I think you agree with his thoughts on free speech, humor, and the problems with the left. I highly doubt you agree with most of what he says. Maybe you're not too familiar with it

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I am familiar; I just don't put much stock in his other views.

I view him to be someone who is an aggressive advocate of free speech who says other ridiculous shit only to highlight the assault on free speech. Worrying about his beliefs on those peripheral issues would be like worrying about Patton's beliefs on social issues. He is a single issue "activist", and on that single issue, he is spot on.

_________________

I disagree with that assessment of him, and I think he would disagree with it as well, but we can just agree to disagree there. I just find it odd you would say you agree with most things he says when most things he says you've spent years on here arguing against.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I said "in general, I agree with most of what he says." I've read and listened to a lot of his views over the past couple months, and I believe his primary message is one of free speech. 80% of his notable thoughts are really just highlighting that being offended isn't some sort of special status. I didn't say I agreed with everything he said, but I agree with his general philosophy. So shut the fuck up.

_________________

Youre just plain wrong on him. It's ok.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You have a little Boilermaker Rick in you.

_________________

Maybe, but you are wrong on him. Calling Leslie Jones the n word and an ugly ape and shit like that isn't some noble defense of free speech. His views on Trump, Muslims, and Black Lives Matter have nothing to do with free speech. He says a ton of really hateful shit that, again, you have spent years on this board arguing against. You can't then be surprised when someone finds it curious that you now say you agree with him. It's clear you don't understand a lot of his views and have only latched on to the one or two things he says you agree with.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

_________________

What did I say in my original post? Let me remind you... "I agree with Maher that he should tone down some of the shit he says and have a bit more respect, but in general, I agree with most of what he says." The VAST majority of what he says is not hateful. He made a joke last night that he wouldn't hire gays because they aren't reliable... but they're not as bad as women... and the crowd fucking booed. If Maher had made the joke, it would have been a laugh-fest. That is a completely fucking harmless joke.

Beyond that, you must mistake what I find distasteful. I find ignorance MUCH more annoying than hateful speech. I often rip Trump for his off-the-cuff ignorant speech. Sometimes, that ignorant manifests itself as hate, but it's the ignorance that drives me crazy much more than hate. Beyond that, he is a president and Milo is a regular citizen. They aren't comparable.

I disagree with his love of Donald Trump and think he is extreme regarding Islam. I don't have strong feelings one way or another on Black Lives Matter. I respect their right to protest and agree that the institution of police in this country is severely dysfunctional in many areas, but a lot of what Black Lives Matter says really is complete bullshit.

Most importantly, I believe you miss his point entirely even though you've taken the liberty of lecturing me on his message. His stances on BLM, Trump, Islam, and hateful Tweets are only a vehicle to exhibit his stance on free speech. Even if he tends to believe what he says on those issues a little, he doesn't believe them entirely. He is purposely exaggerating the message to highlight how easy it is to offend people and how quickly people are to take away his right to speak. And he is correct about that. No one gives a shit what Milo thinks on Middle Eastern politics or who he's voting for for president. They care about how he is purposely stoking the fire to show how sensitive and pathetic we have become. The ones who don't "get" that part of his schtick are usually the ones who get so upset because they take everything he says literally.

I'll put it this way... while I constantly preach that I think people often mistake ignorance for malice (Donald Trump being the best example), I think the opposite is true with Milo. He actually is an extremely intelligent, talented communicator and agitator who many think is ignorant or uneducated. He's not... he's doing it on purpose. His overall message is one of free speech, and it's what he spends the majority of his time talking about, so it's not at all strange for me to say I agree with most of what he says.

_________________

It's funny that you say I miss his point. It's a pretty hypocritical stance for you to take. I'm just responding to what he says. One of your big beefs with JORR in regards to Trump is you get mad when JORR tries to interpret what he says. You say we can't do that and we have to go by what he is saying. The same is true in regards to Milo. Yes, obviously there is a difference between a citizen and the President, but it's silly to try to make interpretations and inferences at the expense of just reaction to his words.

I obviously largely agree with him about free speech, about how it is now a conservative virtue, about the intolerance of the left, etc. Where you and I differ is you want to exclusively focus on that and ignore all his other stuff, or dismiss it by saying he doesn't mean what he says. You're not Milo. Of course I'm not gonna put any stock into what you think his hidden motivations may or may not be. You don't have a clue, and either do I. We can only go by his words and actions.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I knew you'd say that when I was writing my response. I understand your point, but I still disagree with it. Society isn't impacted by Milo's true motivations, so that makes it fair for one to subjectively interpret what he means. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. The president doesn't have that luxury.

_________________

... Oh, and I'd fuck the shit out of him.

_________________

_________________

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

I watched overtime. I swear I'm not trying to just instigate shit with you on this topic, but this isn't an accurate reflection of what happened. Larry Wilmore is the only one who said go fuck yourself, and that was in response to Milo calling him stupid.

Edit: nevermind, I finished watching it and the other dude did tell Milo to fuck off for no reason

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I think the former intelligence guy said it too but not as loudly. Maher commented on it.

Also, I thought they were both dicks to him well before he commented on their IQ (he still shouldn't have done it). Wilmore completely misrepresented his comments regarding transgendered people and then arrogantly told him to let him speak. The former intelligence guy - without prompting - told Milo he looked like a guy who had been in Naples or some shit. Then Milo retaliates and they tell him to fuck off.

Milo's points weren't crazy, but they act like he killed a baby seal or something.

_________________

I edited my post. Larry Wilmore didn't come off as childish at all, IMO. The other guy sort of came off as arrogant and dickish.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

If there are clips of him being a huge dick, I'd sincerely like to see them. I honestly can't find any. Most of what I find is almost always like this...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbar ... naacp/amp/

Does anyone find what he said or how he treated the girl here offensive?

_________________

Additionally, it's rather absurd that Milo is banned from Twitter because his followers said some racist crap to an actress yet the platform is loaded with imams constantly calling for death to all Jews.

@jack is going to kill his own baby with censorship. Twitter is now burying pro-Trump posts. Bad idea. Every time I read the board I have to restrain myself from killing posts. I'm sure Nas and Seacrest feel the same way. The three of us understand that doing so would mean a slow death for the board.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

its the reason reddit.com is so wildly popular. depending on the forum, you can say anything you want so long as its constitutionally legal. most of their mainstream forums have rules that dont allow many things... but other forums like the political ones have literally been taken over by trump supporters and reddit hasn't killed it.

facebook and twitter are a joke. and dangerous to be honest. im glad they are anti-trump, but thats only because i am anti trump. it doesn't mean i think they should censor anything that is legal to say.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

I don't think he did any of that. People on Twitter did. I've never read or seen anything from Milo until his Real Time appearance, but his review of the movie isn't racist. He actually called out the script for being racist:



http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/1 ... stbusters/

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

I think this is something that is getting lost. There's a hue and cry about Trump somehow harming the First Amendment by slamming reporters, when in fact Trump isn't stopping a single reporter from saying or writing anything they want about him. But not many seem concerned that Zuckerberg and @jack have the power to control so much of the information people receive.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

well trump is hurting the 1st ammendment when he says free press is the enemy. his supporters eat up his every word, especially now that hes president, and its not a good thing to claim the 1st amendment is dangerous.

but facebook and twitter are also violating the 1st amendment in my opinion, when they censor posts they dont like. it might not be illegal to do so, but i do think its generally accepted that those two websites are a public forum, which means there shouldnt be any censoring of anything lawful to say.

theyre really no different than fox news... if everything is heavily constructed to give a biased opinion, then there should be a disclaimer that notifies people of that stance.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

Trump criticizing media outlets is not attacking or chiseling away at the First. It's not even advocating the suppression of otherwise protected speech, nor of the free press.

It's not illegal, but it's very stupid and degrades the office. It also degrades public discourse because many of his followers truly believe the media is out to destroy him. Is the media innocent? No... but he needs to man the fuck up and state his case without looking like a fucking psychopath who doesn't understand how important the media is (even if they suck in many regards).

_________________

when he specifically denounces every major media outlet at once, that is the very definition of attacking the idea of free press.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

How?

Really? No wonder you love Trump so much.

@jack and Zuckerstein operate privately held social media websites, though. If there isn't a link between the government and them (maybe there is and I just haven't heard it), then I don't think one could argue that that is a free speech issue. To your point, it will simply kill their sites, and someone else will be glad to put one in place that isn't censored. It's also hard to say that Twitter is crushing differing opinions when their outlet is one of the biggest reasons Trump was able to win the election.



Trump isn't dismantling the press, nor will he ever. However, I don't really get the defense of him in this regard, either. It just further highlights that he has no concept of how our government operates. The "4th branch of government" isn't some fairy tale. It's how the founders intended it and is one of the primary reasons for the first amendment. While I realize you know that, I really do wonder how much Trump does. Sure, he knows it's there... but does he really, conceptually understand how important a free media is to a "Democracy"? What he says in press conferences can't be considered anything other than an attempt at intimidation. He comes out and mocks them and talks about how they are "the enemy of the people." That's some fucked up rhetoric, especially when a large segment of his supporters are uneducated and gullible. There is nothing wrong with him saying he disagrees with a media outlet's opinion on a particular issue or their coverage of a particular issue, but he's issuing blanket statements about the entire media. Are you okay with that?

_________________

When Trump's statements at a press conference have the power and weight of law, then I'll care beyond just laughing at him for being so thin-skinned and bad at speaking off-the-cuff.

Trump labeling "the media" as an "enemy of America" is just not a suppression of "the media". It just isn't. It's a whole bunch of other things (many of which you correctly identified), but it is not an encroachment on the First, of any kind. Labeling it as such is, I think, disingenuous and alarmist.

Take the inflammatory verbiage out of Trump's rhetoric, and let's assume he said "everyone in 'the media' has an agenda, and you, The People, should be skeptical of everything told to you by 'the media' especially concerning its fictional portrayal of me." Is he still "intimidating" a free press? Because if he is, then that means people shouldn't be skeptical of media, which is itself contrary to the spirit of the First. If he isn't, then you really just have a problem with the flamboyant and raucous way he delivers his message--and you're also not applying your outrage consistently, because Obama publicly displayed similar intimidating rhetoric aimed at Fox News and Co., a few times.

That and random girls posting videos of themselves masturbating.

_________________