|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 26, 2018 19:30:28 GMT -5
So how are you still calling Milo a nazi without him espousing any nazi views? He shares thoughts with and collaborates with Nazis to inspire his writing. He socializes with them, and is smiling as they give him a Nazi salute. That sounds a lot like a Nazi. I wouldn't need to wait for someone to start talking and espouse Nazi views if they showed up in uniform, would I? I won't go through all of his writings to find examples to compare to the Nazis, but I'll leave with this - "Yiannopoulos had a penchant for using personal passwords with anti-semitic overtones, such as "Kristall", a reference to Kristallnacht, a pogrom the Nazis initiated against Jews in 1938, and "longknives1290", a compound reference to the Night of the Long Knives (another Nazi massacre)" Why do you defend him?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 26, 2018 19:48:18 GMT -5
Stop collectivizing people. The guilt by association nonsense is exactly what both political extremes do. He obviously has nazis in his audience because he defends their right to speech just like anyone else. That does not mean he agrees with their beliefs.
This bit about passwords is even more nonsensical. It literally is unsurprising that a self-proclaimed "provocateur" would have the most edgelord passwords.
I'm defending him because you fail at critical thinking. If he's a nazi, then how can he also be a gay jew? Given there is evidence that he is both gay and jewish, that would put him being a nazi into question.
Also, you should totally join the discord. Link is in mousey's sig.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 26, 2018 20:23:09 GMT -5
Stop collectivizing people. The guilt by association nonsense is exactly what both political extremes do. He obviously has nazis in his audience because he defends their right to speech just like anyone else. That does not mean he agrees with their beliefs. This bit about passwords is even more nonsensical. It literally is unsurprising that a self-proclaimed "provocateur" would have the most edgelord passwords. I'm defending him because you fail at critical thinking. If he's a nazi, then how can he also be a gay jew? Given there is evidence that he is both gay and jewish, that would put him being a nazi into question. Also, you should totally join the discord. Link is in mousey's sig. Guilt by association? What have I said he's guilty of? He cannot choose his audience, but he can choose his friends. What would it take for you to say he's a Nazi? He is of Jewish descent, but is a practicing Roman Catholic. Given that Adolf was of Jewish descent, and Eva was rumored to be, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to being a Nazi. I'm also fairly certain there were homosexuals that considered themselves Nazis. Why do you keep defending him?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 27, 2018 0:27:57 GMT -5
Guilt by association? What have I said he's guilty of? He cannot choose his audience, but he can choose his friends. What would it take for you to say he's a Nazi? He is of Jewish descent, but is a practicing Roman Catholic. Given that Adolf was of Jewish descent, and Eva was rumored to be, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to being a Nazi. I'm also fairly certain there were homosexuals that considered themselves Nazis. Why do you keep defending him? Guilt of what? -> being a nazi. I already said if he starts spewing nazi beliefs then I'd say he's a nazi. You understand the irony of being a nazi, the group who tried to genocide jews and gays (among others), while also being a gay jew, no? It's nonsensical. I already said why I was defending him in this discussion. Because he clearly isn't a nazi. If you respond with the same question again, don't expect another response.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 27, 2018 2:13:46 GMT -5
Guilt by association? What have I said he's guilty of? He cannot choose his audience, but he can choose his friends. What would it take for you to say he's a Nazi? He is of Jewish descent, but is a practicing Roman Catholic. Given that Adolf was of Jewish descent, and Eva was rumored to be, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to being a Nazi. I'm also fairly certain there were homosexuals that considered themselves Nazis. Why do you keep defending him? Guilt of what? -> being a nazi. I already said if he starts spewing nazi beliefs then I'd say he's a nazi. You understand the irony of being a nazi, the group who tried to genocide jews and gays (among others), while also being a gay jew, no? It's nonsensical. I already said why I was defending him in this discussion. Because he clearly isn't a nazi. If you respond with the same question again, don't expect another response. I understood that it's nonsensical. That's why I brought it up, and characterized him as a sad, confused man. He does not go so far as to actively spew nazi ideals, which of course would be counterproductive to his cause. His job is to operate in a grey area to push their ideas closer to the mainstream. Triumph of the Will doesn't spew Nazi beliefs, does it? Do you believe that it's Nazi propaganda? Was Leni Riefenstahl a Nazi?
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jan 27, 2018 9:18:06 GMT -5
I love watching the Yogscast on Youtube. My favorite channels are Lewis (the main channel), AngoryTom, Sips, and HatFilms.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 27, 2018 12:33:04 GMT -5
I understood that it's nonsensical. That's why I brought it up, and characterized him as a sad, confused man. He does not go so far as to actively spew nazi ideals, which of course would be counterproductive to his cause. His job is to operate in a grey area to push their ideas closer to the mainstream. Triumph of the Will doesn't spew Nazi beliefs, does it? Do you believe that it's Nazi propaganda? Was Leni Riefenstahl a Nazi? If you want to call him a useful idiot, call him that then. Calling him a nazi is inaccurate and does not help your case. And I don't know much about Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph of the Will, but given what I could find in 5 minutes she wasn't declared guilty of being a nazi, so I'd have to side with the trials done at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 17:52:15 GMT -5
Yes, Hawk, I know who Milo is. Thank you for that. I'm guessing someone at some point missed the part where a guy who gets harassed a lot and understands the retarded tactics of a bad sport in action is seeing said tactics being used on someone else. Milo might be using a slippery slope argument to predict what will happen next, but that's his perspective and why wouldn't he expect the worst? There's a chance Jordan Peterson is a perfectly reasonable person who gets dunked on by a group because they just didn't like what he said regardless of how good of an argument it was? That's what Milo's getting at in his analysis.
BETTER YET what if he's wrong? What if things turn out better than expected? Jordan Peterson wins over more hearts and minds of so many people because he, unlike Yiannopoulous, isn't a shitlord? Better yet- what if Dr Peterson knows how to listen to people and dig into their axioms over blaring opinions over another set of opinions? What if he succeeds where Milo fails because he doesn't make a living stirring up people all the time? And in the freak case of good luck what if it influences enough people to fulfill a culture that one day indulges in thoughtful conversation over one-sided rhetoric all day? Wouldn't that be lovely?
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 29, 2018 16:06:42 GMT -5
Yes, Hawk, I know who Milo is. Thank you for that. I'm guessing someone at some point missed the part where a guy who gets harassed a lot and understands the retarded tactics of a bad sport in action is seeing said tactics being used on someone else. Milo might be using a slippery slope argument to predict what will happen next, but that's his perspective and why wouldn't he expect the worst? There's a chance Jordan Peterson is a perfectly reasonable person who gets dunked on by a group because they just didn't like what he said regardless of how good of an argument it was? That's what Milo's getting at in his analysis. BETTER YET what if he's wrong? What if things turn out better than expected? Jordan Peterson wins over more hearts and minds of so many people because he, unlike Yiannopoulous, isn't a shitlord? Better yet- what if Dr Peterson knows how to listen to people and dig into their axioms over blaring opinions over another set of opinions? What if he succeeds where Milo fails because he doesn't make a living stirring up people all the time? And in the freak case of good luck what if it influences enough people to fulfill a culture that one day indulges in thoughtful conversation over one-sided rhetoric all day? Wouldn't that be lovely? So, I just watched his response video. What a wonderful "Free Shkreli" shirt. I now understand why you keep acting like he's some victim, Milo talks about what a victim he is nonstop. His conspiracy theory is fantastic: "They" had Jordan Peterson come on a show to speak his opinions for a half hour, made him look really good and the opposition really bad, then broadcast it to millions of people in an attempt to undermine him. Do you believe what he's saying? By the way, lest anyone have gotten the impression - I'm not against Jordan Peterson. He's absolutely correct in what he's saying on the issue, all of the literature supports it.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 29, 2018 16:19:07 GMT -5
I understood that it's nonsensical. That's why I brought it up, and characterized him as a sad, confused man. He does not go so far as to actively spew nazi ideals, which of course would be counterproductive to his cause. His job is to operate in a grey area to push their ideas closer to the mainstream. Triumph of the Will doesn't spew Nazi beliefs, does it? Do you believe that it's Nazi propaganda? Was Leni Riefenstahl a Nazi? If you want to call him a useful idiot, call him that then. Calling him a nazi is inaccurate and does not help your case. And I don't know much about Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph of the Will, but given what I could find in 5 minutes she wasn't declared guilty of being a nazi, so I'd have to side with the trials done at the time. I don't see how he's useful, can you please explain? She was a Mitläufer, which is people who were not charged with Nazi crimes but whose involvement with the Nazi Party was considered significant to an extent that they could not be exonerated for the crimes of the Nazi regime. She was cleared of war crimes because of plausible deniability to the atrocities they committed. Clearly you insist on using the most technical definition of Nazi, while I am using the colloquial version. Most who are familiar with her would consider her a Nazi, as she collaborated with the Nazi party to create Nazi propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 29, 2018 16:50:05 GMT -5
in this thread Hawk is making a lot of sense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 18:24:17 GMT -5
I now understand why you keep acting like he's some victim, Milo talks about what a victim he is nonstop. I never said that. I said Milo understands the tactics of his opponents, and uses that to predict what could happen next to Jordan Peterson. Second of all nowhere did I say I agree with Milo in those posts. I said he could very well be over-exaggerating. Third if you understand where someone is biased you can trust them more easily. It doesn't matter what your views are, the idea that a university should not challenge ideas is ridiculous. There was a time where even the infamous Time Cube conspiracy nutjob theorist was invited to speak at MIT, why not stupid educated Milo as well?
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jan 30, 2018 10:03:30 GMT -5
Ohhhhhh, Milo Yiannopoulos. To those of you unfamiliar with him, here's a brief overview of his Wikipedia page, which is surprisingly long for someone so unaccomplished: - He is an immigrant from a shithole country we ditched 200+ years ago Well that didn't exactly pay off considering the amount of cities in America with high crime and poverty rates. You migrated to create places like Detroit, Memphis, Camden, Birmingham, St Louis, New Haven and New Orleans when you could have gone to Berlin, Munich, Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Tokyo etc. Portland looks like it's a nice place to live but so does Harry Potter's Hogwarts but that is filmed in locations of the 'dump' you speak of so I'm not sure what your criteria is here. - College dropout with multiple failed attempts Perhaps a degree education isn't for him. In order to secure an offer of study from those two universities he would have to have had a lot of top grades in specific subejcts to have even been offered a place, particularly with Cambridge because they are so oversubscribed that they have an earlier deadline for undergraduate applications (along with Oxford). The competition for places would have been fierce enough with national students let alone with foreign rich kids also applying. - Mysogynist (sample article: "Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy") To be honest there are plenty of better ways to make yourself unattractive though and it's not like people didn't know how to do that considering the obesity levels in America. - Most well known for an incident where he: - Said sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can "happen perfectly consensually" Perhaps he's an advocate of Romeo and Juliet laws? Or just saying it to wind people up? We know how contentious this issue is when you get 16 year old males being criminally charged because they had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend or whatever. Of course you could take the moral high ground and state that people are unable to give consent at 16/18/21 because of how important life decisions are. Then again, this goes out of the window when religion is involved. Plenty of boys get circumcised on non-medical grounds when they're not old enough to get a tattoo with legal impunity.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 30, 2018 11:38:03 GMT -5
I now understand why you keep acting like he's some victim, Milo talks about what a victim he is nonstop. I never said that. I said Milo understands the tactics of his opponents, and uses that to predict what could happen next to Jordan Peterson. Second of all nowhere did I say I agree with Milo in those posts. I said he could very well be over-exaggerating. Third if you understand where someone is biased you can trust them more easily. It doesn't matter what your views are, the idea that a university should not challenge ideas is ridiculous. There was a time where even the infamous Time Cube conspiracy nutjob theorist was invited to speak at MIT, why not stupid educated Milo as well? You're implying the narrative that he's portraying is correct, when it isn't. Neither he nor Jordan Peterson are victims, and they have different opponents, because they are very dissimilar. Jordan Peterson is a PhD with very good credentials. He has held multiple roles of some prestige, and has published in reputable journals that are difficult to get in to without being rigorous and high quality research. In short, he is an expert in the field. In this case, he is making a case that is the consensus belief by experts because it is supported by the research. His opinions are fairly moderate and are opposed only by extremists. Milo Yiannopoulos has no credentials and cannot be considered an expert in anything that I'm aware of. His opinions are extreme and are opposed by most moderates. No one has said that a university should not challenge ideas. Universities should seek out qualified people to do so. Milo is not one of them. Jenny McCarthy shouldn't be invited to speak at a university about vaccines, not just because her beliefs are wrong and have been repeatedly disproved by the scientific community, but also because she's not an expert. If they want to challenge their students' beliefs on vaccination, they should find a qualified expert to do so. The right to free speech is the belief that the government should not be able to suppress opinions, it is not that we should listen to any assh ole with an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 30, 2018 11:48:09 GMT -5
Ohhhhhh, Milo Yiannopoulos. To those of you unfamiliar with him, here's a brief overview of his Wikipedia page, which is surprisingly long for someone so unaccomplished: - He is an immigrant from a shithole country we ditched 200+ years ago Well that didn't exactly pay off considering the amount of cities in America with high crime and poverty rates. You migrated to create places like Detroit, Memphis, Camden, Birmingham, St Louis, New Haven and New Orleans when you could have gone to Berlin, Munich, Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Tokyo etc. Portland looks like it's a nice place to live but so does Harry Potter's Hogwarts but that is filmed in locations of the 'dump' you speak of so I'm not sure what your criteria is here. This was a reference to Trump calling a bunch of countries "shitholes". I'm sure you can guess the common thread between the countries he mentioned. My family couldn't have gone to those places. Berlin, Munich and Vienna were definitely off the list, and the United States was the only country to accept us. - Most well known for an incident where he: - Said sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can "happen perfectly consensually" Perhaps he's an advocate of Romeo and Juliet laws? Or just saying it to wind people up? We know how contentious this issue is when you get 16 year old males being criminally charged because they had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend or whatever. Of course you could take the moral high ground and state that people are unable to give consent at 16/18/21 because of how important life decisions are. Then again, this goes out of the window when religion is involved. Plenty of boys get circumcised on non-medical grounds when they're not old enough to get a tattoo with legal impunity. We all know the difference between a 16 year old boy having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend and a 13 year old boy having sex with an adult man. - College dropout with multiple failed attempts Perhaps a degree education isn't for him. In order to secure an offer of study from those two universities he would have to have had a lot of top grades in specific subejcts to have even been offered a place, particularly with Cambridge because they are so oversubscribed that they have an earlier deadline for undergraduate applications (along with Oxford). The competition for places would have been fierce enough with national students let alone with foreign rich kids also applying. Perhaps a career in the public eye isn't for him either.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 30, 2018 15:51:16 GMT -5
If you want to call him a useful idiot, call him that then. Calling him a nazi is inaccurate and does not help your case. And I don't know much about Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph of the Will, but given what I could find in 5 minutes she wasn't declared guilty of being a nazi, so I'd have to side with the trials done at the time. I don't see how he's useful, can you please explain? She was a Mitläufer, which is people who were not charged with Nazi crimes but whose involvement with the Nazi Party was considered significant to an extent that they could not be exonerated for the crimes of the Nazi regime. She was cleared of war crimes because of plausible deniability to the atrocities they committed. Clearly you insist on using the most technical definition of Nazi, while I am using the colloquial version. Most who are familiar with her would consider her a Nazi, as she collaborated with the Nazi party to create Nazi propaganda. Fu ck off. You know what the phrase "useful idiot" means, and if you didn't you know how to use Google. And again, I don't know about this other person you seem to want me to defend. Now if you have any real points as to why I should denounce Milo as a nazi, let me hear them.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 30, 2018 17:49:15 GMT -5
I don't see how he's useful, can you please explain? She was a Mitläufer, which is people who were not charged with Nazi crimes but whose involvement with the Nazi Party was considered significant to an extent that they could not be exonerated for the crimes of the Nazi regime. She was cleared of war crimes because of plausible deniability to the atrocities they committed. Clearly you insist on using the most technical definition of Nazi, while I am using the colloquial version. Most who are familiar with her would consider her a Nazi, as she collaborated with the Nazi party to create Nazi propaganda. Fu ck off. You know what the phrase "useful idiot" means, and if you didn't you know how to use Google. And again, I don't know about this other person you seem to want me to defend. Now if you have any real points as to why I should denounce Milo as a nazi, let me hear them. I apologize, I was actually not familiar with that phrase, and did not think to look it up because it did not occur to me that it was a phrase - I interpreted you meant it literally. I was not asking you to defend Leni Riefenstahl. My point is that she is considered a Nazi because she collaborated with the Nazi party to create Nazi propaganda, and so it seems safe to consider Milo a Nazi as well. I understand your unwillingness to denounce Milo as a Nazi, given your very literal interpretation of the word. But it doesn't seem like you are willing to denounce him at all. Are you?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 30, 2018 19:06:00 GMT -5
If you give me a good reason to. Most of what I know about him is that he got popular by being an internet political troll, which is why he got banned on Twitter. I don't see where being a troll makes you a "deplorable" as some would call him.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 31, 2018 16:21:02 GMT -5
He is a troll, a useful idiot for the Nazi party, a hypocrite, and a con artist. He actively promotes hate. We've established all of this, and it seems like you're still willing to excuse his actions as merely trolling. For me, that's more than enough to denounce him. Clearly you have a radically different viewpoint regarding morality.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 31, 2018 19:05:46 GMT -5
As I said you might be able to argue the useful idiot, but that still doesn't translate into nazi. I doubt he's been hypocritical about his main point, promoting free speech. Maybe you have him on some minor thing there. And promoting hate is subjective to what you're calling hate.
And yes, as far as I know anything you'll bring up is literally him trolling. For example the twitter thing which you posted earlier. I'm sure you view it as a racist/sexist attack against her. Anyone else looking at it would see it as standard trolling.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Feb 1, 2018 12:50:03 GMT -5
I'm not seeing any real evidence that his "main point" is freedom of speech. I haven't seen him describe himself as a free speech advocate, his charity work doesn't involve free speech, the content of his website doesn't address freedom of speech. I'm also not sure how not being a hypocrite on one issue is relevant when he's hypocritical on other issues.
How do you personally distinguish between trolling and simply attacking someone?
How does him trolling make what he did to Leslie Jones excusable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 3:11:33 GMT -5
You're implying the narrative that he's portraying is correct, when it isn't. Neither he nor Jordan Peterson are victims, and they have different opponents, because they are very dissimilar. Jordan Peterson is a PhD with very good credentials. He has held multiple roles of some prestige, and has published in reputable journals that are difficult to get in to without being rigorous and high quality research. In short, he is an expert in the field. In this case, he is making a case that is the consensus belief by experts because it is supported by the research. His opinions are fairly moderate and are opposed only by extremists. Milo Yiannopoulos has no credentials and cannot be considered an expert in anything that I'm aware of. His opinions are extreme and are opposed by most moderates. No one has said that a university should not challenge ideas. Universities should seek out qualified people to do so. Milo is not one of them. Jenny McCarthy shouldn't be invited to speak at a university about vaccines, not just because her beliefs are wrong and have been repeatedly disproved by the scientific community, but also because she's not an expert. If they want to challenge their students' beliefs on vaccination, they should find a qualified expert to do so. The right to free speech is the belief that the government should not be able to suppress opinions, it is not that we should listen to any assh ole with an opinion. Alright, I see your point. You must masturbate to iw5000 more.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Feb 2, 2018 7:51:32 GMT -5
I'm not seeing any real evidence that his "main point" is freedom of speech. I haven't seen him describe himself as a free speech advocate, his charity work doesn't involve free speech, the content of his website doesn't address freedom of speech. I'm also not sure how not being a hypocrite on one issue is relevant when he's hypocritical on other issues. How do you personally distinguish between trolling and simply attacking someone? How does him trolling make what he did to Leslie Jones excusable? I'm not going to find multiple videos but he clearly stated such in his interview with Bill Mahar. Go earlier in that video also. You see him baiting the crowd with a line about women followed by him admitting to the audience that he's joking. That's literally his entire shtick. You can say it's no different than an honest attack, but it is.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Feb 5, 2018 16:26:22 GMT -5
I'm not seeing any real evidence that his "main point" is freedom of speech. I haven't seen him describe himself as a free speech advocate, his charity work doesn't involve free speech, the content of his website doesn't address freedom of speech. I'm also not sure how not being a hypocrite on one issue is relevant when he's hypocritical on other issues. How do you personally distinguish between trolling and simply attacking someone? How does him trolling make what he did to Leslie Jones excusable? I'm not going to find multiple videos but he clearly stated such in his interview with Bill Mahar. Go earlier in that video also. You see him baiting the crowd with a line about women followed by him admitting to the audience that he's joking. That's literally his entire shtick. You can say it's no different than an honest attack, but it is. Why does it matter? If he's just trolling, why does that make his actions acceptable, given that it doesn't change their impact?
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Feb 5, 2018 16:27:14 GMT -5
Alright, I see your point. You must masturbate to iw5000 more. I have no idea what this means.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Feb 6, 2018 8:36:05 GMT -5
me neither but it's funny
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 5:45:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 4:37:10 GMT -5
Wow.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on May 25, 2018 2:45:37 GMT -5
TotalBiscuit passed away yesterday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 18:16:50 GMT -5
|
|