (far more than the BHM thread here at least) - it brought Mr. Douglass' memory to light for those who perhaps were ignorant of his role in history. And THAT is the point of Black History Month.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You responded by posting a link to a transcript of the African American History Month Listening Session. Shortly thereafter, you pointed out: "The source quoted to start this thread is 'DeadSpin'... a satire & sports website; not exactly what anyone considers 'the press' when looking for ethics, facts, etc. To MaryPoppins' defense, she may not have been looking for 'serious', 'facts', etc. I get it, we all have non-serious stuff we browse. But come on..."

MaryPoppins then came back, explained that she was not previously familiar with the particular website, but assured you that the speech was real. She then linked to a Guardian article that also linked to a transcript of the speech. The Guardian article, on my bowser, at least, is clearly labelled "Opinion" at the top.

You then said that the writer did not report facts, but editorialized, 'in other words, laced his/her story about the event with three incidents of personal opinion. That is not IMO an unbiased account of the event. Yes the event is real, but it wasn't a 'speech' (prepared/scripted comments)."

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you were speaking at cross-purposes-- The Guardian and almost everyone else on the thread were referring to the prepared speech, and you were referring to the remarks at the listening breakfast.

Here's where I'm There was NO 'prepared' speech. BOTH the Guardian & Deadspin 'articles' include CHERRYPICKED COMMENTS from the event's discussion. The transcript I posted is the 'event' as a whole; not an edited version through the lens of some biased reporter who has as big a stick for Chump as some here.

Mary 'sold' the Guardian link as 'reliable':

Here's a more reliable source so your false accusations about me don't stand and also in case it makes you feel better. And no need to respond with a comment about Al Sharpton. I already know how he is perceived by some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech

Perhaps she will read this thread and your own observation of the word "Opinion" on the page and understand what I was saying at that time. [/quote]

The Guardian is reliable (context matters). It clearly says opinion. That doesn't mean it's unreliable. It just means the reader needs to apply some critical discernment while reading it.

As I noted in the BHM thread - having the FULL transcript IS an important fact to note because it sets the tone for the comments that WERE attributed to Chump in the Deadspin 'article' (that everyone was barfing over), and the Guardian 'article'. But you wouldn't know that if you didn't know or consider the context, neither of which her 'articles' provided. Again - do you want the facts from which to form a fair & objective opinion, or not?

THAT is why I posted the following, highlighting why this was an opinion piece:

Your new 'news' linked article is a biased reporting, and that is evidenced by the very first two sentences:

On Monday Donald Trump marked the first day of black history month with a so-called “listening session”, pulling together about a dozen black Americans, virtually all campaign supporters or administration staffers, to inaugurate the month. The meeting, which was only open to the press for about 12 minutes, resembled most of Trump’s interactions with the black community to date: self-referential and placing style ahead of substance, to the chagrin of civil rights advocates.

Per the links & highlights I shared with you regarding Opinion pieces, and looking at what is bolded here, you can see why this IS an opinion piece with a clear bias (writer intentionally swaying readers to think Chump is a jackhole), and therefore, not an unbiased, objective news story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, again, I'm intimately professionally conversant with opinion pieces. Based on transcript alone, I don't know that my interpretation of the remarks would change particularly. But you can take heart. I know quite a lot about The Guardian, and I can tell you it's highly unlikely that anyone reading it turned to that article looking for unbiased facts. UK newspapers are openly partisan and The Guardian is proudly left-leaning, although their investigative journalism is widely considered even by those on the opposite end of the philosophical and political spectrum to be extraordinary.

Ok. Have a nice day everyone.
Hope you're feeling better.

In this thread, you opened with a video of Milo Yiannopolous being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

Bunnycat then linked an article written by Mr. Yiannopolous on what he perceives as the negative effects of birth control, and which ends with the conclusion that women should practice no birth control as we need the kids if we're to breed enough to keep the Muslim invaders at bay.

Lovedogs then posted a link to another of Mr Yiannopolous's think pieces, this one apparently containing a redacted link to faculty photos at Ohio University, who are apparently middle aged man-haters because they're ugly.

Subsequently, Lovedogs posted that she couldn't watch the entire video, looked up his 'disgusting writing', and that told her all she needed to know about him. That conclusion was based on two sources: the interview and the subject's own writings.

In response to that, you posted: "Maybe you can overlook all the commentary and just listen to way he says "

That was actually a joke ... because of what Mary posted in the BHM thread. In hindsight, perhaps I should have used vs I apologize for the misused emoticon. Chalk it up to me having been sick for a few days or an editing error on my part.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was a bit more backing and forthing, and then MaryPoppins wrote: "I didn't tell you there was new 'news', and the purpose of the linked article was to show that the speech was indeed factual and not satire. It was not to influence anyone's opinion about what Trump said. Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of a speech. It's factual what Trump said."

Ok. So those are the facts so far.

Correction: that was your interpretation of the discussions, which I've corrected and/or clarified above to aid yours or other's understanding. All of that said - not everyone is going to read/hear every single thing to take it 'as gospel', help form solutions to world peace, etc. And that is absolutely their prerogative, but when they are going to use them in a discussion as a basis for 'fact' in defending their position, and it's my opinion they are falsely or ignorantly interpreting it, it's my prerogative to try & help them understand why they may be misinterpreting it. I don't do so to be a jackhole myself; rather, to try & help that person who may not have the background or awareness of how such articles are written & why. PS has people from multiple walks of life, not all of which include PhDs and writing/grammar gurus (such as myself).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lovedogs replied: "I did that when I read his own words. He is a vile, hateful, sexist, racist piece of garbage."

Maria D then asked: "Are you saying that you overlook his words when you listen to the interview? Do you feel that he doesn't deserve criticism for his written work because he is able to verbally articulate ideas that you agree with? I'm seriously confused."

You replied: "THAT was actually MaryPoppins' advice (in defense of an anti-Chump article she posted) to anyone who might be 'put off' reading something they disagree with so they can still get the overall message."

*NB - I think her point was not that at all, but, simply to point out the fact, since that you could find a transcript of the speech in the article, it was possible to base your opinion on what was actually said rather than the opinion surrounding it.

Maria D replied: "JoCo, I'm even more confused than before, It sounds like your 'ignore the commentary' remark was then mild sarcasm because mary poppins said something like that in another thread? Maybe your motivation here is general debate?"

As I was equally confused, I then said, "I might be confused--as a liberal I understand I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances? Um. Ok."

You responded with: "If you read my original post in this thread, I noted I didn't even read the Faux News article, and why. I watched the video of the interview. With regard to his writings (which I only read the one or two posted in this thread), I am saying - by adopting Mary's suggestion - one might overlook the 'fluff' (editorializing, personal slant/opinion) and digest the substance or point of the story. I am not suggesting I or anyone else would agree with that 'substance' ; that's why you read/watch it - to decide for yourself."

Well, ok. So then I responded with: "Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and his video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings. You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content. You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview. Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?"

You then responded with the head banging post, and Maria D responded with the post above. Etc, etc.

This appears to just be your interpretation/recap of the latter part of the thread; did I miss a question?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because we're all adults and I like to end things on a positive note ... if you made it through ALL of that, you deserve one or more of these!
[/quote]

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron - I see/think you're trying to respond to one/more of my comments, but I cannot make heads nor tails of what/where because of the quotes-within-quotes-within-quotes, and then some of my comments don't appear in quotes, and instead appear as if they're things you said. Might I suggest you just copy/paste the portion of my quote and reply? It's okay to do this later if needed ... perhaps, when you have more time to organize your response; there's no need to feel rushed to reply.

You're under no obligation to, of course, but - no offense - I have zero desire to (nor will I) again parse out '3-deep levels' of quotes from two different discussions, and respond ... especially considering I carefully organized your original post in my response to enable ease of reading ... AND I offered pie & drinks.

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I have been following this thread while out and there are some things that I will add.

Since it has been mentioned that the first amendment does not apply to this situation. It most certainly does because it directly influences freedom of expression. Please read on that here on the US Embassy site explaining it to foreigners.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2013/04/20130416145829.html

As far as Berkeley and its students (or any college) protesting is one thing but devolving into a riot that caused the event to be cancelled is unacceptable. Especially at the university where protesting with free speech began. If you don't like the message, by all means protest, but if your goal is to shut an opposing view down, I will fight you tooth and nail.

This and other protests that end up with speakers not being heard will only harm their message in the end. I am sure that thousands of people who had never heard of Milo before are well aware of him now. His main focus besides being a provocateur is the inequality of free speech on college campuses. He is thrilled at all the coverage he has gotten and it will sell many more copies of his new book than would have previously. Some forward thinking and the end game might be appropriate by liberal students. And professors too by the looks of the NYU professor meltdown shouting F bombs at NYPD at the recent riot. Google it because I will not link to it here.

I heard Milo's phone interview as the riot was happening and he indicated that the university had demanded $6500 from the Berkeley College Republicans in the last week before the event for extra security. A donor stepped up at the last minute to pay it.

Recent blog post from Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams indicating he will be withdrawing his generous support of Berkeley as an alum.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156778990841/berkeley-and-hitler


Statement from Berkeley College Republicans:

The Free Speech Movement is dead. Last night, the Berkeley College Republicans’ constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos' tour. Their success is a defeat for civilized society and the free exchange of ideas on college campuses across America. We would like to thank UCPD and the university administration for doing all they could to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.

https://www.berkeleycollegerepublicans.com/copy-of-who-we-are


Interesting perspective from Dave Rubin formerly on Young Turks:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-i-left-left

 

[jaaron]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I don't have time today to go back, and the thread has become very cumbersome to quote. I can copy my replies. Dashed lines indicate where your responses are.

-----

Thank you so much for that, and your efforts to correct my 'ignorant' 'meaning lack of awareness' interpretation. However, I'd suggest you go back to banging your head against the wall, because I would imagine a few posts on a message board are unlikely to accomplish much where my LLM in media law and two year MS in journalism apparently failed.

-------

Here is the point, and it's a simple one. I don't think anyone here is under the misimpression that Mr. Yiannopolous's articles are fact. There is no question that they are opinion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that your adoption of Mary Poppins' suggestion that we look only at the substance and not the commentary did not make sense in this non-analogous situation. In the previous situation, she was suggesting that the transcript should be looked at without respect to the surrounding commentary. I agree that in this case, the transcript was incomplete, although only in that Mr. Trump's introductions of the other people were omitted. In the second situation, Mr. Yiannoplolous's writings and interview are primary sources. Having read them and listened to his interview, there is nothing surrounding them that we need to disregard. Our opinions of him, for better or for worse, are based on his own written and spoken words. Not any editorialising surrounding them.

This seems like a relatively simple concept?

-----

In point of fact, her first posting was from Deadspin. The One Hot Mess posting is on the last page of the thread, and it's a humorous twitter account that someone set up in response.

I really don't think you understand the concepts under discussion here.

The Guardian BHM article is opinion with a link to the transcript (fact), MaryPoppins' first posting gave the transcript (fact, but without context).
She suggested you read the transcript and ignore the opinion/editorialising around it.
You suggested we apply this same concept to Mr. Yiannopolous.
Mr. Yiannaopolous's articles are opinion. No one is disputing that. There is no media writer to add bias/or BS. There is no fact to weed out. Unless you are suggesting someone research whether his claims are scientifically accurate, which you have said yourself you don't care to do. And in which case, you are talking apples and oranges.

I am going to try to put this in different terms.
If someone gave me a gift in a box, and I said, based on the fact that I didn't like the box, 'I don't like this gift', someone would more than likely tell me that I shouldn't decide that until I'd taken the gift out of the box and evaluated it irrespective of the box. That's the BHM situation.

If someone gave me a gift with no box, and I said, 'I don't like this gift', I would actually already be talking about the gift. There is no box in this instance. That's your Milo Yiannopolous situation.

They are not the same.

-----------

Yes, again, I'm intimately professionally conversant with opinion pieces. Based on transcript alone, I don't know that my interpretation of the remarks would change particularly. But you can take heart. I know quite a lot about The Guardian, and I can tell you it's highly unlikely that anyone reading it turned to that article looking for unbiased facts. UK newspapers are openly partisan and The Guardian is proudly left-leaning, although their investigative journalism is widely considered even by those on the opposite end of the philosophical and political spectrum to be extraordinary.

Ok. Have a nice day everyone.
Hope you're feeling better.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I don't have time today to go back, and the thread has become very cumbersome to quote. I can copy my replies. Dashed lines indicate where your responses are.

Thank you; MUUUUCH easier! My response are noted in blue text.

-----

Thank you so much for that, and your efforts to correct my 'ignorant' 'meaning lack of awareness' interpretation. However, I'd suggest you go back to banging your head against the wall, because I would imagine a few posts on a message board are unlikely to accomplish much where my LLM in media law and two year MS in journalism apparently failed.

I suspect we perhaps have a slight language/misinterpretation re: my use of the word 'ignorant'. Please know that it was not intended to be a 'personal dig', but in the literal (not negative) sense of the word.

-------

Here is the point, and it's a simple one. I don't think anyone here is under the misimpression that Mr. Yiannopolous's articles are fact. There is no question that they are opinion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that your adoption of Mary Poppins' suggestion that we look only at the substance and not the commentary did not make sense in this non-analogous situation. In the previous situation, she was suggesting that the transcript should be looked at without respect to the surrounding commentary. I agree that in this case, the transcript was incomplete, although only in that Mr. Trump's introductions of the other people were omitted. In the second situation, Mr. Yiannoplolous's writings and interview are primary sources. Having read them and listened to his interview, there is nothing surrounding them that we need to disregard. Our opinions of him, for better or for worse, are based on his own written and spoken words. Not any editorialising surrounding them.

This seems like a relatively simple concept?

This is beyond the point of becoming a circle jerk of semantics. Primary sources, news, opinion, etc. I think we are sort of saying the same thing, but again due to differences in language-interpretation, it maybe seems we disagree. Or perhaps you further break down "opinion" pieces to those that have varying levels of 'media bias/influence'.

I personally lump any 'article' into an opinion/editorial category if the writer: uses first person (e.g., 'I', 'me', 'we') or interjects his/her own opinion, bias, 'color' about the topic because both of those mean it's written from a particular perspective; not an objective one.
-----

In point of fact, her first posting was from Deadspin. The One Hot Mess posting is on the last page of the thread, and it's a humorous twitter account that someone set up in response.

I really don't think you understand the concepts under discussion here.

The Guardian BHM article is opinion with a link to the transcript (fact), MaryPoppins' first posting gave the transcript (fact, but without context).
YES, it's an opinion piece (that's what I said when she posted it). But NO, IT DID NOT CONTAIN A LINK TO THE FULL TRANSCRIPT. There are links to articles about Chump, his Ray Lewis/Jim Brown comments, posing for a photo op with Kanye, appearances on news shows, etc., but no link to the official transcript. If you see a link to the full transcript on that page somewhere, PLEASE post a screen shot of where it is, and I will happily admit I am wrong/mistaken. I'll even make it easy for you to go to the page again via the link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech

But all this quibbling over whose link goes where was not the point of me posting in that thread in the first place; it was (what I perceived) the 'misleading' thread title, leading to (again, what I perceived) disrespect toward BHM and thus concern for others who might feel offended by that. (NOT that I want to rehash that again either. )

She suggested you read the transcript and ignore the opinion/editorialising around it.
See above - I can't read a transcript she posted because she didn't post one. That's why I went to the source and found it - in its entirety - myself. And I posted it.

You suggested we apply this same concept to Mr. Yiannopolous.
Mr. Yiannaopolous's articles are opinion. No one is disputing that. There is no media writer to add bias/or BS. There is no fact to weed out. Unless you are suggesting someone research whether his claims are scientifically accurate, which you have said yourself you don't care to do. And in which case, you are talking apples and oranges.
Why yes, yes I did. And yes, I said they were both opinion pieces. If you give a rat's patooty about possible effects of BC (I don't b/c I don't use it), then you could look at Milo's article, and see he satirically noted several 'theories' on women taking BC laced with a crap ton of his own 'colorful commentary': it makes women gain weight, impacts their voice and body movement, impairs judgment, and a few other things. He includes links (some to credible reports) to 'support' his theories, if you want to delve further into the matter. For instance:
Milo wrote:

Let’s start with the grossest form: injectable birth control. IT MAKES YOU FAT. A 2009 study from the University of Texas found that women using DMPA gain an average of 11 pounds over three years, a 3-4 per cent increase.

The red parts being what you might 'skip over' or 'consider the source'/glaze over. Then, if you clickie 'da linkie, guess what the FIRST sentence of the UTMB release says ...

GALVESTON, Texas - Women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, gained an average of 11 pounds and increased their body fat by 3.4 percent over three years, according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB).

The same thing Milo cited. Don't trust EurekAlert? Fine, it's easy enough to validate their presser by going to the UTMB site and seeing for yourself. https://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article4607.aspx So yes, Milo's article is an opinion piece, and yes some might find him distasteful. That does NOT mean that ALL his writing/s should be dismissed. Of course, you can probably find a less offensive article telling you the same stuff; but I personally appreciate humor that breaks up the monotony of 'hard news' type stuff. That doesn't make me a racist, bigot, or whatever. Different strokes for different folks.

-----------

I am going to try to put this in different terms.
If someone gave me a gift in a box, and I said, based on the fact that I didn't like the box, 'I don't like this gift', someone would more than likely tell me that I shouldn't decide that until I'd taken the gift out of the box and evaluated it irrespective of the box. That's the BHM situation.

If someone gave me a gift with no box, and I said, 'I don't like this gift', I would actually already be talking about the gift. There is no box in this instance. That's your Milo Yiannopolous situation.

They are not the same.
Your two scenarios do not correlate with the faces of THIS topic that you/others seem puzzled by.

There are two 'articles' that start out as 'links', and when you click/open them, one is about Chump's BHM remarks, the other is about BC.

Both are "opinion" pieces, and you can read or not read either.

This really isn't/shouldn't be so difficult/hard to comprehend.

-----------

Yes, again, I'm intimately professionally conversant with opinion pieces. Based on transcript alone, I don't know that my interpretation of the remarks would change particularly. But you can take heart. I know quite a lot about The Guardian, and I can tell you it's highly unlikely that anyone reading it turned to that article looking for unbiased facts. UK newspapers are openly partisan and The Guardian is proudly left-leaning, although their investigative journalism is widely considered even by those on the opposite end of the philosophical and political spectrum to be extraordinary.

Which 'interpretation' is it you say wouldn't change, if you care to elaborate? There were a few, and I'm genuinely curious, as well as why you disagree (grammatically) with my interpretation. If it's the latter, that might help me to understand (if my assumption is correct) a difference in language interpretation.

I'm inferring from above you may be in/from the UK; is that correct? If so, having friends who are Brits, that very well may contribute to the difference in interpretation, as we frequently joke about like phrases with vastly different meanings. The first time I heard one reference (in Brit lingo) 'smoking a cigarette', I at first then spit my drink across the table.

-----

Ok. Have a nice day everyone.
Hope you're feeling better.
Likewise, and thank you; I am feeling much better now, except for the Pats having won the Super Bowl last night.

 

[Tekate]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I have been following this thread while out and there are some things that I will add.

Since it has been mentioned that the first amendment does not apply to this situation. It most certainly does because it directly influences freedom of expression. Please read on that here on the US Embassy site explaining it to foreigners.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2013/04/20130416145829.html

As far as Berkeley and its students (or any college) protesting is one thing but devolving into a riot that caused the event to be cancelled is unacceptable. Especially at the university where protesting with free speech began. If you don't like the message, by all means protest, but if your goal is to shut an opposing view down, I will fight you tooth and nail.

This and other protests that end up with speakers not being heard will only harm their message in the end. I am sure that thousands of people who had never heard of Milo before are well aware of him now. His main focus besides being a provocateur is the inequality of free speech on college campuses. He is thrilled at all the coverage he has gotten and it will sell many more copies of his new book than would have previously. Some forward thinking and the end game might be appropriate by liberal students. And professors too by the looks of the NYU professor meltdown shouting F bombs at NYPD at the recent riot. Google it because I will not link to it here.

I heard Milo's phone interview as the riot was happening and he indicated that the university had demanded $6500 from the Berkeley College Republicans in the last week before the event for extra security. A donor stepped up at the last minute to pay it.

Recent blog post from Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams indicating he will be withdrawing his generous support of Berkeley as an alum.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156778990841/berkeley-and-hitler


Statement from Berkeley College Republicans:

The Free Speech Movement is dead. Last night, the Berkeley College Republicans’ constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos' tour. Their success is a defeat for civilized society and the free exchange of ideas on college campuses across America. We would like to thank UCPD and the university administration for doing all they could to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.

https://www.berkeleycollegerepublicans.com/copy-of-who-we-are


Interesting perspective from Dave Rubin formerly on Young Turks:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-i-left-left

From what I read about Rubin, he's a 'liberal' not a progressive, not a democrat. In some ways he's libertarian and in others he's definately democratic. He does not like political correctness, he believes in free speech. He believes in free markets, anathema to democrats, but he believes in separation of church and state and the freedom to practice one's religion. He's interesting. He's a comedian. A married gay guy. Former jew.

Scott Adams has every right to give to whom he wants or what he wants. I personally have no stand on him and stopped reading him when I found out he's so conservative (my right).. but I would defend his, as I assume he would defend mine.

The students should have picketed and stood their ground, in doing what they did, they just ensure right wingers will say that colleges are being taught left ideas. There should have been no violence. Milo Y should have been able to speak his thoughts, that is what America stands for. Every one of the protesters had a right to voice their opinion, but when we stop opinion it is wrong. For me, things that Trump says "Media is not reporting terrorist activity" is unAmerican, as our president he has a duty to be truthful, what he tweeted was his opinion based on I'm not sure what. An American leader is strong, intelligent, and thoughtful, like a Jefferson. As much as I didn't like his policy, Reagan was a strong leader and came across that way. A patriot believes in American ideals.

Youth is allowed it's folly, but youth needs to be fair and uphold our values.

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I have been following this thread while out and there are some things that I will add.

Since it has been mentioned that the first amendment does not apply to this situation. It most certainly does because it directly influences freedom of expression. Please read on that here on the US Embassy site explaining it to foreigners.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2013/04/20130416145829.html

As far as Berkeley and its students (or any college) protesting is one thing but devolving into a riot that caused the event to be cancelled is unacceptable. Especially at the university where protesting with free speech began. If you don't like the message, by all means protest, but if your goal is to shut an opposing view down, I will fight you tooth and nail.

This and other protests that end up with speakers not being heard will only harm their message in the end. I am sure that thousands of people who had never heard of Milo before are well aware of him now. His main focus besides being a provocateur is the inequality of free speech on college campuses. He is thrilled at all the coverage he has gotten and it will sell many more copies of his new book than would have previously. Some forward thinking and the end game might be appropriate by liberal students. And professors too by the looks of the NYU professor meltdown shouting F bombs at NYPD at the recent riot. Google it because I will not link to it here.

I heard Milo's phone interview as the riot was happening and he indicated that the university had demanded $6500 from the Berkeley College Republicans in the last week before the event for extra security. A donor stepped up at the last minute to pay it.

Recent blog post from Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams indicating he will be withdrawing his generous support of Berkeley as an alum.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156778990841/berkeley-and-hitler


Statement from Berkeley College Republicans:

The Free Speech Movement is dead. Last night, the Berkeley College Republicans’ constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos' tour. Their success is a defeat for civilized society and the free exchange of ideas on college campuses across America. We would like to thank UCPD and the university administration for doing all they could to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.

https://www.berkeleycollegerepublicans.com/copy-of-who-we-are


Interesting perspective from Dave Rubin formerly on Young Turks:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-i-left-left

From what I read about Rubin, he's a 'liberal' not a progressive, not a democrat. In some ways he's libertarian and in others he's definately democratic. He does not like political correctness, he believes in free speech. He believes in free markets, anathema to democrats, but he believes in separation of church and state and the freedom to practice one's religion. He's interesting. He's a comedian. A married gay guy. Former jew.

Scott Adams has every right to give to whom he wants or what he wants. I personally have no stand on him and stopped reading him when I found out he's so conservative (my right).. but I would defend his, as I assume he would defend mine.

The students should have picketed and stood their ground, in doing what they did, they just ensure right wingers will say that colleges are being taught left ideas. There should have been no violence. Milo Y should have been able to speak his thoughts, that is what America stands for. Every one of the protesters had a right to voice their opinion, but when we stop opinion it is wrong. For me, things that Trump says "Media is not reporting terrorist activity" is unAmerican, as our president he has a duty to be truthful, what he tweeted was his opinion based on I'm not sure what. An American leader is strong, intelligent, and thoughtful, like a Jefferson. As much as I didn't like his policy, Reagan was a strong leader and came across that way. A patriot believes in American ideals.

Youth is allowed it's folly, but youth needs to be fair and uphold our values.

Nicely done Kate. I can respect all of that. Thank you for polite discourse.

ETA - I don't know much about Rubin but the video struck me as applicable to this thread. I will have to research a bit more on him.

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Interesting

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Written BY a liberal, ABOUT liberals, FOR liberals, ON HuffPo!

I’m A Liberal, And I Want Milo Yiannopoulos On My Campus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/im-a-liberal-and-i-want-milo-yiannopoulos-on-my-campus_us_5898a3dbe4b061551b3e011c

When Milo is faced with a tantrum from a heckler who disrupts his events, he mercilessly mocks them to no end. However, and this is crucial to my view of Yiannopoulos, when faced with a respectful challenge to his ideas, he’s extremely polite and gives very well thought out answers to genuine questions from liberals.

This is what public discourse between people who disagree is supposed to look like. It’s not supposed to look like the absolute temper tantrum that many regressive leftists throw at his events.

And when they’re not throwing tantrums, these regressives resort to the next most destructive thing, name-calling. You’ve all heard it over the course of the past year. Conservatives are racist, sexist, islamophobic etc. Despite my progressive views and liberal credentials as a youth leader in the Democratic Party, I’ve been called all of these things when I speak freely about political issues. The one thing I have not been called is the utterly hyperbolic “neo-Nazi.”

A Few Questions for Liberals who are Trying to Silence Milo Yiannopoulos Instead of Debating him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-few-questions-for-liberals-who-are-trying-to-silence_us_589ca1cbe4b061551b3e082b

I ask these questions in regards to what took place at a planned Milo Yiannopoulos event at UC Berkeley last week.

What do you think is going to happen if we keep ignoring someone who is simply too big to be ignored?

What do you think is going to happen if we don’t meet him on the intellectual battlefield and make a better argument?

What do you think is going to happen if we try to dismiss him, his army and his arguments with petty insults?

And lastly… how did that work out with President Trump?

Surely, you all remember the answer to the last one.

Take a minute to mull over the first three. Really, stop and just think about those questions on your own for a bit before reading on.

 

[Maria D]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I enjoyed this essay, written by Janis Ian (singer-songwriter) for Huffpost, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-boy-who-calls-trump-daddy_us_5894ab95e4b02bbb1816b998

 

[lovedogs]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I enjoyed this essay, written by Janis Ian (singer-songwriter) for Huffpost, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-boy-who-calls-trump-daddy_us_5894ab95e4b02bbb1816b998

This sums up my feelings perfectly.

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Every cause has followers.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I enjoyed this essay, written by Janis Ian (singer-songwriter) for Huffpost, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-boy-who-calls-trump-daddy_us_5894ab95e4b02bbb1816b998

Interesting alternative perspective, though she reads like a bitter mouthpiece. Notice the difference between the two pieces - she weaves her writing with a multitude of personal attacks including Milo's sexuality (the same things several here say they despise about Milo, ironically), compared to the young college student - Mr. Teitelbaum - who didn't stoop & kept his writings respectful & about the issues. Given the opportunity, I know which one I would rather sit down and have a discussion with.

 

[elizabethess]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

But in ALL things, tolerance IS a two-way street - show it, get it; don't, I'll show you the door. Again, golden rule.

Hey, hi, literally just skimming through posts and not deeply involved in ongoing discussions, just a quick clarification because this is a common misconception: maybe you actually mean 'tit for tat'? The Golden Rule is specifically about acting morally towards others WITHOUT expectation of reciprocity, Treating someone as you would wish to be treated, regardless of actions back! So: show it; maybe get it? And if you don't, still keep showing it.

Hope that clears it up!

Hi! One is a 'rule', the other is a reaction. And we all have different beliefs when it comes to defining 'morality'.

I observe the "golden rule". AND when someone else does not, or repeatedly treats me disrespectfully/unkindly, my "show you the door" means anything from simply 'dismiss you from my circle' to 'reciprocate the treatment you have shown me' ... because yes, I am HUMAN, and my kindness does in fact have limits; I am not perfect, but I am also NOT a doormat.

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/the-golden-rule.html

Of course we have different ideas of morality! That's why I said "acting morally" instead of "acting nicely"

I'm so sorry if I was confusing and you inferred I was challenging the 'rightness' of YOUR behavior, the ways you may or may not apply the golden rule to your life or actions, or what your definition of acting morally was. ONLY clarifying the part when you said tolerance was a two way street for you (that's valid!), and if someone wasn't tolerant you would "show them the door" (also a perfectly valid choice!) and then attributing that stance as "again, golden rule. "

The concept of "Treat me well and I will treat you well" is sometimes incorrectly described as the golden rule, but that behavior model (dependent on other person's behavior) is reciprocal altruism, or tit-for-tat. I thought that might have been happening here, and my word/philosophy/game theory nerd reflexes kicked in. Take it as you will.

I am familiar with the thinkhumanism.com link, thanks for including it! I will spare you more links to further reading on the golden rule because, again, I just wanted to pipe up with a little definition tweak, not intended to be a deep challenge or to sweep you into my heavy nerdery

 

[partgypsy]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

But in ALL things, tolerance IS a two-way street - show it, get it; don't, I'll show you the door. Again, golden rule.

Hey, hi, literally just skimming through posts and not deeply involved in ongoing discussions, just a quick clarification because this is a common misconception: maybe you actually mean 'tit for tat'? The Golden Rule is specifically about acting morally towards others WITHOUT expectation of reciprocity, Treating someone as you would wish to be treated, regardless of actions back! So: show it; maybe get it? And if you don't, still keep showing it.

Hope that clears it up!

Hi! One is a 'rule', the other is a reaction. And we all have different beliefs when it comes to defining 'morality'.

I observe the "golden rule". AND when someone else does not, or repeatedly treats me disrespectfully/unkindly, my "show you the door" means anything from simply 'dismiss you from my circle' to 'reciprocate the treatment you have shown me' ... because yes, I am HUMAN, and my kindness does in fact have limits; I am not perfect, but I am also NOT a doormat.

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/the-golden-rule.html

Of course we have different ideas of morality! That's why I said "acting morally" instead of "acting nicely"

I'm so sorry if I was confusing and you inferred I was challenging the 'rightness' of YOUR behavior, the ways you may or may not apply the golden rule to your life or actions, or what your definition of acting morally was. ONLY clarifying the part when you said tolerance was a two way street for you (that's valid!), and if someone wasn't tolerant you would "show them the door" (also a perfectly valid choice!) and then attributing that stance as "again, golden rule. "

The concept of "Treat me well and I will treat you well" is sometimes incorrectly described as the golden rule, but that behavior model (dependent on other person's behavior) is reciprocal altruism, or tit-for-tat. I thought that might have been happening here, and my word/philosophy/game theory nerd reflexes kicked in. Take it as you will.

I am familiar with the thinkhumanism.com link, thanks for including it! I will spare you more links to further reading on the golden rule because, again, I just wanted to pipe up with a little definition tweak, not intended to be a deep challenge or to sweep you into my heavy nerdery

Yes I have heard the golden rule is treat others as YOU wish to be treated, not the same as "treat me well and I will treat you well." Of course this philosophy doesn't work if there is a high percentage of "defectors" in the population (people who act selfishly). But it is a good philosophy to follow. I would say Politics right now is not following the Golden Rule, but tit for tat. I would say the level of trust between the two groups is extremely low, so each side does not want to initiate altruism because they feel it will not be reciprocal (based on past experience).

 

[lovedogs]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Oh look, more information about this lovely piece of work.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/20/cpac_under_pressure_to_cancel_milo_speech_after_pedophilia_defense.html

And before anyone asks, yes I watched the entire video. And yes he does claim that in the "gay community" relationships between "younger boys" and "older men" are important, and jokes about molestation by catholic priests. So yeah, he's a super great guy.

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Oh look, more information about this lovely piece of work.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/20/cpac_under_pressure_to_cancel_milo_speech_after_pedophilia_defense.html

And before anyone asks, yes I watched the entire video. And yes he does claim that in the "gay community" relationships between "younger boys" and "older men" are important, and jokes about molestation by catholic priests. So yeah, he's a super great guy.

Who said he was a "super great guy"? That is not the point. I think Charles Blow is a jacka$$ but that doesn't mean he does not have a right to speak.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Why isn't he at more colleges?

 

[VRBeauty]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320358-milo-yiannopoulis-disinvited-from-cpac%3Famp?client=safari

Oh, the irony!

ETA: unfortunately I don't seem to be able to cut and paste well from my phone. The conservative group invited Milo Y to speak in some sort of reaction to his terrible treatment at the UC campuses, or due to his diatribes against political correctness, or something. And then he had to spoil it all by coming out in support of sex between men and underage boys....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/18/cpac-invites-milo-yiannopoulos-promising-tough-questions/?client=safari

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320358-milo-yiannopoulis-disinvited-from-cpac%3Famp?client=safari

Oh, the irony!

CPAC is not the place for him.

 

[katharath]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Oh look, more information about this lovely piece of work.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/20/cpac_under_pressure_to_cancel_milo_speech_after_pedophilia_defense.html

And before anyone asks, yes I watched the entire video. And yes he does claim that in the "gay community" relationships between "younger boys" and "older men" are important, and jokes about molestation by catholic priests. So yeah, he's a super great guy.

I was hoping this thread had jumped up bc of this, not right wingers wanting us to "give Milo a chance" again

 

[katharath]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Huh. Seems like the conservatives have jumped the shark on this one. No one wants to defend a right winger who is into pedophilia? Are you guys SURE?

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Huh. Seems like the conservatives have jumped the shark on this one. No one wants to defend a right winger who is into pedophilia? Are you guys SURE?

You suck at fishing.

 

[Calliecake]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Katharath,

Crickets....

 

[katharath]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Katharath,

Crickets....

Callie, do you think we've FINALLY found it?!?

The low that even the right won't sink to???

 

[redwood66]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

It is impossible to explain freedom of speech to both of you.

 

[katharath]

Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

It is impossible to explain freedom of speech to both of you.

Yes, liberals are well known to lack understanding of this.