Yeah that was odd!
They'd probably worried he'd annihilate her!
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
They'd probably worried he'd annihilate her!
Haha! He's going bald. That might explain a lot of his inner rage.
I like listening to him. He talks an awful lot of bollox but he's articulate and interesting. It's just a shame you so rarely see someone who is as bright and articulate as him but has different views really take him on in a debate. I listened to him on the Joe Rogan podcats and you could drive a fecking bus through some of his arguments and if that could happen in public on a regular basis I think he would lose a lot of his appeal. Mind you, one of the many joys of life in the digital age is that people spend so much time repeatedly arguing about the same old shit online that they end up utterly entrenched and beyond the possibility of learning that they might be wrong about certain things.
Yep, Ive seen him do that to a couple of lightweight leftwingers. As Pogue said, would be really good to see him matched up against someone who could take him on.
I reckon he'd lose his shite completely and start saying increasingly outrageous shit to try and get a rise out of them. Would be very entertaining.
There's a clip from that Nicky Campbell show The Big Questions in which Milo is talking about the gender imbalances having flipped in the past ten years. Though you may disagree with some of the points he makes his style of pissing everyone off makes for magnetic viewing. At one point he gets interrupted and replies 'we're talking about men, darling' and everyone loses their minds. I don't agree with everything he says but the dude's got style.
I find Milo quite inauthentic. I get the idea of being a provocateur but it loses a lot of it's effectiveness when it's so obvious. In particular his being a "Christian" is transparently a facade. Saw him on Rogan claiming that exercise was pointless if you're morbidly obese 
He's a good debater, haven't seen him get flustered very often at all which is impressive.
He's a good debater, haven't seen him get flustered very often at all which is impressive.
I find Milo quite inauthentic. I get the idea of being a provocateur but it loses a lot of it's effectiveness when it's so obvious. In particular his being a "Christian" is transparently a facade. Saw him on Rogan claiming that exercise was pointless if you're morbidly obese
He's a good debater, haven't seen him get flustered very often at all which is impressive.
I don't think he is inauthentic. He is a 'provocateur' because he needs attention to breathe, positive or negative. That is his modus operandi and he is quite brilliant at it.
Indeed - any thoughts of an entertaining potential matchup?
Remove "a necessary" from that last sentence and I'd agree with you.
Trump has been co-opted by the PC cabal as soon as he got office. Sad!
They couldn't have found a more special snowflake if they tried.
Yeah, the current climate has liberals and left-leaning folk being at least listening to him.
I watched the whole show. That was my first sighting of Milo and I very much enjoyed the show. He is entertaining, and he raised good points while pissing of some incessant and whiny feminists.
Agreed. Kate Smurthwaite plays right into his hands. Calls herself a comedian but acts like a humourless muppet.
Last edited:
Pupils taught Disney fairy tales promote sexism and domestic violence in online lesson plan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-fairy-tales-promote-sexism-and-domestic-vio/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-fairy-tales-promote-sexism-and-domestic-vio/
Bit misleading given that there's no actual proof/claims that pupils were taught this. Fair enough its been downloaded 5000+ times but that could have been out of curiosity, the name alone is intriguing.
There used to be a syndicated opinion columnist who every time a Disney movie came out she would go off on some rant about how awful they were in terms of how women were treated/portrayed. She was quite upset at the Lion King for showing the female lions doing all the hunting for the males.
To be fair, it's not known what exactly have they advised. Cancellation seems to be mostly because of security, or so they say. The name does sound alarm thou..."This is DoE-CED! Spread, you scum!"
It's not that unbelievable really. If he wasn't British he'd likely be banned from entering the country.
He is trying pretty hard to be American, I could see him immigrating there.
Geert Wilders got in didn't he? He's white, pretty sure he'd get in.
He's a politician from an allied nation though, so you would always imagine the standards are lowered for that.
Milo is infamous enough to be banned like Michael Savage is
It's also a school as well not a university where there should be some differences applied i.e. let's not have well known cnuts speak at schools.
School was overwhelmingly in favour of him speaking. Staff and students alike.
This is one of the reasons why whenever I try and hire a grad they are always shit little cry-babys with no spine.
What the feck?
Yes. Brooke Baldwin crying on air after Charles Kaiser used the "n-word" while providing a direct quote and cutting the segment short was simply ridiculous.
Did he call someone that on air? No... He quoted someone who did. Gasp!
https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel....he-n-word-on-air-1789283390/amp?client=safari
Did he call someone that on air? No... He quoted someone who did. Gasp!
https://www.google.com/amp/jezebel....he-n-word-on-air-1789283390/amp?client=safari
It would be dispiriting enough if students felt the need for this, but for the universities themselves to be organising such...
And whilst we might not have Thanksgiving here in the UK, Christmas dinner often involves a political debate somewhere along the line. Two options are open to you: speak up and fight your corner, or maintain a low profile.
Physician, heal thyself.Campus Reform said:
Where's the direct quote?
He meant to say Sessions instead of Bannon. It says that in the article. The Sessions incident is relatively well known.
That's excellent. It should be mandatory, along with that seminar on how to cope with the awful event of missing a bus.
Seriously, this isn't even funny anymore. Colleges and Universities teaching grown ups how to avoid uncomfortable situations is morally wrong. How is anyone supposed to challenge actions like drone killings, executions, even the pill epidemic, if talking about Trump upsets you?
We actually debated whether or not freedom of speech should protect people trying to speak or publish Holocaust denial.
Well that's a special one. I'm German (Well of some sorts
, long story), and i'm fine with it not being covered by free speech here. But that is and was a special measure to try to eradicate a horrible ideology that killed millions of people... Add to that that it is proven far beyond any reasonable doubt and complete lunacy to doubt that it happened.But i'm not quite sure that i'm getting the point you were trying to make?
I'm in agreement with your second paragraph... The last sentence, especially.Well that's a special one. I'm German (Well of some sorts
But i'm not quite sure that i'm getting the point you were trying to make?
The pro-censorship argument that was made was centered on protecting people from the denial message. The anti-censorship argument centered on allowing it to be published so it could be openly refuted by others. This was in an American university, fwiw.
Goes along with the recent censorship of that Milo idiot as well, even though in a different country.
Allow it to be published/allow him to speak so it/he can be met head on and refuted.
Yeah I agree that generally it makes a lot more sense to let it be published and then call it out for what it is afterwards. A university not giving someone a stage isn't censorship though... By giving someone like that Milo guy a stage a university (or school) would implicitly legitimise his thoughts to a large part of the population, and I'm not sure they academically warrant it. (At this stage I have to confess that I know preciously little about that guy and am not really inclined to dig deeper by what i've read up to now).
Let the idiots publish their pseudo-intellectual gibberish on their own platforms (don't censor it) but don't validate it either by creating a situation by which a third could say "well they both have their opinions". As Jay Z once said "Don't argue with a fool, a man from a distance won't know who is who". I guess the problem we're having world-wide is that we currently have an unusual high amount of eloquent idiots. Maybe we should roll back on those communication courses for all
But ultimately the idiots will always be undone by their own idiocy, it's just a matter of time and a question of how much damage they do in the meantime.Yet to limit that damage we have to keep engaging with those vulnerable to their idiocy. I don't think there's a better setting for that than a thanksgiving dinner to be honest. Students need to be taught how to defend their values if they're to preserve them. They seemingly also need to be taught that it is ok if their racists uncle/grandpa/whatever doesn't like them for 5 minutes and shouldn't in any way change the picture they have of themselves. I think we agree that just shutting up can't be the answer.
I wasn't trying to put down US universities/colleges in general if that was how it came across. I'm aware that those mentioned in that article are just a couple out of a huge variation of universities, and each of those will have their own staff discussing their position on things like this. The overall trend (not just in the US) to avoid the (intellectually) uncomfortable is worrying though.
Yeah I agree that generally it makes a lot more sense to let it be published and then call it out for what it is afterwards. A university not giving someone a stage isn't censorship though... By giving someone like that Milo guy a stage a university (or school) would implicitly legitimise his thoughts to a large part of the population, and I'm not sure they academically warrant it. (At this stage I have to confess that I know preciously little about that guy and am not really inclined to dig deeper by what i've read up to now).
Let the idiots publish their pseudo-intellectual gibberish on their own platforms (don't censor it) but don't validate it either by creating a situation by which a third could say "well they both have their opinions". As Jay Z once said "Don't argue with a fool, a man from a distance won't know who is who". I guess the problem we're having world-wide is that we currently have an unusual high amount of eloquent idiots. Maybe we should roll back on those communication courses for all
Yet to limit that damage we have to keep engaging with those vulnerable to their idiocy. I don't think there's a better setting for that than a thanksgiving dinner to be honest. Students need to be taught how to defend their values if they're to preserve them. They seemingly also need to be taught that it is ok if their racists uncle/grandpa/whatever doesn't like them for 5 minutes and shouldn't in any way change the picture they have of themselves. I think we agree that just shutting up can't be the answer.
I wasn't trying to put down US universities/colleges in general if that was how it came across. I'm aware that those mentioned in that article are just a couple out of a huge variation of universities, and each of those will have their own staff discussing their position on things like this. The overall trend (not just in the US) to avoid the (intellectually) uncomfortable is worrying though.
Universities get to pick and choose who they host and if they decide to host someone then it does indeed legitimise that person's point of view to a certain degree (assuming that point of view is one of the "sides" of the argument rather than an ancillary issue).
However, if you decide to host someone like Milo only to later retract that invitation, that retraction also legitimises his point of view to a certain degree, with the institution cast in the role of opposition rather than host. Except now the debate is taking place in a forum that suits him more.
We also have to recognize when a belief system we may not want to legitimise has in effect been legitimised by real world events. In fact, assuming you belief that the best response to ideas you disagree with is to challenge them, recognising when these beliefs have been legitimised is vital. I'm not saying Milo's beliefs have been legitimised to that extent just yet but, given the election we've just seen in America, I am very sure that certain beliefs I find abhorrent have been legitimised to the point where they do need to be openly challenged.
Last edited:
Don't know where to post this, but think it fits here too.
Slammed a lot on hillary's reddit as well.
For this apparently...
Slammed a lot on hillary's reddit as well.
For this apparently...