No, they weren't "just trolls"

[Thumper]

[vendic]

Lol.

I love YouTube. Lathe, mill, automotive etc videos that are brilliant.
A real wealth of knowledge made easy for people to share. I rarely look up other stuff but there are news channels there with as much viewers as many mainstream outlets. Obviously user discretion is advised.

[SciFi Chick]

Milo's response to BuzzFeed article: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s5EO7EJeQy8

[Rommie]

Back on topic - Milo not a white supremacist or alt right. He disavows them AGAIN!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyA21lDlQ9M

So maybe I missed it because I skipped some stuff... but why the hell is it that if someone says "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not a Nazi, but..." and then says racist shit, you're supposed to believe the stuff before the "but" when their true feelings are what comes after? Like he literally says "I agree with them on immigration, political correctness, and the race stuff I hate... but they are right about some things!"

Like, Donald Trump claims he's a genius, but just because he says it doesn't make it true.

As for the second video you posted, frankly I'm not in the mood for the crassness in his style and shitty attempts at humor after more than a minute or two, sorry. Seems like a pretty terrible human being even if you truly think he's not racist IMO.

Edit: oh wait, this is the guy who said 13 year old boys can have perfectly consensual relationships with adult men, right? Why are you defending that creep?!

[squ1d]

Milo is a terrible human being that takes great pleasure in saying horrible and hurtful things, because he views discourse as a matter of "He who giveth least fucks wins".

I am incredibly sad he is bringing his retarded circus to Australia. The pundits that represent the poor, stupid, racist and erstwhile homophobic have already begun their applause. They can't wait to start offending people, even at the behest of someone who appears to defend paedophilia.

Oh wait, he later backed away from it, the way he did about his Nazi mates, so he's fine, case closed.

When Mark Latham is cited as publicly vouching for you, you are garbage.

[Cyborg Girl]

Rommie: yep, he's on record as defending pederasty, because dancing for actual Seig Heil-ing Nazis is not shitty enough. The former is what got him fired from Breitbart for being a liability.

squ1d: some of the folks who love him are the same who accuse gay and trans people of all being pedos. Welcome to the far right, where ethics and consistency are dump stats.

Everyone: sorry for popping in and out of political discussions here like a mad pinko prairie dog. I have limited energy for rebutting bullshit right now. Not giving up hope yet, but fucked if I'm not getting exasperated.

(Rommie - you can see my Facebook page, you probably have a good idea where I'm at and why. Likewise code monkey, if you're following this.)

[vendic]

Back on topic - Milo not a white supremacist or alt right. He disavows them AGAIN!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyA21lDlQ9M

So maybe I missed it because I skipped some stuff... but why the hell is it that if someone says "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not a Nazi, but..." and then says racist shit, you're supposed to believe the stuff before the "but" when their true feelings are what comes after? Like he literally says "I agree with them on immigration, political correctness, and the race stuff I hate... but they are right about some things!"

I'm confused. Are you saying that if you hate white supremisist, that there is nothing that you can agree with them on at all. E.g. they might say, respect and love your parents, or don't beat your wife.
I have noticed that for many people the idea that they have something in common with a person they hate or even a group they hate, makes them feel somehow tainted. I just don't understand it at all.
Milo is married to a black man. Yet because he agrees with something another group says makes him a member of said group, such as immigration policy.
Iirc white supremisist support capitalism into the USA. Is everyone that supports capitalism now by default a white supremisist?

Btw, that 13 year old pedophile thing is badly paraphrased. Even though I still don't agree with him on what he actually said, he has clarified it. Furthermore, he has outted three different pedophiles who are now in custody. That seems to be something most people don't hear of as it doesn't fit the narrative of a white supremisist pedophile so rarely makes news, particularly news services that oppose his views. Typically its attack the person not the argument. So anything good is ignored

Do I like Milo, not particularly. I just don't see him as the face of Nazi propaganda like some do. Same as Ben Shapiro. I don't particularly like his style or many of his positions. I also don't consider him a Nazi like many do. I find the idea of either of these two being put in the same basket as Nazi's rather ridiculous. Do they have some things in common with Nazi's? Well, yes. Just like we all do. It doesn't mean we agree with their core principles or the hate. If anything in common with Nazi's makes one a Nazi, then we are all Nazi's and anyone can be labeled one. Which is what I am seeing is happening.

[SciFi Chick]

I like Milo. I find him funny. It's okay with me if people don't find him funny. It's not okay with me to be branded as evil for liking him.

[Rommie]

Did I say you were evil? No. A bit disappointed, for sure, but that's a different topic.

I don't have time to get into this in detail, but no, I don't think "Nazis are humans too because they're capable of love and passionate" is acceptable here and is a bit of a cop out. No one is disputing that, and history is littered with brutal cases of people who, say, brutally exploited women but loved their wife and daughters. And it's pretty damn clear you can be racist against other people even if those people are not black, like racist against Hispanics or Arabs.

[squ1d]

"Yeah but what about the good things Hitler did"

[vendic]

I've found him funny at times but overall he likes to insult people. Mind you sometimes they need insulting. He also loves to throw in the sex with black men line too much for my liking. It was funny at first but gets pretty old fast. I can also see how some can see the argument that he has sex and is married to a gay guy as irrelevant. Like I can say I am married and have sex with my wife means I can't be a misogynist. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Though him being a white supremisist while being married to a black man is one hell of a stretch. The core belief is contradictory and their is no propagation of the species element involved. Bla bla bla.

While I'm at it, I find Ben Shapiro as entertaining and funny as burning used toilet paper on someone's doorstep then ringing the doorbell. Still don't think the guy is a Nazi though.

[vendic]

"Yeah but what about the good things Hitler did"

But apart from all those things, what did the Romans ever do for us?

[vendic]

I don't have time to get into this in detail, but no, I don't think "Nazis are humans too because they're capable of love and passionate" is acceptable here and is a bit of a cop out.

See, I think refusing to see flawed concepts and addressing them is the cop out.
You pointed out immigration as a "but" factor. Does that mean if I have a similar view on immigration that I become a nazi?

The problem is far more complex than most people are willing to accept. People have fears, rational and irrational. Personally I'm in the education camp as opposed to the censorship camp or the extreme violence if you disagree with me camp.

Back after 911 I opposed the labelling of people terrorists because once labelled, all their rights were stripped. That was the extraordinary rendition days. I did not agree that Muslims can be called terrorists and have all their rights waived. Including citizenship and what came with that.
Today we are doing the same thing by calling people Nazi's. Once labeled their rights will be targeted. Punch a Nazi. Dox a Nazi. Harrass a Nazi. All these things have been done to completely innocent people because they were accidentally labeled as a Nazi. I completely disagree with this latest trend for the exact same reasons I disagreed with the labelling of terrorists after 911. The only difference that I see is that this time it is the left doing the labelling so a lot of people are fine with it.

I guess the "we have to break a few eggs to make an awesome omelette", reasoning can be made palitable if its your side breaking the eggs.

That is what I am seeing as a trend lately in the world. I'm not saying anyone here is that way but if things keep going that way, you guys might have to decide if it really is ok to break a few of those eggs. Lets hope it never gets to that point.

[SciFi Chick]

Did I say you were evil? No. A bit disappointed, for sure, but that's a different topic.

You're disappointed that I find him entertaining? Why?

[Rommie]

Did I say you were evil? No. A bit disappointed, for sure, but that's a different topic.

You're disappointed that I find him entertaining? Why?

Because I am always disappointed when people I love show some acceptance of bigotry. Or, in this case, defend and support a man who defended pedos, publicly singles out and mocks a vulnerable trans student for laughs, compares a black woman to an ape, and too many other things I don't see how one can overlook from a moral standpoint.

Zee, I am very busy with work and do not have time to list all the inconsistencies you've had in this thread. (For example, there is nothing about Nazis saying they have to have children- pretty sure Hitler was a Nazi just fine without having kids, for one- and most of your arguments about them smack of the No True Scotsman fallacy.) Maybe later.

[vendic]

Did I say you were evil? No. A bit disappointed, for sure, but that's a different topic.

You're disappointed that I find him entertaining? Why?

Because I am always disappointed when people I love show some acceptance of bigotry. Or, in this case, defend and support a man who defended pedos, publicly singles out and mocks a vulnerable trans student for laughs,

I dug into that trans story as well as the pedo story. Both are taken out of context. The pedo story in particular. While I could go full depth into it much like I did with the dnc committing crimes and election fraud, I fear it will result in the same sort of reception. The admission that yes I am correct but it doesn't matter anyway. Its a lot of effort on my behalf only to get that as a result.

Re the trans person. That was not Milo outting a trans and mocking. It was a case of a trans making their position public by forcing an issue. At which point, its public domain and all sorts of assholes can use it.
Does it make it horrible? Probably. Just like the severed head of trump was horrible. It was however not a case of a vulnerable person being exposed. They exposed themselves in the public eye. That means people can publically comment, even if it is in bad taste.

compares a black woman to an ape, and too many other things I don't see how one can overlook from a moral standpoint.

Zee, I am very busy with work and do not have time to list all the inconsistencies you've had in this thread. (For example, there is nothing about Nazis saying they have to have children- pretty sure Hitler was a Nazi just fine without having kids, for one- and most of your arguments about them smack of the No True Scotsman fallacy.) Maybe later.

Pretty sure you have misread/ misinterpreted my post. Certainly from what I read of your reply seems to suggest it.

My point is simple. If we define one class of person as less than human, then we can simply call anyone we like that label and by default strip them of any humanity.
The Nazi's did that to the Jews. Extraordinary rendition did it to Muslims. Some of the right is doing it to Mexicans etc. My family has been victim to this mentality so I can see it coming a mile away. It stinks.

All of it is wrong on a fundamental level. Misslabling people as "today's" evil group is no different. Sure Nazi's are bad and evil. That doesn't mean calling someone a Nazi means they are evil or even a Nazi. That's just today's scapegoat.

I offer an example. If your family members are conservative, then by many current opinions they are Nazi's. As Nazi's, they should be stripped of their rights. Assets owned should be taken back because they were acquired via Nazi principles. They need to be punched, ridiculed, doxed, lose their jobs, imprisoned etc.

I do not agree but this is the path we are heading down. It is wrong. It is evil. It is fundamentally flawed. I completely oppose it. Making any one group evil simply allows for labeling anyone as part of that group to get rid of them. That is exactly what the real Nazi's did. I can't believe anyone is supporting this shit but its gaining momentum and support in the left.

GJ wants to stop people from exercising free speech. The red pill movie for example. I have seen it. Anyone that wants it banned is an agenda driven pos. Anyone that wants it banned and hasn't seen it is brainwashed. Yes GJ, I mean you as well. How can you so completely hate something while claiming willfull ignorance by not watching it is beyond me.

In any case. No I will never accept someone as evil based on another persons opinion that they are part of evil group X. Call them on what they have actually done, not on what someone alleges them to be. To me it is the adult version of we are the cool kids, they are the losers.

[Cyborg Girl]

vendic:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Also for the tactic you're using in this thread

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

And for the validity of your various points:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_ref ... sand_times

You demand evidence that X is bullshit, other people post evidence; and then you or SFC deny said evidence in torrents of unreadable verbose text, or based on statements BY THE PERSON WHO IS BEING CALLED OUT AS A BULLSHITTER.

If this were a debate about astrology or mediums or something, you would both immediately recognize it as garbage. That you can't right now, because a few political cliches are involved, is frankly kind of horrifying to me.

You: "Uri Geller is awesome and the real deal."

Us: "Actually he's a fraud."

You: "Bullshit, we demand evidence that Uri Geller is a fraud!"

Us: "Yeah he's a fraud, see <evidence of his fraudulence>."

You: "That's is not evidence because <incredibly long tirade of already rebutted points>.
Also you: "He's not a fraud, look at <video of Uri Geller himself expounding about how he is not a fraud>."

Us: "... You're shitting us right?"

[Rommie]

...Both are taken out of context. The pedo story in particular...

Yeah, no. I read what he said, the context is disturbing and disgusting, to the point where even friggin' Breitbart dropped him like a hot potato. This is not defensible, and I cannot continue this conversation because there's nothing further to say.

I'm out.

[vendic]

...Both are taken out of context. The pedo story in particular...

Yeah, no. I read what he said, the context is disturbing and disgusting, to the point where even friggin' Breitbart dropped him like a hot potato. This is not defensible, and I cannot continue this conversation because there's nothing further to say.

I'm out.

As I stated, I don't agree with him on what he said, what I disagree with him on is what was claimed he said. Pedophelia is the desire to have sex with pre-pubescent humans. He has never approved of it and even in the videos where all this stuff originally came from he made it very clear and distinct. That part however is always ignored.
As is the part where he agrees with the age of consent stating that it is about right. I disagree with that too by my account it is too low. What he was talking about was the variation in sexual maturity. If anyone thinks the entire planet of humans reach sexual maturity at exactly the same legislated age as the country they are in, they are delusional. There will be a normal distribution curve where some mature earlier and others later. Accepting this is not a problem scientifically. Its a human conditioning problem that refuses to acknowledge it. E.g., by acknowledging it, most presume that it implies the age of consent should be lowered to the lowest age of sexual maturity. One could argue that it should be the oldest age instead. Personally I think some people never reach enough maturity.

This is a statistical vs emotional debate.
You're free to bow out but that is the core of his point. He believes that he and some reached sexual maturity before the legal age of consent. If anyone has a problem with this then they have a problem with statistics. I understand that its one he'll of a complicated topic but pretending it isn't real is just willful ignorance.

People making this into him supporting Pedophelia are deliberately obscuring what was said and why.

Still, as I wrote, I don't agree with him, but I do. understand what he was trying to say as opposed to what people wish to claim he said.

[vendic]

vendic:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Also for the tactic you're using in this thread

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

And for the validity of your various points:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_ref ... sand_times

You demand evidence that X is bullshit, other people post evidence; and then you or SFC deny said evidence in torrents of unreadable verbose text, or based on statements BY THE PERSON WHO IS BEING CALLED OUT AS A BULLSHITTER.

If this were a debate about astrology or mediums or something, you would both immediately recognize it as garbage. That you can't right now, because a few political cliches are involved, is frankly kind of horrifying to me.

You: "Uri Geller is awesome and the real deal."

Us: "Actually he's a fraud."

You: "Bullshit, we demand evidence that Uri Geller is a fraud!"

Us: "Yeah he's a fraud, see <evidence of his fraudulence>."

You: "That's is not evidence because <incredibly long tirade of already rebutted points>.
Also you: "He's not a fraud, look at <video of Uri Geller himself expounding about how he is not a fraud>."

Us: "... You're shitting us right?"

Really GJ?

Then let me ask a few questions.
Do you still believe all hetro sex is rape as women are so oppressed that they can't legitimately give consent?
Do you still support the banning of the film " the red pill" even though you haven't actually seen it.
Do you still believe that men's movements are all evil and cannot be legitimate while supporting that no one actually hear their views as it might corrupt them?

I can go on but I think you see my point. You claiming I am using logical fallacies when you flat out refused to look at anything that doesn't support your own pov is pretty ironic. The basis of logic is to look at all views and see how they hold up to scrutiny. You fail to even cross that threshold. If you did I might take your positions more seriously. As it is however, your accusations are pretty laughable given the circumstances.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm hoping you might look at your position and start from scratch, completely logically.

Oh, every one of your arguments you accuse me of apply to you. Particularly the mediums and astrologers. They too refuse to look at facts lest it corrupt them...

[Cyborg Girl]

Do you still believe all get to sex is rape as women are so oppressed that they can't legitimately give consent?

Nope, that's bullshit from the anti trans/anti sex worker feminist contingent (and I'm sorry I ever fell for it). There are factions within feminist thinking and some of them are themselves unusually full of bigots.

Edit: also feminist thought has changed a lot since the 80s, as formerly less vocal minorities got more involved. A lot of really legit writing from the 70s and 80s reads as slightly bigoted to modern audiences. (See: Joanna Russ, who I'm a fan of nonetheless.)

Do you still support the banning of the film " the red pill" even though you haven't actually seen it.

No, and I never did; don't put words into my mouth. Debunking and arguing publicly against bullshit is not banning, it's very much the precious free speech you claim to defend. Also, "I refuse to watch obvious propaganda" is in no way congruent to "obvious propaganda should be banned".

Do you still believe that men's movements are all evil and cannot be legitimate while supporting that no one actually hear their views as it might corrupt them?

No, I just believe that MOST men's movements are based on fucked up premises and full of fucked up people. They don't have to be, but in order to not be, they have to come to grips with how men are enlisted and coerced into oppressive bullshit.

Happy now? See, my beliefs can change over time, that just doesn't include fawning over transparently awful bullshit artists like Milo Y.

BTW isn't it amazing how my Uri Geller analogy still applies, re: viewing the movie?

You: You have to see this movie, it proves Uri Geller is for real!
Us: No thanks, we've already conclusively proven he's a fake, and also a skilled con artist who sways skeptical audiences routinely.
You: HA, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM HE'S FAKE IF YOU NEVER SEE THE MOVIE!
Us: ... you're still shitting us right?

[SciFi Chick]

So is this Uri guy claiming he's not an astrologer? If not, it isn't a fair comparison.

For the record, more than one retraction has been made about Milo. Why? Because they are lies and libel is still illegal.

[Cyborg Girl]

So is this Uri guy claiming he's not an astrologer? If not, it isn't a fair comparison.

Of course he claims he's not an astrology, he's a psychic!

But come on, this is a vacuous argument. Milo Y might as well be the guy who loudly proclaims he isn't a medium, but conducts full-blown seances with candles and ectoplasm and all the works. Look at the content, not the terms used to describe it.

[SciFi Chick]

FYI - I'm the Milo fan. I wouldn't call it fawning and he's not perfect but I like his stance on free speech. Vendic checked him out and ended up finding him annoying. He just doesn't stand by when someone is being misrepresented. Hate Milo for what he actually stands for not for what people say he stands for. So, no, vendic is not fawning over him. Neither am I. I'm just sick of being told I can't like someone because someone thinks he's a Nazi.

I also like Ben Shapiro - another Jew who gets called a Nazi white supremacist. Oddly enough, he doesn't like Milo.

We really need to take the rhetoric down a notch.

[vendic]

So is this Uri guy claiming he's not an astrologer? If not, it isn't a fair comparison.

Of course he claims he's not an astrology, he's a psychic!

But come on, this is a vacuous argument. Milo Y might as well be the guy who loudly proclaims he isn't a medium, but conducts full-blown seances with candles and ectoplasm and all the works. Look at the content, not the terms used to describe it.

Hmmm, since you refuse to look at the red pill movie because it is "obvious propaganda", I have to ask, how much of his stuff have you actually read/watched.

Btw, I'm glad you have changed your positions. Really. I was very worried about you there for a while.

My mistake about you wanting to ban the screenings. For some reason I remembered you supporting the people that got the film banned. I'll recheck my facts.

My point is still valid. You call the film even now obvious propaganda. Have you actually seen it?