I think most political pundits are basically sociopaths who have no real core personality. Their only motivation in life is to attain power. George Orwell called these people "power worshipers."
If you recall Arianna Huffington used to be a crazy conservative, but turned into a flaming liberal when she realized there was more money in it. Andrew Brietbart used to be a liberal who worked for Huffington, but became a conservative when he realized it would bring him more prestige than being a Huffington underling. The change is easy and natural because there was never any real ideology in the first place.
People like Gavin make up and adhere to these silly orthodox rules like "no wanks" to compensate for their lack of any real conviction.
Just to add some examples: Ann Coulter is a politically moderate transperson, Rachel Maddow is a deer hunter and an excellent dick sucker, Rush Limbaugh is a confetti-throwing queer, Bernie Sanders killed MLK.
People from outside of the US trying way too hard to fit in to the American Conservative mould, whilst adding a little bit of a weird flair onto it to attract younger people/hipsters.
Does Gavin really expect anyone to believe he "found Christ" as a middle aged man? Milo's the same with pretending to be a Christian as well. They both stick out like sore thumbs
I find it hilarious how all their followers -- these so-called dangerous, freethinking intellectuals -- will rally around people like Milo or Gavin and digest all of their rhetoric without an ounce of scepticism, just because it opposes the equivalent ideological rhetoric from the other side.
Why is common sense such a taboo thing? Why can't the majority of people exercise an ounce of scrutiny instead of going for a pre-packaged set of beliefs? People who buy into what these guys are saying seem to think that by subscribing to alt-right rhetoric they're somehow negating alt-left rhetoric when, meanwhile, they're forfeiting their autonomy in favour of stalwart dedication to what one guy is saying and convincing themselves that he's infallible.
I think most political pundits are basically sociopaths who have no real core personality. Their only real motivation in life is to attain power. George Orwell called these people "power worshipers."
If you recall Arianna Huffington used to be a crazy conservative, but then switched to become a flaming liberal. Andrew Brietbart used to be a liberal who worked with Huffington, but turned into a conservative when he realized he could attain more prestige not being a Huffington underling.
After the 1930's many prominent Trotskyists and Leninists became neo-cons when it became obvious there would be no peoples revolution that they could exploit so they simple changed team.
Gavin (etc.) makes up these silly orthodox rules like "no wanks" to compensate for the total lack of any real conviction.
Gavin I find largely insufferable. I listen to Milo's podcast, and while his shtick is probably contrived, he at least pulls it off engagingly and entertainingly.
Actually home dog deserves the up votes for this but should've made it clear it's an article Milo wrote in 2012 that basically contradicts the sham character he currently portrays in 2016. Nice one.
He's like Trump. Making a fortune off the back of easily manipulated fearful European-americans. It's a great and growing market. Alex Jones has been tapping it for a while.
He's like Trump. Making a fortune off the back of easily manipulated fearful European-americans. It's a great and growing market.
This is an odd thing to say about a candidate that has raised less money than every other major candidate and is running on a tight budget, unless you're saying that the businesses he owns run ad campaigns in the key "easily manipulated fearful European-American" market.
It's equally odd to accuse him of accruing a fortune off of the "fearful European-American" audience given that his campaign message has been mostly positive and optimistic (you might have heard his campaign slogan). I'm starting to think you just aren't a big fan of the guy.
Dude loaned the funds to his campaign which is now paying that money back with interest. He is literally pocketing every dime he raises while using his campaign to promote his book and all those shitty failed ventures we keep hearing about. So yeah, the comparison is accurate.
100% or any percentage of that sum can be paid to Trump based companies. If he were to receive $50 million in certain donations between now and November (he will) then all of that could go to any Trump company, independent company or company with a relation with him. In addition, the campaign has already been paying Trump companies. It's really misleading to pretend like he just tossed $50 million into a campaign and that he can't make money back.
What? You can't just funnel it back into your own businesses. You can use it to pay off campaign debts, but he has no debts. You can return it to contributors or donate it to charity (most likely outcome). You can also stash it for future campaign funds or to the party campaign funds. Conversion to personal use is a crime.
I love that you have to make up bullshit that I never said to argue with me because you don't have a leg to stand on. How about quoting the part where I said that money could be funneled or where I suggested that it be illegally transferred. It doesn't exist. You made it up.
Trump companies and associates can be paid for travel, equipment, commercial real estate, food, intellectual property, and more. The campaign is giving one in every six dollars spent to Trump employees.
Unlike you, I actually have campaign finance experience. Go away.
To say that Trump can recoup the loss (or even a decent chunk of it) if the money spent on campaign expenditures doesn't go back into the campaign at all, and if he spends nothing until November, is to be argumentative. The time and effort wouldn't be worth it in the slightest for the amount he would collect, it doesn't match past behavior, and there's no reason to think things will change in the future. You would only assume this position if you were trying to win an argument. Since we're talking about reality, not hypothetical "coulds", my post was not misleading.
I did misread your initial response. Since you got in your over-dramatic mic-drop-moment response, we can call it Even Stevens.
I'd dispute his campaign being mostly positive and optimistic. It's based in large part on fear and anger. Here's some stuff I found in 30 seconds, there's plenty more out there.
It's impossible to debate whether or not something had a positive vibe since it depends on the person who hears it. His plans for immigration and jobs reform make me optimistic for the future. The lesbians in the blogs you linked obviously feel differently.
In any case, it seems unfair to accuse Trump of fear-mongering because his campaign goals align with "easily manipulated fearful European-Americans."
it's an article Milo wrote in 2012 that basically contradicts the sham character he currently portrays in 2016
I don't like Milo, but why does his opinion on freedom of speech changing over 4 years make him a fraud? My political opinions and beliefs have changed significantly even in the last 3 months. I'm sure you've identified a pattern of behavior that could indict him as only playing a character and not holding any concrete values, but please feel free to share it with the rest of the class.
I don't think his opinions have actually changed at all. I think he a has always had a different view on freedom of speech depending on whose speech it is.
Of course, this is all speculation, but censoring your political opponents, while crying out for "muh freedoms" when your own speech is at stake is just something people tend to do.
he admitted in an interview yesterday he still stands by that article. He also implied that he was just having fun with the goofing on the black broad, then said he is totally for free speech then said ban all Muslims, then said something else stupid.
My personal opinion of Milo is that he's an opportunistic phony. At the very least to be as strident in his gross opinions now as he is if you believe he came to change his mind organically shows a startling lack of self awareness or empathy. I have no problem with someone who just doesn't agree with me and I dont entirely agree with his opinions in the 2012 article- but the way he makes them are a fabrication that play on a media condition that contributes to an overall problem (a problem he describes in the article.)
It's human to change your mind but Milo needs to start acting like a human before he's allowed that benefit.
I dunno man, you could provide that sort of vague psychoanalysis about anyone to discredit them. Can't you just attack his ideas as they are or else just call him a Jew fag and be done with it?
If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. - Milo, 2012
I've been pretty mean through the years on twitter, but I don't think that's a reason to excise someone from the platform. - Milo, 2016
He's a white drama queen who is obsessed with getting fucked in the ass by an unending line of black men, there's no way in hell he doesn't have the exact same racial self-loathing that SJWs have.
It really does make him look terrible, but his banning on Twitter is bullshit anyway. Twitter justified it by saying he encourages his fans to attack the black ghostbuster, but he never tweeted anything close to that. Meanwhile, the black ghostbuster literally told her fans to "get her!" while arguing with a critic. Milo is full of shit in a lot of ways, but in this instance Twitter really are being cunts.
Anyway twitter has no obligation to protect free speech and milo has a history of using twitter to be antagonistic and shitty. Why would twitter be inclined to protect him? I also dont agree that he did nothing to direct his fans at her, it's the same as jocktober, it's just implied. Charlie Manson never killed anyone brew brah.
Do you think you're in a court of law? Nobody's discussing what the government makes twitter to do in this situation. I think twitter should be inclined to protect Milo, or anyone posting on their board, out of moral obligation.
Twitter and other forms of social media are now among the most prominent forms of political and social activism in the world. Entire political revolutions have been organized on their platform. Like it or not, they can no longer claim to be like a bathroom stall where random people scribble.
Imagine if Bell telephone had said that you couldn't use their telephone lines to campaign for Nixon in 1972. Or if office supply stores had refused to sell poster boards to protesters during Vietnam. The course of history would have been changed because communication giants privileged one group over another.
I'll give a serious reply this time. You said twitter should be inclined to protect anyone posting on twitter, so what happens when two users come into conflict like this case? Jones is protected from harassment legally and morally so if we're going to compel twitter to model themselves on civil liberties or morality they're obligated to protect her.
More interesting though Milo is a libertarian and twitter is a business. Milo would agree that the business should feel free to operate as it sees fit within the law, and the law should be as unobstructive as possible. Milo is a shit, he knows exactly what he can do to incite people up to the point that he doesn't lose his protection. Riling up students then hiding behind security, for example. But he fucked up, Leslie Jones means more to twitter than Milo, not protecting Leslie Jones is worse for twitter than not protecting Milo, and despite what Milo has conned his readership into believing the shit Jones is catching is totally inexplicable to the majority of people. Milo was too dumb to keep himself out of a situation he couldn't win and he absolutely knows if he cant get back on twitter in the next month his career is largely fucked.
I just meant freedom of expression. Milo was clearly trying to harass and troll Leslie and no, Twitter doesn't have the obligation to protect Milo for that.
Though they are being a bunch of hypocrites, given how often Leslie Jones called for people to harass critics.
The left vs right thing is hypocritical on social media but thats the problem with treating something like twitter as a utility which it isn't. It's run by people with a point of view.
Social media is integral to modern communication. If you allow the media owners to dictate what can and cannot be said on their platform, you deprive the people of their political voice.
Just because the owners have a point of view doesn't give them the right to use their power to suppress other's point of view.
I'm not saying he isn't shitty to people, but who cares? Is Twitter saying it's not okay to have a following and disagree with people? Comedians are teeing off on Trump & his entire family, but the semi-famous journalist gets booted? Come on, it's silly. They aren't applying their extremely vague terms of service equally. They can do whatever they like because hey are a privately owned business, but it's the same logic Christian bakers use to deny service to gay people. It just gives idiotic SJWS the confirmation that they can get people kicked off a platform of they say something they don't like. I can't imagine why anyone would support the decision of Twitter. It makes no sense.
Yeah if people were bugging the famous people on my site and scaring them away, I'd ban them instantly. How oppressive! Kind of like that "oppressive" real life where you don't tolerate people shouting "kike" and "nigger", or 2nd level trolls who say "stop playing the victim" after a coordinated attack.
Right, so Milo is responsible for what his users write to celebrities? Is Patton Oswalt responsible for one of his followers threatning to kill Trump? Is Amy Schumer responsible for any terrible thing one of her followers might say to to a republican politician? Come the fuck on. It's called a block button, this isn't rocket science. Do you really want a precedent set of controversial voices being silenced on social media? It makes no sense whatsoever.
73 comments
51 DianaKurlan10 2016-07-21
Why are all these alt-right fags like Gavin and Milo such obvious phonies?
28 turk_febuary 2016-07-21
I think most political pundits are basically sociopaths who have no real core personality. Their only motivation in life is to attain power. George Orwell called these people "power worshipers."
If you recall Arianna Huffington used to be a crazy conservative, but turned into a flaming liberal when she realized there was more money in it. Andrew Brietbart used to be a liberal who worked for Huffington, but became a conservative when he realized it would bring him more prestige than being a Huffington underling. The change is easy and natural because there was never any real ideology in the first place.
People like Gavin make up and adhere to these silly orthodox rules like "no wanks" to compensate for their lack of any real conviction.
3 Anarox 2016-07-21
Fucking this, its all about selling shit books, the more polarizing the more books sell
2 georgie_best 2016-07-21
well la dee da. looks like some ones read a book. pretty good summary though.
-1 [deleted] 2016-07-21
Just to add some examples: Ann Coulter is a politically moderate transperson, Rachel Maddow is a deer hunter and an excellent dick sucker, Rush Limbaugh is a confetti-throwing queer, Bernie Sanders killed MLK.
14 DoctorPainMD 2016-07-21
Cause they realized how much money was in it.
If you had little to no morals and had the opportunity to fleece a rich Egyptian Halberd Champion, wouldn't you?
13 Dre3K 2016-07-21
People from outside of the US trying way too hard to fit in to the American Conservative mould, whilst adding a little bit of a weird flair onto it to attract younger people/hipsters.
Does Gavin really expect anyone to believe he "found Christ" as a middle aged man? Milo's the same with pretending to be a Christian as well. They both stick out like sore thumbs
11 DeryDerpette 2016-07-21
I find it hilarious how all their followers -- these so-called dangerous, freethinking intellectuals -- will rally around people like Milo or Gavin and digest all of their rhetoric without an ounce of scepticism, just because it opposes the equivalent ideological rhetoric from the other side.
Why is common sense such a taboo thing? Why can't the majority of people exercise an ounce of scrutiny instead of going for a pre-packaged set of beliefs? People who buy into what these guys are saying seem to think that by subscribing to alt-right rhetoric they're somehow negating alt-left rhetoric when, meanwhile, they're forfeiting their autonomy in favour of stalwart dedication to what one guy is saying and convincing themselves that he's infallible.
5 chippersonlyle 2016-07-21
Politics is all scripted reality TV at this point. They know there is a lot of money to be made off the people that still think it's real.
3 ManiacalChrisBenoit 2016-07-21
Every blogger or news channel personality is a phony. O'reilly, Olbermann, Beck. It's an easy way to make a shit ton of money.
1 poopstainmcgoo 2016-07-21
Because they crave attention and want to feel important.
1 turk_febuary 2016-07-21
I think most political pundits are basically sociopaths who have no real core personality. Their only real motivation in life is to attain power. George Orwell called these people "power worshipers."
If you recall Arianna Huffington used to be a crazy conservative, but then switched to become a flaming liberal. Andrew Brietbart used to be a liberal who worked with Huffington, but turned into a conservative when he realized he could attain more prestige not being a Huffington underling.
After the 1930's many prominent Trotskyists and Leninists became neo-cons when it became obvious there would be no peoples revolution that they could exploit so they simple changed team.
Gavin (etc.) makes up these silly orthodox rules like "no wanks" to compensate for the total lack of any real conviction.
1 jfral 2016-07-21
Gavin I find largely insufferable. I listen to Milo's podcast, and while his shtick is probably contrived, he at least pulls it off engagingly and entertainingly.
1 jimmybrite 2016-07-21
'Cause there's money in it.
27 aprosbro 2016-07-21
Actually home dog deserves the up votes for this but should've made it clear it's an article Milo wrote in 2012 that basically contradicts the sham character he currently portrays in 2016. Nice one.
9 bouras 2016-07-21
He's like Trump. Making a fortune off the back of easily manipulated fearful European-americans. It's a great and growing market. Alex Jones has been tapping it for a while.
Edit: ITT, easily triggered European-americans.
3 aprosbro 2016-07-21
Milo fans are some downvoting bitches. did you google this or was it reposted somewhere?
2 BigDummyIsSexy 2016-07-21
Click "other discussions" at the top of the page. This was all over Reddit yesterday.
3 aprosbro 2016-07-21
Oh ok I only look at this sub and gwhairy
1 stinkskc 2016-07-21
Everything here gets down voted like crazy as soon as it's posted
1 pabbenoy 2016-07-21
So you mean like most people on earth?
1 3stepsbackward 2016-07-21
Turns out manipulating idiots is quite easy to do.
0 AngeloMacon 2016-07-21
TBF, i agree with your underlying point, but you still sound like a cunt.
0 bouras 2016-07-21
Hard to disagree with my simple observation.
-2 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
This is an odd thing to say about a candidate that has raised less money than every other major candidate and is running on a tight budget, unless you're saying that the businesses he owns run ad campaigns in the key "easily manipulated fearful European-American" market.
It's equally odd to accuse him of accruing a fortune off of the "fearful European-American" audience given that his campaign message has been mostly positive and optimistic (you might have heard his campaign slogan). I'm starting to think you just aren't a big fan of the guy.
3 a200ftmonster 2016-07-21
Dude loaned the funds to his campaign which is now paying that money back with interest. He is literally pocketing every dime he raises while using his campaign to promote his book and all those shitty failed ventures we keep hearing about. So yeah, the comparison is accurate.
8 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
He is not paying himself back with interest, he forgave the loans (took the loss). I respect the diligence you put into researching this.
Are you referring to the dozen or so discontinued businesses out of the hundreds?
3 apalehorse 2016-07-21
100% or any percentage of that sum can be paid to Trump based companies. If he were to receive $50 million in certain donations between now and November (he will) then all of that could go to any Trump company, independent company or company with a relation with him. In addition, the campaign has already been paying Trump companies. It's really misleading to pretend like he just tossed $50 million into a campaign and that he can't make money back.
0 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
What? You can't just funnel it back into your own businesses. You can use it to pay off campaign debts, but he has no debts. You can return it to contributors or donate it to charity (most likely outcome). You can also stash it for future campaign funds or to the party campaign funds. Conversion to personal use is a crime.
2 apalehorse 2016-07-21
I love that you have to make up bullshit that I never said to argue with me because you don't have a leg to stand on. How about quoting the part where I said that money could be funneled or where I suggested that it be illegally transferred. It doesn't exist. You made it up.
Trump companies and associates can be paid for travel, equipment, commercial real estate, food, intellectual property, and more. The campaign is giving one in every six dollars spent to Trump employees.
Unlike you, I actually have campaign finance experience. Go away.
1 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
To say that Trump can recoup the loss (or even a decent chunk of it) if the money spent on campaign expenditures doesn't go back into the campaign at all, and if he spends nothing until November, is to be argumentative. The time and effort wouldn't be worth it in the slightest for the amount he would collect, it doesn't match past behavior, and there's no reason to think things will change in the future. You would only assume this position if you were trying to win an argument. Since we're talking about reality, not hypothetical "coulds", my post was not misleading.
I did misread your initial response. Since you got in your over-dramatic mic-drop-moment response, we can call it Even Stevens.
1 bouras 2016-07-21
Ooof, you are so naive. Not really your fault as you are mostly a product of your envirnment.
0 drexler57346 2016-07-21
I'd dispute his campaign being mostly positive and optimistic. It's based in large part on fear and anger. Here's some stuff I found in 30 seconds, there's plenty more out there.
http://theweek.com/articles/636712/gops-unbridled-convention-fearmongering
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12244218/newt-gingrich-republican-national-convention-speech-text
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/13/trump_s_so_called_anti_terrorism_speech_was_terrifying.html
6 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
It's impossible to debate whether or not something had a positive vibe since it depends on the person who hears it. His plans for immigration and jobs reform make me optimistic for the future. The lesbians in the blogs you linked obviously feel differently.
In any case, it seems unfair to accuse Trump of fear-mongering because his campaign goals align with "easily manipulated fearful European-Americans."
3 drexler57346 2016-07-21
I do agree that positive/negative can be in the eye/ear of the recipient. In mine, it sure sounds like fear-mongering and scapegoating.
There are two things I like that I've heard from Trump: Trying to get companies to move jobs back into the country and opposition to the TPP.
0 safka13 2016-07-21
Great sources if you are leaning democrat.
8 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
I don't like Milo, but why does his opinion on freedom of speech changing over 4 years make him a fraud? My political opinions and beliefs have changed significantly even in the last 3 months. I'm sure you've identified a pattern of behavior that could indict him as only playing a character and not holding any concrete values, but please feel free to share it with the rest of the class.
7 ExplosionsHurt 2016-07-21
I don't think his opinions have actually changed at all. I think he a has always had a different view on freedom of speech depending on whose speech it is.
Of course, this is all speculation, but censoring your political opponents, while crying out for "muh freedoms" when your own speech is at stake is just something people tend to do.
7 FootThingOnHisFoot 2016-07-21
he admitted in an interview yesterday he still stands by that article. He also implied that he was just having fun with the goofing on the black broad, then said he is totally for free speech then said ban all Muslims, then said something else stupid.
5 aprosbro 2016-07-21
My personal opinion of Milo is that he's an opportunistic phony. At the very least to be as strident in his gross opinions now as he is if you believe he came to change his mind organically shows a startling lack of self awareness or empathy. I have no problem with someone who just doesn't agree with me and I dont entirely agree with his opinions in the 2012 article- but the way he makes them are a fabrication that play on a media condition that contributes to an overall problem (a problem he describes in the article.)
It's human to change your mind but Milo needs to start acting like a human before he's allowed that benefit.
0 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
I dunno man, you could provide that sort of vague psychoanalysis about anyone to discredit them. Can't you just attack his ideas as they are or else just call him a Jew fag and be done with it?
10 aprosbro 2016-07-21
I'm not his parole officer, I have an opinion on him being a shit bag on a website.
1 Shit_Eater_69 2016-07-21
I have an opinion of you being a cutie patootie. Some opinions are just plain unfounded.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-21
[deleted]
13 Individually_Placed 2016-07-21
If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. - Milo, 2012
I've been pretty mean through the years on twitter, but I don't think that's a reason to excise someone from the platform. - Milo, 2016
11 ihaveaholeinmyass 2016-07-21
I had no idea he was full of shit and playing a character.. You'll be telling me he's gay next
4 Individually_Placed 2016-07-21
I never felt for his, nor Gavin's act, but unfortunately many, many people do.
1 Anarox 2016-07-21
I bet both Gavin and Milo cringe at their own fans in secret.
1 TriangleDimes 2016-07-21
He's a white drama queen who is obsessed with getting fucked in the ass by an unending line of black men, there's no way in hell he doesn't have the exact same racial self-loathing that SJWs have.
11 [deleted] 2016-07-21
I heard this dude literally fucks and sucks guys. He is not to be taken seriously.
5 FrunkisOA 2016-07-21
worst thing you can call a man, fezzie
1 iamcolinquim 2016-07-21
Rude and rude
1 Abyss_Squid 2016-07-21
Yeah, more like Milo is a peckah less. Tss tss
9 cakehornnigga 2016-07-21
It really does make him look terrible, but his banning on Twitter is bullshit anyway. Twitter justified it by saying he encourages his fans to attack the black ghostbuster, but he never tweeted anything close to that. Meanwhile, the black ghostbuster literally told her fans to "get her!" while arguing with a critic. Milo is full of shit in a lot of ways, but in this instance Twitter really are being cunts.
-8 aprosbro 2016-07-21
"arguing with a critic" ha ha.
Anyway twitter has no obligation to protect free speech and milo has a history of using twitter to be antagonistic and shitty. Why would twitter be inclined to protect him? I also dont agree that he did nothing to direct his fans at her, it's the same as jocktober, it's just implied. Charlie Manson never killed anyone brew brah.
5 JesusLesnar 2016-07-21
Do you think you're in a court of law? Nobody's discussing what the government makes twitter to do in this situation. I think twitter should be inclined to protect Milo, or anyone posting on their board, out of moral obligation.
Twitter and other forms of social media are now among the most prominent forms of political and social activism in the world. Entire political revolutions have been organized on their platform. Like it or not, they can no longer claim to be like a bathroom stall where random people scribble.
Imagine if Bell telephone had said that you couldn't use their telephone lines to campaign for Nixon in 1972. Or if office supply stores had refused to sell poster boards to protesters during Vietnam. The course of history would have been changed because communication giants privileged one group over another.
-3 aprosbro 2016-07-21
Oh lord you really drank the fucking koolaid, huh? Namaste bro.
3 JesusLesnar 2016-07-21
Better than the AIDS piss you drank
1 aprosbro 2016-07-21
I'll give a serious reply this time. You said twitter should be inclined to protect anyone posting on twitter, so what happens when two users come into conflict like this case? Jones is protected from harassment legally and morally so if we're going to compel twitter to model themselves on civil liberties or morality they're obligated to protect her.
More interesting though Milo is a libertarian and twitter is a business. Milo would agree that the business should feel free to operate as it sees fit within the law, and the law should be as unobstructive as possible. Milo is a shit, he knows exactly what he can do to incite people up to the point that he doesn't lose his protection. Riling up students then hiding behind security, for example. But he fucked up, Leslie Jones means more to twitter than Milo, not protecting Leslie Jones is worse for twitter than not protecting Milo, and despite what Milo has conned his readership into believing the shit Jones is catching is totally inexplicable to the majority of people. Milo was too dumb to keep himself out of a situation he couldn't win and he absolutely knows if he cant get back on twitter in the next month his career is largely fucked.
1 JesusLesnar 2016-07-21
I just meant freedom of expression. Milo was clearly trying to harass and troll Leslie and no, Twitter doesn't have the obligation to protect Milo for that.
Though they are being a bunch of hypocrites, given how often Leslie Jones called for people to harass critics.
1 aprosbro 2016-07-21
The left vs right thing is hypocritical on social media but thats the problem with treating something like twitter as a utility which it isn't. It's run by people with a point of view.
1 JesusLesnar 2016-07-21
Social media is integral to modern communication. If you allow the media owners to dictate what can and cannot be said on their platform, you deprive the people of their political voice.
Just because the owners have a point of view doesn't give them the right to use their power to suppress other's point of view.
0 BLM_TERROR_CELL 2016-07-21
Got assficked again huh? Teehee
4 cakehornnigga 2016-07-21
I'm not saying he isn't shitty to people, but who cares? Is Twitter saying it's not okay to have a following and disagree with people? Comedians are teeing off on Trump & his entire family, but the semi-famous journalist gets booted? Come on, it's silly. They aren't applying their extremely vague terms of service equally. They can do whatever they like because hey are a privately owned business, but it's the same logic Christian bakers use to deny service to gay people. It just gives idiotic SJWS the confirmation that they can get people kicked off a platform of they say something they don't like. I can't imagine why anyone would support the decision of Twitter. It makes no sense.
-4 LacanZizekFreud 2016-07-21
Yeah if people were bugging the famous people on my site and scaring them away, I'd ban them instantly. How oppressive! Kind of like that "oppressive" real life where you don't tolerate people shouting "kike" and "nigger", or 2nd level trolls who say "stop playing the victim" after a coordinated attack.
1 cakehornnigga 2016-07-21
Right, so Milo is responsible for what his users write to celebrities? Is Patton Oswalt responsible for one of his followers threatning to kill Trump? Is Amy Schumer responsible for any terrible thing one of her followers might say to to a republican politician? Come the fuck on. It's called a block button, this isn't rocket science. Do you really want a precedent set of controversial voices being silenced on social media? It makes no sense whatsoever.
4 mr__hat 2016-07-21
This is not very surprising. The same vapid asshole also shit on "gamers" and gamer culture before jumping on the gamergate bandwagon.
4 RSC-Tuff 2016-07-21
BASED FAGGOT! #FREEMILO
1 aprosbro 2016-07-21
informative and direct
1 [deleted] 2016-07-21
[deleted]
1 Dennyislife 2016-07-21
America has more rubes than UK. That's why Milo doesn't have a career here
1 [deleted] 2016-07-21
[deleted]
0 [deleted] 2016-07-21
[deleted]
1 WhatTooReal 2016-07-21
I'm gonna kill you
-1 Lilcumia 2016-07-21
Can't he change his mind?
3 PassProtect15 2016-07-21
He can but he should explain it a bit. Totally sidestepped it on CNBC.
-2 aprosbro 2016-07-21
Oh I sent this to gawker I hope they blow it way up. Down vote me.
3 PassProtect15 2016-07-21
He can but he should explain it a bit. Totally sidestepped it on CNBC.
10 aprosbro 2016-07-21
I'm not his parole officer, I have an opinion on him being a shit bag on a website.
0 bouras 2016-07-21
Hard to disagree with my simple observation.