http://thehill.com/homenews/media/319827-bill-maher-defends-booking-milo-yiannopoulos-after-journalist-cancels-his

Bill Maher booked Milo for Friday night, and one of the panelists backed out, stating that he wants no part of enabling or normalizing Milo.

Bill Maher, I believe rightfully, criticized the panelist. Stating that if you think Milo's ideas are wrong, then come on my show and prove it.

“Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech," Maher responded in a statement.

"If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”

Why are so many people willing to just bury their head in their own little pile of sand, rather than to hear what others have to say, test their ideas. This hiding behind fake reasons they can't debate their positions is laughable, and Bill Maher is right on. If the left can't support their ideas (with something more than a meme or a 2nd grade level of education attack), then they will continue to lose.

Its just comical how much people will do to shelter themselves from opinions of others. I wonder if they do this because deep down, they know they are wrong, but are just too weak to admit it.

its like when globeheads refuse to hear me out when i show them flat earth theory

No, they just present you with arguments to the contrary. They don't build filters to block you because they don't like your point of view.

That's not very individualist of you, Tabby.

It's almost as if he's being collectivist

Liberal ideas cannot stand up to rightwing ones in a balanced avenue. Everywhere there is free speech and both sides have the same platform, liberals either lose or back out.

He wants no part of enabling or normalizing Milo.

Nothing wrong with that.

Free speech doesn't mean others should enable you:



The best way to react to a bully, is ignoring him, not getting into a confrontation. They teach this at primary school, but many somehow forget it in politics.

The worst you can do, is giving people like Milo Yiannopoulos a platform. Pure hatespeech is not something to be promoted, that's what history has taught some of us. It's about time everyone else starts to understand that as well.

I do agree with the statement of Scahill:
"He has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes,” Scahill wrote. “There is no value in ‘debating’ him. Appearing on ‘Real Time’ will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign. It will be exploited by Yiannopoulos in an attempt to legitimize his hateful agenda."

That has nothing to do with political correctness, freedom of speech, anyone burying their head in the sand or sheltering themselves from opinions of others. If you know someone is up to no good, you step back as soon as you can, simple as that. (The same argument goes for the extreme left by the way, who are equally hating based on wealth rather than race.)

I would hope any well-meaning liberal would go in a debate with any well-meaning very conservative republican who doesn't spend most of his time harassing others and spreading hate. Then at least both sides can talk about reasonable topics that actually matter.

The argument that you don't want to give him a platform is moot.

He has a platform. He has 2 Million + followers on facebook.
According to Amazon, his book Dangerous is a number one best seller, and it won't release until June.

I'm not saying his free speech is being threatened. I'm saying liberals are letting him go unchecked, without providing any counter-argument, other than labeling him as a hatemonger.

I vehemently disagree with Scahill's statements. What are his hateful diatribes? He has a conservative viewpoint, liberals don't like it, so they label him with every single word they can think of and add a '-phobic' behind it.

How well did that strategy work for Hillary Clinton?

This have everything to do with being unwilling to have a debate about why Milo's conservative principals are wrong, and why we should follow liberal principals.

Bringing it closer to home, there are people that frequent this forum that make asinine assertions, get challenged on those assertions, then report the people that challenged the asinine assertions, and develop scripts to hide dissenting views.

Sad. So Sad.

Part of what it is is that the talk can go something like this (obviously exxaggerated):

A: <Niggers need to get out of this country.>
B: <What, ugh, no, you're disgusting.>

Most folk would say something like B as well, but it would lead for some folk to misunderstand and say ugh B has no arguments against this guy other than calling him disgusting, and more upholding for A.

I'm saying liberals are letting him go unchecked, without providing any counter-argument, other than labeling him as a hatemonger.

This is pretty much valid not only for liberals but for most libertarian-right aligned people or parties all around the globe. At the end of the day, the most aggressive people during debates and most prone to striking/rioting is that specific part of the spectrum.

I find it entertaining how people who are completely in for gun freedom, segregation or ethnic cleansing just stay at home and state their points to anyone they come across, while those who claim to be against any sort of violence of bad intervention are the ones to go out and actually cause damage.

I mean, who would least surprise you if seen in a riot breaking shit up, Wally or Karl?

This is probably an active factor in bad polling and right-wing victories around the globe. They are more vocal of their thoughts than the right is. The concept of "silent majority" Trump's used is actually not that far off - while they aren't always the majority, they are relatively silent.

Personally, I wouldn't group myself with any somewhat-extreme part of the political compass because they are always too close-minded to see the good on each other's thoughts, which in turn has caused me to be hostilized by just about anyone zealous enough by their opinions, but none has taken my thoughts as badly and aggressively as the lib-lefts.

The best way to react to a bully, is ignoring him, not getting into a confrontation. They teach this at primary school, but many somehow forget it in politics.

The worst you can do, is giving people like Milo Yiannopoulos a platform. Pure hatespeech is not something to be promoted, that's what history has taught some of us. It's about time everyone else starts to understand that as well.f

Can someone explain to me where Milos hate speeches are? I mean, do we now label everything we disagree with as hate speech? All I have heard is him saying trans people are mentally disturbed, just like sociopath and whatever, and I agree. If someone close to me came and said, I want to cut off my penis becuase I think I am a girl, I'd call a doctor, and the the kind with knifes.

woah this thread is suspiciously constructive

^ IKR? Lets shitpost.

Edited 2/19/2017 15:21:57

Semice, how's your boyfriend?

Although Math Wolf argument is good, I prefer agreeing with Pooh here.


I have always prefered to be in the left when it came to politics, very left when it comes to morality and a bit left in economics. I prefer calling myself a progressive rather than a liberal, as I always see liberals as the ones that want to wreck up the state (damn americans always inverting worldwide consensus stuff!).

But I wasn't always like that, my views progressed and are still progressing. I try learning the most I can and try to prove wrong my ideas until I'm confident I'm correct or I find a better one. When I was a kid I was way more to the right when it came to morals (although I would hardly consider that as a conservative, more centre-right). Later when I was a teen I was almost a socialist when it came to the economy. And oh boy was I wrong! I changed this position later in my teens, put now I study economics, and I have to say I was rather ignorant on the subject at the time. Studying the economy in college further shifted me to the centre in the economy to my actual position, but I don't know if I will continue, stop or regress.

And that is the beauty. I believe you gotta allow yourself to change your mind, learn new ideas, build in the old and create the new.


That is why I read conservative, centrist and liberal papers. My big regret when it comes to liberals/leftists and such is how much they're hypocrites. Always ready to defend the poor and the oppressed but never ready to actually talk to these people or the opposing side. With the social medias rise, we've talked a lot of Trump supporters locked up in a bubble, but it's rather astonishing we don't talk more about liberals in their own bubble. Many feel like they're superior to others, that they've unlocked the truth and that everyone should agree with them or fuck off. LET ME SAY: You are superior to nothing, and to no one.

Btw conservatives have some equally problematic hypocrisies, but let me stick to the auto-critic.

All of this sums up to the debacle of last year. Yes debacle. Brexit, far-right rise and Trump elected are sensibly imputed to liberals. I won't talk in details each one of these, but in the american election I will talk a bit. Hillary lost an unlosable election. Yes unlosable. Poor campaigning strategy, unecessary primary corruption and an opponent that pulled very effective ideas that she wasn't able to attack caused her desmise. She was confident she couldn't lose; we were confident we couldn't lose. But the true why the democrats lost in 2016 was that they weren't able to talk to the Trump electorate, prefering to hide behind unrepresentative polls and their presidential elections superiority rather than discussing ideas in the field.


You cannot, you should not shut off your opponents. Because one, if you don't discuss how can you convince? Second, what if you're wrong about your ideas? Third have you ever thinked about the possibility that their vote is worth as much as yours?

A few weeks ago I spoke to a girl that was communist for three straight hours in a very productive talk. I didn't change a lot my views, but I gotta believe she changed a bit hers (or at least learned a bit about the economy xD).


In conclusion, I'd say that's the reason I like talking to people with diverse ideas. I love sharing and learning whatever I can, and I believe that being open to change isn't a weakness, but one of the better strenghs one can have.

So I'd say, if anyone wants to have a productive talk in politics/economy/or whatever, with me, I would really love to do it! I promise I'll be open to try understanding your views and if you don't change yours, at least you'll be able to solidify your own.

+ 10 points for France (TeamGuns)

Never mind the majority of the country, its more fun to talk identity politics!

She was confident she couldn't lose; we were confident we couldn't lose. But the true why the democrats lost in 2016 was that they weren't able to talk to the Trump electorate, prefering to hide behind unrepresentative polls and their presidential elections superiority rather than discussing ideas in the field.

And this sums it up.

The moment you tell everyone you disagree with that they "are wrong" or "should not exist" is the moment you forget to poll that extra vote for your opponent.

Funny enough, no matter how aggressive people are due to their believes, there is a pattern for both sides; I notice how the right-wing in general is more open to talk (not debate, talk; they still toss insults around often enough, but they do TALK) while the left-wing just gives you the silent treatment and leave, while trying their best to pretend you don't exist.

Pretending your opponent doesn't exist is basically giving him a shot at pulling your pants down and shoving the biggest cylindrical object he can find around on the cavity you've avaiable in your lower body.

What follows overconfidence and underestimation is usually rage. They failed, lost an election they were told they would never lose, failed to beat an adversary they called a joke. What were the initial reactions of american liberals over it? Pin it on the third-parties/independents/non-voters.

I don't recall, on a simplistic and dumb two-party system, either party blatantly blaming a third one for a bad result, ever being succesful. In fact, I can extend that - it's not common to have one side bash people that are effectively neutral.

Now, we have a pretty dangerous generation coming up for those who vote left-wing parties: one of rising nationalists, who never had a chance to vent, now have stuff like /pol/ and stormfront. And these people don't show up on polls, and when they do they are often underestimated. But when the election comes, they usually are there and make a big difference.

The concept of "silent majority" Trump mentioned was not that far off. While not always majority, the modern nationalists are silent. Because in most places patriotism is given as a bad thing, People are not going to just say "Our nation comes first" to the first person who asks them about their political stance - they usually are shy or scared to say it, just not vote for it. For one, I doubt people like Karl or Jim - known nationalists and usually deemed "trolls" by us - are very vocal irl, yet that's 2 votes you probably skipped when polling that went to the righties. Multiply that by... whatever the hell the number of active members /pol/ have, and you have yourself a election-changing sum at your disposal.

You combine that with the usual stuff that boosts nationalism (cultural intermingling with no assimilation/clash of civilizations/wars/en-masse immigrations), and you have a growing right wing. Merge in the lefties' inability to notice that, and there's the recipe for Donald Trump's electoral success.

woah i actually read that

anal-ysis was interesting enough

+1 cookie point to zeph