Milo Yiannopoulos

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story..

I apologize for misinterpreting your juxtaposition of the photo with the rest of your post. Perhaps, you should have noted, in the first place, that it was not Milo's post? Your text would have been more coherent that way. Perhaps, you can see how a reader could have "interpreted" it the way John and I did?

That's the problem with "interpretation" outside of the text. Similar to the problem of imposing personal opinion on the text of the Constitution.

and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.




I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Would Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Wood Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you got issues

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you got issues

Can't answer the question can you. Your the one who has issues with the first amendment and want it changed, not me.
You are the one who wants to silence people not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

ummmmm...the large majority of the violence we've seen recently as a result of politics and speech has been courtesy of the left....who may we hold accountable for encouraging it?

wait...I've got this....

if a republican says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a republican says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

I'm starting to figure out this progressive accountability thing


question...if a republican says something a democrat doesn't like and a democrat yells "get him" and violence ensues....who should be held accountable for the violence ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

Can you ever stay on topic? my stance is universal unlike most of yours which seems always to be about black and white

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

Speech should not lead to violence in a free society . Yet it does. Just because I don't agree with (or intend to vote for) Trump do I think he should not speak. I also don't think people should violently protest outside his rally - yet they do. Protest - absolutely - violence no.

BLM protest? Sure thing. Violence no. Block a highway? Endanger others or prohibit commerce? No.

In some cultures free speech can get you killed. That should not be here.