Gay nazi pedophile...

[Nightshade]

I'm amazed that Milo Yiannopoulos hasn't been mentioned here yet, but this "alt-righter" has been outed as a pedophile (or at least sympathetic to pedophilia.)



Milo Yiannopoulos, "Trump supporter," isn't anyone I would think was a 'conservative' by any stretch.

Was Yiannopoulos being "serious" or just being a troll as he has labelled himself to be?

[Vander]

I watched/listened to that Rogan interview a few months ago, and came away thinking that he's basically just a troll saying outrageous things because it has turned out to be a lucrative niche. He would take a small kernel of truth and extrapolate and deform it into whats supposed to be some wide ranging damnation of how horrible every liberal is on every topic. He got sheepish when pressed on topics that veered beneath the facade.

So my guess is the pedo stuff was just part of the schtick.

[Tunnelcat]

I believe he was mentioned here in another thread about those lefty Berkley riots. Vander is right. This guy says things just to get people riled up, you and Berkely students included. No wonder the students rioted and didn't want this jackass spewing a load of hate filled drivel to an auditorium full of people. He's nothing but a agent provocateur and the stuff he says may be free speech, but it's clearly meant to piss certain people off.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-y ... index.html

[Vander]

A note on Berkley, the local news had quite a bit of coverage of it as it happened and I watched a couple hours worth of coverage. (I'm in the Bay Area) One station had a reporter following around a group of 10 or so people who looked like they came to make trouble, dressed in homemade riot gear, and said they were the ones stirring the pot, shooting the fireworks and such. They also interviewed a lot of students and others attending the protest, and just about everyone basically said the same thing, they though the property damage was stupid, that the guy should've been allowed to give his talk, and that they were there to show their disagreement with his message not stop him. For the most part, the coverage showed what looked like a festival atmosphere rather than some violent gathering.

The national coverage that focused on a loop of video of the fireworks and the portable flood light burning gave a very different impression from what I saw. To be sure, there were people there making trouble, but I would hardly call it a riot.

[sigma]

With great regret, I can say that often Russian fifteen year old girls can be worse than any Nazis, and etc......
They simply unmanageable.

[Ferno]

I watched/listened to that Rogan interview a few months ago, and came away thinking that he's basically just a troll saying outrageous things because it has turned out to be a lucrative niche. He would take a small kernel of truth and extrapolate and deform it into whats supposed to be some wide ranging damnation of how horrible every liberal is on every topic. He got sheepish when pressed on topics that veered beneath the facade.

So my guess is the pedo stuff was just part of the schtick.

Absolutely. After reading an article on his playbook (it was made by the same guy who did Tucker Max), his behaviour made a lot more sense. And I had a good laugh at it - he even got Joe Rogan riled up.

[Tunnelcat]

A note on Berkley, the local news had quite a bit of coverage of it as it happened and I watched a couple hours worth of coverage. (I'm in the Bay Area) One station had a reporter following around a group of 10 or so people who looked like they came to make trouble, dressed in homemade riot gear, and said they were the ones stirring the pot, shooting the fireworks and such. They also interviewed a lot of students and others attending the protest, and just about everyone basically said the same thing, they though the property damage was stupid, that the guy should've been allowed to give his talk, and that they were there to show their disagreement with his message not stop him. For the most part, the coverage showed what looked like a festival atmosphere rather than some violent gathering.

The national coverage that focused on a loop of video of the fireworks and the portable flood light burning gave a very different impression from what I saw. To be sure, there were people there making trouble, but I would hardly call it a riot.

Well, a lot of that part of the coverage was missed or ignored by the national media, so the rest of the country got a very stilted view of the goings on in Berkley. Portland has it's share of anarchists that like to go out and cause destruction during most of these Trump protests just for the hell of it and the right wing media, and sadly many in the mainstream media as well, always like to conflate these morons with the rest of the more peaceful protestors. Of course, the original message usually gets lost in the resulting mess. However, in response to your comment, when is it free speech or when is it provocation? Where should we draw the line or should we even have a line to draw in the first place?

[Vander]

However, in response to your comment, when is it free speech or when is it provocation? Where should we draw the line or should we even have a line to draw in the first place?

It's probably like porn, you know it when you see it. I work at the issue from both ends. I try not to be offended by every damned little thing, and I try not to give too much offense, because in between those two points is where dialog takes place. Provocative speech has a place in trying to keep those points well separated.

In this case, my opinion is that Milo uses provocative speech as a tactic to mask the gaps of logic in the narratives he proclaims, which aren't wholly without merit. He generates the outrage he can then point to to say he's won the argument. It's a lot like what Ferno and I have been talking about in that other thread. You just have to either ignore it or not be outraged enough to focus on something that might have legitimacy.

[Ferno]

when is it free speech or when is it provocation? Where should we draw the line or should we even have a line to draw in the first place?

The line should be (and has been drawn) at when it starts causing harm to people, or is likely and reasonably believed to cause harm.

[Tunnelcat]

What if using speech to cause harm or has bad intent towards people outside your "tribe", and everyone belongs to some sort of tribe Ferno, is considered part of their everyday norm?

[Krom]

There is no free speech protection on inciting violence.

[Ferno]

Precisely, Krom. You can't just go to an airport, yell out 'TERRORIST ATTACK!' and expect protection.

[Vander]

There is no free speech protection on inciting violence.

This isn't entirely correct. Basically, you can tour around the country saying people should riot, but you can't say it in front of a mob poised to go out and do it. The word "imminent" is key at that link. The court overturned the conviction of a KKK leader advocating terrorism.

[sigma]

If Russia not was a police state, Russians and Muslims would have shot each other a long time ago.

[callmeslick]

If Russia not was a police state, Russians and Muslims would have shot each other a long time ago.

was this what you meant to say?? If so, yet another reason to not envy your existence.

[sigma]

If Russia not was a police state, Russians and Muslims would have shot each other a long time ago.

was this what you meant to say?? If so, yet another reason to not envy your existence.

Well, I'll say it again. Americans think that America a symbol of freedom.
Of course some freedom you have. But compared to Russian freedom, American freedom, it's a mouse in a cage.

[callmeslick]

nah, I'll take our version any day. And, that is based partially upon your positive picture of your homeland.

[Spidey]

Russia’s idea of freedom is…you can get away with anything if you bribe the right people.

[Grendel]

Russia’s idea of freedom is…you can get away with anything if you bribe the right people.

I thought that was a more universal truth...

[Spidey]

Yea, but Russia has made it into an art form.

[Tunnelcat]

There is no free speech protection on inciting violence.

This isn't entirely correct. Basically, you can tour around the country saying people should riot, but you can't say it in front of a mob poised to go out and do it. The word "imminent" is key at that link. The court overturned the conviction of a KKK leader advocating terrorism.

What if a political wing of a government or an opposition party sanctions such speech because it helps rally their base to their cause and they're not above fomenting violence to get to their goal?

http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/ ... and-kenya/

There's that fuzzy line between hate speech and dangerous speech that some politicians or activists just love to move, or ignore completely. How do you know it when you see it when that fuzzy line keeps shifting? Trump himself is already having to go out as president and belatedly (like he didn't really want to be there saying this) scold people to quit with the anti-Semitic violence, long after he skirted the line into dangerous speech area when he rallied his Alt-Right base with anti-Semitic rhetoric in order to get elected.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2863474

This week as well.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 017/02/17/

Oh, and there's a boatload of negative fallout for Mr. Yiannopoulos. It seems what he claims was "victim speech" can't be stretched into "dangerous speech" without some bad repercussions.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/m ... index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/media/m ... index.html

[Spidey]

The thing about Trump is...it's really hard to figure out where the hell he stands on any subject.

[Tunnelcat]

That's called being "unprincipled".

[Krom]

The thing about Trump is...it's really hard to figure out where the hell he stands on any subject.

No it isn't. You just have to calculate "Whatever position is best for Trump personally at that exact moment." and that is where he stands on the subject. 5 minutes later the answer might be different, but the calculation is still exactly the same.

[sigma]

Russia’s idea of freedom is…you can get away with anything if you bribe the right people.

I thought that was a more universal truth...

Actually, there were several trials on this subject and now these people eat exclusively prison food.

[Vander]

What if a political wing of a government or an opposition party sanctions such speech because it helps rally their base to their cause and they're not above fomenting violence to get to their goal?

Then we need to rise up and stand between them and their goal. That's not something you can pawn off onto the government to say it's not allowed.

[Vander]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ ... -protests/

Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.

SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

You can see where this is going. Don't organize because some knucklehead might do something.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm glad you quoted part of that article because I couldn't get it to display Vander. As to your comment, The First Amendment gives people to right to assemble peacefully, but it also gives State and Federal governments considerable latitude in which to impose restrictions on the "when", "where" and even "if" those assemblies can be allowed to take place. Violence is always a good and proper reason for governments to put restrictions on the right to assemble if that's a viable fear. If lefties want to protest, they'd better police the anarchists and thugs from their midst. They're counterproductive. But making stuff up because your party doesn't like the messenger and that all these people are paid protestors is an outright lie, promulgated by our own thin-skinned, coke head of a president. Sure, lefty groups like MoveOn are in the mix, that's a given, but they are NOT the formal instigators. The tea party had the Koch Brothers, Dick Army and Freedomworks backing them, so they shouldn't complain. Most of these people at these town hall meetings and large street protests are constituents who are genuinely worried and pissed off at what's now happening in our government.

Frankly, Republicans are nothing but unprincipled hypocrites. I saw few efforts to legislatively restrict the tea party's efforts at free assembly when they were protesting Obama in large raucous numbers and verbally attacking Democratic Congress members at their Town Hall meetings back in 2010. The worm has turned and the Republicans don't like it one little bit that the Dems are using their own playbook. This time however, there are far more disaffected lefties than they'll be able to ignore or repress and any efforts to do that will most certainly backfire in their faces. They'd better start worrying because more and more people will assemble to voice their concerns, legislative restrictions on supposed fake protestors or not. They're not going away.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

And to counter all the conservatives here who will inevitably claim that the tea party movement was peaceful, there are numerous examples of tea party instigated violence and intimidation to choose from. Before you tell us to clean our own house, clean up yours.

http://www.patriotmajority.org/news_and ... n-violence

http://ftrradio.com/2012/12/reporter-in ... ed-attack/

[Spidey]

Did you read that entire third link?

[Tunnelcat]

Oops. You're right Spidey. My bad. A violent lefty was at fault in that case. But there are plenty of aggressive tea party incidents that can be easily found, like this one. They apparently didn't want a reporter recording their right wing extremist speaker and got very physical about it.