I had never heard of Milo Yiannopoulos, until his current visit to Australia. He has got a lot of media coverage.

He has been subject to a lot of violent protests and the Greens want him banned from entering Federal Parliament.

I now have seen some of his speeches on youtube, and really I see him as nothing more than a comedian, an attention seeker and I think some of his comments are funny and nothing short of a joke.

Why are some people though taking him so seriously and raising concerns about limiting freedom of speech?

"Why are some people though taking him so seriously and raising concerns about limiting freedom of speech?"

Probably because they want to limit freedom of speech.

"Why are some people though taking him so seriously and raising concerns about limiting freedom of speech?"

I take it you weren't among the queued public who were waiting to enjoy a show in Melbourne, only to be subjected to foul abuse and pelted with rocks and even a metal street sign?

Nathan, If you read some of the interviews with him, especially older ones, you'll find that he admits that it's an act. It's a character he created. What's hard to tell is whether he's in it for the notoriety and the money, or whether it's a genuine act of satirical theatre. If it started as the latter, it may now be difficult for him to admit it was all a setup to satirise right wing views, because a lot of people would be very angry.

i am yet to hear him speak. Anyone who can put a rocket up the nonsense sprouted by the left surely can bring back some kind of rationality to whats becoming australia

Nathan

I think the point is that most people protesting against Milo have never heard him actually speak, I think that what they are most offended that a half Jewish gay guy married to a black man would dare to say what he does. That what he says is mostly true is what really infuriates them.

The left whinge are all about censorship.

Milo and the Greens are very similar.

I watched a heap of his videos and interviews on his YouTube channel last night, and Cossomby's comments mirror precisely what I was thinking.

He's even smirking in some of his interviews. Is it a nervous smirk over how far he's taken the joke, or is it a cheeky smirk over how foolish everyone else to think that he actually believes what he's saying? Some of his opinions are caricatures of right-wing ideology and I, for one, cannot take him seriously.

Looks like another Borat to me, only this time taken wa-a-a-a-ay too far.

Dear Nathan,

The following link might clarify a few things for
you about Milo Yiannopoulos:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-rise-and-fall-shallow-actor-bad-guy-hate-speech

I'll quote just a little from the link:

"There is after all a line that you cannot cross and still
be hailed by conservatives as a champion of free speech.
Milo Yiannopoulos, the journalist that Out magazine dubbed
an "internet supervillain" built his brand on those
activities."

"Until Monday, he was flying high, a hefty book deal with
Simon & Schuster, an invitation to speak at the American
Conservative Union's CPac Conference and a recent appearance
on Real Time with Bill Maher. But then a recording emerged
of Yiannopoulos cheerfully defending relationships between
older men and younger boys, and finally it turned out that
free speech had limits."

"The book deal and CPac swiftly evaporated. The next day he
resigned his post as an editor at Breitbart, the far-right
website where he was recruited by Donald Trump's consigliere
Steve Bannon, and where several staffers reportedly
threatened to quit unless he was fired..."

And there's so much more in the link.

It's worth a read.

He is a bit of a twit, but we need all the help we can get in this War.
People may listen to him, when they wouldn't to someone more "conservative".

The fact that The Totalitarian Progressives are rabidly hostile to a multiethnic gay man who has interracial relationships just puts a spotlight on their hypocrisy/insanity.

And that can't hurt.

I think Poe's Law is pertinent where Milo Yiannopoulos is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

A chap who gets all his fame by making absurd but attention grabbing statements that most people find comically ridiculous, and uses that fame to sell books and tickets to speaking tours for his small but devoted cult of adoring fans who hang on his every word....

Does anybody know if David Icke has a son?

Foxy,

I wonder why a polemic from a far left socialist activist would clear up anything. You would fail just as spectacularly asking for an honest assessment of Hansen Young from Pauline Hanson.

Even the title "The rise and fall of Milo Yiannopoulos – how a shallow actor played the bad guy for money" is a complete joke as MY's star is still in ascendancy and his talks are sold out in seconds with crowds and a following that drips like Owen Jones and Dorian Lynskey can only dream of.

I doubt that anyone agrees with everything that Milo says, but beyond the showmanship and deliberate provocation, there is much that needs to be discussed and considered where many would simply like to make the topics taboo and ban any discussion of them.

Milo is a gay man in a stable sexual relationship with a black gay man. If he were mouthing the usual rainbow anthems he'd be treated as a demi-God.

But as an articulate voice of the right he creates quite a problem for the left. Normally they can throw around their usual unthinking ad homs like homophobic, racist, etc and shout the devil-speaker into silence. But they can't do that with Milo Y and in any case he has no intention of being silenced. What is more, he speaks from experience and clear-headedly. And he is perfectly prepared to tweak the various mantras of the left to make fun of them and point out their vacuousness.

Soooo...what to do when you can't shout a speaker of the right into silence? Answer....violence. (That's always the left's ultimate answer).
________________________________________________________________

Just a passing observation. Milo Y has been one of the most prominent speakers and thinkers on the right for the past coupla years. Yet some here appear to be utterly ignorant of him, which makes one wonder if they are utterly ignorant in general of the views ofthe right's prominent thinkers. How can such people aspire to be well-informed when they are (deliberately?) uninformed about the views of their opponents?

Here is hoping that the evidence from the fixed and mobile cameras enables more of those serial activist thugs from both sides to be charged and that the Court outcome is considerably more than a slap on the wrist.

Dear Shadow Minister,

People are right to protest. It's not about
stopping free speech, it's about stopping the
kind of speech that stirs up hatred, violence,
and intolerance.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/susie-obrien-yiannopoulos-should-not-have-been-allowed-in-australia-writes-susie-obrien/news-story/73bc47e750de4b59e91eb99507b77cb9

Well, mhaze, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to happily associate themselves with this moron, but, to be honest, I didn’t think it would be you.

Gay people can still be homophobic, just as anyone can still be racist towards their own “race”. This is known to psychologists as 'internalised hatred'. Homophobic gay people do exist. I even know one. I’m not saying that Yiannopoulos is homophobic, of course, just that his being gay doesn't make him immune to the accusation. If he expresses anti-gay sentiments, then he is homophobic, gay or not.

Yiannopoulos is certainly transphobic, though, and given just how false his claims were about trans people (not to mention his claims on any number of other topics), I’m surprised that you would happily refer to him as “one of the most prominent speakers and thinkers on the right for the past coupla years.”

It’s a pity. His disregard for how he is perceived and his disdain for identity politics could have been put to good use had he been far more measured and courteous in his tone and delivery. But, unfortunately, his insults, his deliberately inflammatory remarks, and some of his poorly-researched claims, completely ruin what little good he could have done in bringing to surface some controversial but much-needed discussions.

Dear AJ,

Here is a link that may be of interest:

http://theweek.com/articles/726932/rise-fall-milo-yiannopoulos

http://youtu.be/Om5eCFOu9Oc?t=58m58s

Milo Yiannopoulos isn't too bad.
He certainly has a place in the ongoing battle with the left, putting all the whining untouchables in their place.
The establishment hates him, because they can't silence him.
They claim false offense because they don't support free speech and the reason they do that is because they have their own agenda's funded by the George Soros elites of this world.
Watch the video, and get some insight.

There's a bit of background info on his book release in there too.

Foxy,

Your comments are typical of the type of bollocks promoted by someone that has never listened to him. His speeches expose the hypocrisy of the left and does far less to incite hatred, violence or intolerance than most of those protesting against him.

Even your second link is simply the same article rehashed.

The protests are entirely about the PC thought police violently trying to stop free speech.

Hey Foxy,
Those are all just hit pieces.
You guys need to learn the difference between real news and propaganda meant to manipulate you into thinking a certain way.
When are you all going to realise you're in an Infowar?

90% of the news is propaganda.
You should all remember that, if you don't wish to be lead astray.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the link. It doesn't surprise me that so many big-name conservatives don't want anything to do with Yiannopoulos.

--

Armchair Critic,

Given the fact that you get all your information from Infowars and other such obscure and, quite frankly, nutty sources, you're hardly in a position to advise Foxy on where she should and should not be getting her news from.

AJ Philips "Yiannopoulos is certainly transphobic"

Transphobia is another Newspeak invention designed to control thought and speech.
Questioning the official dogma/paradigm or the extremes of ridiculous activists does not mean you hate or fear the people in question.

Once upon a time, if someone said they were something they clearly are not (like saying you're a child when you're an adult), they would be defined as "delusional", not heroic, not beyond criticism or questioning.

Yes, there are people all over the masculine/feminine spectrum, but that should make us question the dualistic stereotypes, not chop off body parts to fit into them, or demand everyone address us with this or that pronoun or face prosecution/sacking/blacklisting/etc.

//You guys need to learn the difference between real news and propaganda meant to manipulate you into thinking a certain way.//

Real news is the paranoid ranting of lunatics on dodgy websites, and propaganda is whatever said lunatics decree to be propaganda.

Did I get that about right, Armchair?

That’s a really dumb analogy, Shockadelic.

<<Once upon a time, if someone said they were something they clearly are not (like saying you're a child when you're an adult), they would be defined as "delusional">>

Age isn’t a spectrum in which children may be born genuinely thinking and feeling like adults.

If you think a transsexual is just a delusional person who just thinks they’re the sex that they’re not (completely ignoring the difference between the mental and the physical), then you clearly you know nothing about transsexuality.

How about I claim to you that, while there is a spectrum of sexuality, it is delusional to think that one could be exclusively attracted to their own sex (because nature)?

I bet it doesn’t sound like such a great line of argument now, does it?

<<Yes, there are people all over the masculine/feminine spectrum …>>

Yes, and some go so far in the opposite direction to what they physically are, that the discomfort of their bodies, and how society expects them to dress and behave, is distressing. There are plenty of legitimate explanations for transsexuality beyond a simplistic assumption of mental illness or delusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

<<… but that should make us question the dualistic stereotypes, not chop off body parts to fit into them, or demand everyone address us with this or that pronoun …>>

So, you’re allowed to tell them how they should not respond to their distress, but they’re not allowed to tell you how to address them? I don’t see where you get off telling transsexuals how they should and should not respond to their distress, when it doesn’t affect you.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Here's another link for you. Undoubtedly you will
find something wrong with that as well:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/05/milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-australia-respectable-racists-howl-approval

And one more:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/susie-obrien-yiannopoulos-should-not-have-been-allowed-in-australia-writes-susie-obrien/news-story/73bc47e750de4b59e91eb99507b77cb9

BTW: Where did you hear Milo Yiannopoulos speak?
Perhaps it was in the same place as I did.

Regarding Milo Yiannopoulos and the issue of free speech, I think Matt Dillahunty puts it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17DjzSzML8s

Dear AJ,

Thanks for that.

Hey Toni; and AJ Philips

"Real news is the paranoid ranting of lunatics on dodgy websites, and propaganda is whatever said lunatics decree to be propaganda."

Often that's true.
You guys can try to trip me up but you all know I was way ahead of the game in regards to Hillary and all of that business. You guys were mostly playing catch up, and still are, because the corporate media fills your heads with garbage. And many of you lap it and go back for more never knowing that your whole world view is really just a fiction of your own imagination, and media conditioning.

No Toni, all news should be questioned and fact-checked.
You just think with a herd mentality of being conditioned to think these websites are dodgy.
Many of them are, many are valuable sources of information, and some are a mixture of both.
It takes some level of discernment, with fact checking and using different sources, an understanding of the political environment and a willingness to look past the establishment narrative.

' it's about stopping the
kind of speech that stirs up hatred, violence,
and intolerance.'

yes and by far the greatest violence was coming from the marxist led by Ros Ward. You are incredibly naive Foxy and thats being very kind.

I have seen some youtubes where people put down comments regarding the content of what they have just seen involving Milo. I have read comments like, "He wasn't given enough time to put across his opinion and he was constantly cut off".

100's of likes are then put next to the comment made, like I have just mentioned. The main issue I have, I am very ethical on a range of matters (in fact some people think I am too boring, not overly social and too serious) as a result.

But with Milo Yiannopoulos many are taking his comments very seriously. I don't know why, and personally I would expect to see him at a comedy festival.

Dear runner,

I am not aware of any violence coming from
R. Ward. You'd have to elaborate on that one
for me.

As for my being naive and you're being kind?

Well, many would disagree with your take on
that. However, I'm glad that you are able to
be kind because it is in the acts of kindness and
bravery that give us hope and make life
much sweeter. Continue being kind. It does
make a difference.

Hey NathanJ,
- Each to their own I say -
I believe people have the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't affect people in an adverse manner.
How many times have I said it?
Milo Yiannopoulos echo's these sentiments almost word for word right here in the same interview I previously published:
http://youtu.be/Om5eCFOu9Oc?t=1h7m27s
So now I have a reference for this point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

The problem is the left believes they have the right to intrude on and dictate every aspect of peoples lives.
They won't have Milo on their TV shows, because he's actually smarter and more quick witted than them and ruins their left-wing agendas.
If you want to understand it all even better go read the book I listed in 'The Socialist Conspiracy' thread.

If you all want to know the REAL Milo, then maybe you should all just buy his book, and then have a better educated opinion.
Right now many of the commenters only hold an opinion based on that which someone else gave to them.

Nathan J,

OK, so here is Milo Yiannopoulis sans stage persona and being serious,

'The Aggressive Left in Australia'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqCxWk-xMA4

Taking his points and dot the man, specifically what do you object to and why?

Should be, 'and not the man'.

Foxy,

Yet another quote from the far left guardian, and one other that can't be read.

Try this one:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/milo-yiannopolous-a-nice-warm-mug-of-goodness-me/news-story/1975ea8e75524beea04226cc25522280

"It’s marvellous what a difference Milo makes, not least to one’s social media feed. I generally stay away from politics and religion on Facebook and Twitter, much as I’d prefer to do in polite conversation.

But in the course of hoping to engage a few friends with the manner in which I am trying to engage a few readers of The Australian, in my capacity as engagement editor (no, I did not make that title up), I shared the latest iteration of my newish weekly Readers’ Comments column, in which I round up and highlight the best, and occasionally the egregiously worst, of what the paper’s paid-up subscribers had to say on the contentious issues of the day.

This week, the one article that ruled them all in terms of readers’ comments was a guest opinion piece contributed by self-proclaimed gay half-Jewish arch-conservative “internet supervillain” Milo Yiannopolous. His piece racked up 1115 comments, not to mention almost 500 more on a preview of his visit here written by Albrechtsen, and another 40 on the readers’ comments column, as we disappear down the rabbit hole.

As Milo said: “The reason I describe all feminists as bitter single lesbians and left-wing journalists as soy-fed beta male cuckolds isn’t just because it’s true, it’s because they have been hurling out insults for three decades at the rest of us. Frankly, they can handle a taste of their own medicine.”

With his trademark blend of hyperbole, gratuitous “you read the room, bee-yotch” insults and trenchant brutal truths, he laid out his position in no uncertain terms: “Liberals have been calling conservatives racist for decades to shut down debate, but recently they have stepped up their assaults. They don’t call us racist any more. They call us white supremacists or neo-Nazis’ Hilariously, they even do it to me, despite the fact I have a black husband and have never uttered a racist sentence in my life."

No, the real joke is the reaction from the loony Left. It's beyond their understanding that someone like this bloke is not one of them - poof with an African-American male partner. They can't get their tiny little minds around it at all.

ttbn,

Actually, I would have thought it was people like you who were suffering more from conflict of beliefs, where Yiannopoulos is concerned. I mean, you don’t like those bloody poofters for no other reason than the fact that they’re bloody poofters, and yet he’s saying all these right-wing things that you like to hear. Do you hate him, or do you cheer him on?

Oh, what to do?!

The rowdy, far-Left, on the other hand, aren’t behaving any differently to how they would if any other alt-right poster boy had come to town.

http://www.2gb.com/milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-with-alan-jones-after-violent-protests

Definitely worth a listen. And people call ABC interviewers biased... Alan spent most of that 'interview' giggling like an infatuated schoolgirl and asked zero challenging questions. Not so much an interview as a brown-nosing session.

I stopped listening when Milo said that he hoped his little crusade would lead to 'the end of social justice', because at that point I threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Even conservatives are in favour of social justice. The Catholic Church - well known for their conservatism - approve highly of the concept, hence the Vinnies. My late grandfather was very conservative - and volunteered countless hours in the cause of social justice. Say what you will about the rest of the Church: if you're not a friend of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, then you're no friend of mine.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Hi leoj and Josephus,
Thanks for posting those videos, both were very good.
Anyone who watches the Bolt video will realise that MY is far more articulated and intelligent than than the way in which he's portrayed.

Armchair Critic,

<<Anyone who watches the Bolt video will realise that MY is far more articulated and intelligent than than the way in which he's portrayed.>>

No he is not.

Simply, Andrew Bolt sets up discussions in a way he personally wants and on other occasions shuts people down he doesn't to have any in depth discussion with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwePAcvGpA

Also I remember when Andrew Bolt's program was on Channel 10 and Labor was Government, Federally. The program was hilarious. Andrew Bolt simply aimed to make the Labor Party look inept and I would try and watch each week.

When the Liberal Party came in (with Tony Abbott), the program was tired, dull, boring and predictable. I simply turned off. It was all too serious. That's the same feeling I got from your previous link, involving Andrew Bolt.

That's why I personally prefer going to see documentaries at cinemas for example, as they are very educational and captivating. I don't get that much from television anymore.

To put it simply Milo is all style and no substance. Comedy is all within himself, he is gladly willing to be part of it and that is his choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8QCUpFPrg

Hey NathanJ
I think you misunderstood me, 'MY' = Milo Yiannopoulos
I wasn't talking about Andrew Bolt.
Also the link leoj shared had nothing at all to do with Milo's comedy acts.
So you've totally lost me sorry...

I think the hypocrisy of the left is at full power, when potty mouthed "celebrities" slag off those on the right such as Russel Brand, do these left whingers object? Of course not, they retweet the profanities as if the drug addled retards words are diamonds.

All that the conservatives have to do to provoke violence from the left is to state their opinions. So while they support "equality" some are more equal than others:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/937771788196392960

That link, http://twitter.com/sunriseon7/status/937771788196392960

Koch was noticeably absent from that interview. As well Koch might be, with his shabby record of attempting to poison the well against Milo Yiannopoulos, in an intro and interview. See here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNTwRch0I-E

Milo Yiannopoulos is right about the left-leaning political correctness and unprofessionalism of the Oz media.

Andrew Bolt interviews Cassie Jaye |After ‘Hostile’ Australian Media| Red Pill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5y-BZyOxDg

- Notably, Australia's 'Weekend Sunrise' hates and bags a movie they haven't seen (The Red Pill)

Nathan J,
Can you move beyond the emotional reaction to Milo Yiannopoulos and give examples of the arguments you object to?

Has anybody ever seen Sacha Baron Cohen and Milo in the same room at the same time ? Hmmmm ?

"Has anybody ever seen Sacha Baron Cohen and Milo in the same room at the same time ?"

That question would be raising the bar where the Oz 'meeja' are concerned.

<<I think you misunderstood me, 'MY' = Milo Yiannopoulos>>

I already knew that.

In regards to Andrew Bolt, that was meant to be a general link, but the link you provided also shows Milo, will get a lot of better coverage from media elements who support him as an individual.

If you watch the Media Watch link I provided, many of these same people, simply will not allow certain people to speak or will not allow them to appear on programs of their own (particularly if they have a lot of say in regards to the direction of the program).

In the case of the Media Watch link the person in question, from the Party for Freedom was invited to appear on television, but was then attacked, told their views were "wrong, offensive, trampling on human rights and was told you don't get to spruik your cause." Andrew Bolt put out a few other similar words (about three) and then said "The interview is over".

One may consider the representative from the party to be an ill-informed idiot, but I fully support the rights of all, to express views, but there always be some who will try and cut various people off and make them look like an idiot by controlling an overall debate.

I have seen plenty of these situations on youtube since discovering more about Milo Yiannopoulos.

Please note I knew MY = Milo Yiannopoulos. I'm not stupid.

Hi NathanJ,

Now I think I'm even more confused.
I cant see any reason at all to argue that Milo Yiannopoulos didn't prove himself to be 'far more articulated and intelligent than than the way in which he's portrayed' during that Andrew Boly interview.
I think Milo proved it without any doubt.

Regards the Media Watch video you linked, I don't like that style of reporting either where people invite others on just to run them down or attack them.
If you're going to invite them on, let them speak, lets hear what they have to say.
I do not approve of what those people did going into the Anglican Church dressed as Muslims.
Personally I've always thought that those kinds of 'chaser' stunts were in bad taste.

The left would've loved to have Milo on their shows, for no other reason to attack him and run him down but they realise he is too intelligent and quick witted and would only make them all look foolish.
They would do themselves and their biased agendas a disservice giving him airtime.

I think it's incorrect to say Milo is all style and no substance, I think he's got plenty of both.
Also the left would not be violently attempting to silence him if he didn't have any substance.

The imported culture of 'Progressive' left violence is no joke.

If Milo is a joke.Then the two world wars were a joke.
The Victoria Police are considering in the best traditions of Hitlers S.S. and the Soviet State Police under Stalin to charge the venue that
staged the Milo Melbourne show.
Just as the S.S charged Jews to go on trains to the death camps and Stalin charged Christians for making a mess in Soviet cities after Churches were touched by Soviet Police.
So the Andrews State Police are considering charging the venue for Police UNDERprotection from feral socialists.
No Milo is no joke and neither is the Soviet State Police under Comrade Andrews.

Liberal Senator Jane Hume made an interesting
observation about the Milo Y. hullabalo, including
his visit and speech in Parliament. She said
it is best to simply "turn the volume down" on
attention seekers.

"You know, young man swaggers into Canberra,
attention-seeking, saying outrageous things, and
appeasing the far-right, and getting some media
coverage".

"Sounds like the Coalition party room".

A familiar drum beat in the 45th Parliament. A lot
of ruckus, and not a lot of consequence.

The thing about Milo isn't that he is a new and radical thinker of the right but that he offers sign-posts for those thinkers of the right.

It may be that he is homophobic and transphobic and a host of other phobias but that is only in terms of the current meanings of usages of those terms ie 'homophobic' is a term used to describe someone who says something about the homosexual community that that community doesn't want said. It is used to shame the speaker into silence and into seeking redemption.

Milo most defintely says things the homosexual community would prefer remain unsaid but he refuses to be silenced. This is what infuriates the left. The rules that have applied for so long are now being ignored by the likes of Milo, Trump, Drudge, Shapiro, the Breitbart journalists and others. Pauline was an early, though less articulate, example of this. When social shaming doesn't work to silence these people, the left naturally turns to violence and, sometimes, the courts.

Milo's place in all this is to distil and package new conservative/libertarian thought to make it accessible. By mocking the taboos of the left and saying the heretofore unsayable, he allows others to say it also. When something becomes unsayable, it eventually becomes unthinkable. Saying it makes it thinkable.

That's Milo Y's role. Its a role he is perfect for and which he does very well. That's why those who claim to oppose hatred, hate him. Its why those who claim to abhor violence, perpetrate or support violence against him. Its why those who say they oppose intolerance are intolerant of him.

But don't seek out Milo to see new insights on conservative/libertarian thought. For that we have Shapiro.

Foxy,

Finally you are getting the point and agreeing with Liberal Senator Jane Hume. If you don't like the message, don't listen.

What we have is left whinge and unionist thugs trying to ensure that no one can listen to the message.

As long as Milo isn't inciting violence or illegal activity, he should be allowed to speak if not then free speech has been sacrificed and censorship reigns.

Not mere 'attention seekers', imported culture of 'Progressive' Left violence,

"The Rise of the Violent Left"
Antifa’s activists

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

<<I think it's incorrect to say Milo is all style and no substance, I think he's got plenty of both.>>

Sorry, this is not correct. For example, I purchase a lot of designer label clothing (like Milo does) during mid year sales. One time I got a $99.00 shirt at David Jones for $19.95. Many of these clothes are made in poor countries, where people are simply exploited.

This is style. I get to wear designer label clothing and substance as department stores make less profit. I am actually taking action, and making a difference. Milo does not do that.

<<As long as Milo isn't inciting violence or illegal activity, he should be allowed to speak if not then free speech has been sacrificed and censorship reigns.>>

The facts are he is inciting violence. Violent protesters come into that fact, because their activities are simply violent.

That does not mean I agree or disagree with this activity.

Violent protests in my view based around Milo Yiannopoulos achieve little. Personally I'd rather see these people engage in well thought through debate or volunteering, (like I do) which has much better outcomes.

It must be noted, that via many youtubes I have seen Milo Yiannopoulos with religious individuals, aim to show his clear goal to make these people angry or upset and in one case I saw people leaving one of his speeches and others applauded that.

<<The rules that have applied for so long are now being ignored by the likes of Milo, Trump, Drudge, Shapiro, the Breitbart journalists and others. Pauline was an early, though less articulate, example of this.>>

I agree. Simply putting out a message in more stylish tone, but your speech is still the same as many other extreme views makes no difference, applying to what some consider left or right wing politics.

<<But don't seek out Milo to see new insights on conservative/libertarian thought. For that we have Shapiro.>>

I agree with that. In fact have seen Ben Shariro on youtube, and he has dissociated himself from the many views of Milo Yiannopoulos.

AJ Philips, you destroy your argument by confirming it's "how society expects them to dress and behave" that "distresses" them.

So changing your body is not the answer. Changing societal expectations is.

Dumb analogies?

"Age isn’t a spectrum in which children may be born genuinely thinking and feeling like adults."

Actually age is a spectrum, genius.

Children aren't born "gendered".
For the first few years they are *neuter*, displaying little sex/gender differentiation.

There is a clear biological demarcation though between male/female child/adult: puberty
But this is also a spectrum, unfolding over several years.
But nobody who had a penis before puberty has ever had a vagina afterward, by "nature".

Second dumb analogy:

Sexual preference is not fixed, it is fluid, as Freud, Kinsey, etc confirm.
Homosexuality is rampant in single-sex environments (prison, military, boys/girls schools), but those same individuals will be hetero outside those environments.
Conversely, a "gay" man would become hetero if shipwrecked on an island with only women for company.

As for "nature", the sexual organs are "naturally" reproductive, but they are not exclusively used in that way.
Even other animals besides humans vary in sexual expression.
One's genitalia cannot vary the same way one's use of them can.
You either have these bits or those bits.
What you do with them is another matter altogether.

A tiny number of people have both or indeterminate genitalia. Again, that should be *accepted*, not modified to fit "society".

People can have infinite subjective perceptions of their bits, bodies and what they do with them.
Transgender orthodoxy attempts to put infinity into finite duality.
It should be something "progressive" people reject, not champion.

"The rowdy, far-Left, on the other hand, aren’t behaving any differently to how they would if any other alt-right poster boy had come to town."

And why do they do that?
They mock and criticise people protesting outside abortion clinics, arguing it violates free choice, yet practice the same tactics (and worse).

They argue "If you don't want abortions, don't have one!", but fail to comprehend "If you don't like alt-right speakers, don't attend their speeches".

Nathan J, "The facts are he [Milo Yiannopoulos] is inciting violence"

OK, so where is your evidence? Otherwise it is just ad hominem.

Hi NathanJ,

I'm finding that your responses are just becoming idiotic.
So you're saying that you buy designer clothes that are made in countries where people are "simply exploited".
But because you 'shop the specials', and do the 'end of season sales', you are 'taking action' and displaying 'style and substance' that (you allege) Milo does not; and that you therefore have some higher moral authority?
And that this is the gauge with which you base you judgement and opinion of him on?

Sorry but that's just completely ridiculous.
- I wasn't referring to his dress sense; nor anything to do with the ethics of where, what or how much he pays for his clothes.

Definition of 'Style'

n. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.
n. The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+style&t=ffnt&atb=v81-6_b&ia=definition

Hi Shockadelic,

Brilliant ! You make a number of very relevant points there, and I think I agree enthusiastically with every one of them.

Cheers,

Joe

<<OK, so where is your evidence? Otherwise it is just ad hominem.>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7FtjtF4gM0

Personally I do consider this as inciting violence (in terms of what it includes) and what may occur after the activity in question.

I know this due to the fact I have been put through similar activity myself, as per below.

Other people strongly objected to the actions (of the other person in question) at a community group meeting I was a member of. The person in question then stopped their verbal abuse. I was nearly in the position of feeling the want to push the person out of their chair at the meeting I was at, as the claims made against myself (for some time) were completely and constantly false.

This included a long letter in a local letter the editor page in a local newspaper attacking myself as an individual. Personally I was shocked, but I did not reply to the letter, generally because I am a very passive person.

To put it simply, I take the view that two wrongs do not make a right.

Nathan J,

I took three minutes out of my day and gave it away after finding NO instance whatsoever of Milo Y inciting violence by anyone. In fact the reverse was true, he obviously abhors violence and has made it his mission to challenge and use his best weapon against it, which is satire and blunter where powerful serial offenders are concerned.

He is a game one, that is for sure.

Definition of substance:

n. the quality of being dependable or stable.
n. the quality of being important, valid, or significant.

I realise that all you devout fanboys believe he possesses the qualities of being important and significant in spades, but you're only fooling yourselves. To many people, he's just an empty vessel making a lot of noise. Those of them who know who he is, anyway. For most people it's more a case of 'sorry, who?' than 'oh, that silly twat' from the Milo-cynics or 'My hero! Isn't he dreamy' from the fanboys.

Nathan,

Milo has never incited violence. To incite violence, you need to actually ask people to commit acts of violence. Stating one's opinions is not incitement.

The only excuse that the left whinge and union thugs have ever needed is that someone says something they disagree with.

Shockadelic,

No, I don’t destroy my own argument.

<<… you destroy your argument by confirming it's "how society expects them to dress and behave" that "distresses" them.>>

Because I also noted “the discomfort of their bodies …”. Society alone doesn't influence that part.

<<So changing your body is not the answer. Changing societal expectations is.>>

Sure, if you ignore my point about the discomfort of their own bodies.

<<Actually age is a spectrum, genius.>>

I know, I never said otherwise. Read what I said again, genius.

<<Children aren't born "gendered".>>

Actually, there are a few biological explanations as to why they can be mentally skewed one way or the other, even before birth. I even provided you with a link explaining these.

<<But nobody who had a penis before puberty has ever had a vagina afterward, by "nature".>>

Agreed. I’m not sure how this discredits anything I have said, though.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of what you have to say about sexuality, too. I’m not sure what its relevance was, sorry.

<<And why do [the rowdy far-Left behave the way they do]?>>

I don’t know. Immaturity? Hypersensitivity? How about you ask them?

<<They mock and criticise people protesting outside abortion clinics, arguing it violates free choice, yet practice the same tactics (and worse).>>

I know, right! The hypocrisy is appalling.

<<They argue "If you don't want abortions, don't have one!", but fail to comprehend "If you don't like alt-right speakers, don't attend their speeches".>>

Sing it, brother!

Hey NathanJ,
"The facts are he is inciting violence. Violent protesters come into that fact, because their activities are simply violent."
That's total nonsense as well.
He's not forcing anyone to come out onto the streets it engage in violent behavior.
Each and every individual that does so made their own conscious decision to do that.
It's called 'taking responsibility for one's own actions'
- So I can go out onto the streets and wreck up the place, smash stuff up and attack people and as long as I say
'Well NathanJ said things that both offended and angered me so I have a legitimate right to cause mayhem'?

"It must be noted, that via many youtubes I have seen Milo Yiannopoulos with religious individuals, aim to show his clear goal to make these people angry or upset and in one case I saw people leaving one of his speeches and others applauded that."

Yes that's right, and he explained his reasoning for doing so clearly in the Bolt interview.
http://youtu.be/OqCxWk-xMA4?t=6m45s

I think you completely fail to see the bigger picture.

Democracy thrives on civilised disagreement, it's how we move our thinking forward. Brute force used by either Right or what passes these days for a 'Left' stunts that process. Essentially, it's fascist bullying, either way. Smashing people with lumps of wood, or drowning out what others are saying, are on the same spectrum, verging on fascism. It's bullying at the very least.

Of course Milo is a joke, he's a caricature, deliberately outraging and provoking all and sundry. If he has a genuine side, does he raise genuine issues, which have to be rebutted by argument rather than punch in the face ?

We're living in a strange new world, in which it is legitimate for someone to scream at, threaten and assault anyone who disagrees with them, on both sides. What's the point, ultimately?

If you or I have a genuine point to make, surely we have a right to put our point of view, and to be criticised, even utterly demolished, by better counter-arguments, without any threat of bullying ? Or is bullying something only the other side does ?

Joe

AJ Philips "the discomfort of their bodies. Society alone doesn't influence that part"

Only society (i.e. environment) can be responsible for that "discomfort".
No person is *born* disliking their body.
That disconnect must have been *induced* by experience.

"I even provided you with a link explaining these."

Yes, hormones in the womb can cause an *spectrum* of outcomes, not a duality of outcomes. My point and position.

Most of these studies show the subjects as "in between" or "intermediate", not the "opposite" of the expected.

So yes, genes and social experiences can cause all kinds of fuzzy outcomes. Agreed. So you're a little weird. Accept yourself and move on.

I note there are NO studies of "Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals". NONE!
Why is that AJ, if people are *born* like this, and it's not socially motivated/constructed?

Is it because there's no *social* motive to transition?
If you're born female and are a tomboy, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a female who wears pants and has short hair, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a tomboy who likes having sex with men, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a feminine boy who grows up to be gay, nobody bats an eye.

So if you're a masculine female or feminine male who likes having sex with men, there is no *social* incentive or motivation to change identity or surgically alter your body.
And that's why there are no studies of androphilic female-to-male transsexuals.

"Sing it, brother!"

I prefer the neuter term sibling, please.

Strange how our units seem to be turning out total Marxist thugs or snowflakes who are deeply offended by words (often truthful ones). This Milo or isn't chocolate character has certainly shown that.

//This Milo or isn't chocolate character has certainly shown that.//

Character. What an apt way of putting it.

<<I'm finding that your responses are just becoming idiotic>>

With definition of style, please note there are 'various' definitions of style, such as:

a: The state of being popular: fashion clothes that are always in style;

b: Fashionable elegance;

c: Beauty, grace, or ease of manner or technique an awkward moment she handled with style.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/style

From that also comes definitions such as:

a: A distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech), writes with more attention to style than to content and the flowery style of 18th century prose.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/style

One can therefore easily argue with what Milo Yiannopoulos says, does (and wears) easily fits into the above definitions.

<<Milo has never incited violence.>>

To incite is to cause to act or occur. Violent words can incite violent actions which, in turn, might incite public outcry against violence. Incite comes from a Latin verb meaning "to move into action" and if you incite someone to do something, that is exactly how to describe it.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/incite

The origin and Etymology of incite:

"Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion — more at cite"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

So to put it simply, if someone says something that say for example is overtly, somewhat or very controversial, this can as per the above, "incite violence".

How much simpler does that have to be in definition?

Shockadelic,

If we can agree on this much, then we’re probably wasting each other’s time now:

<<So yes, genes and social experiences can cause all kinds of fuzzy outcomes.>>

This is what I have always maintained wherever beliefs, thoughts, and behaviours were concerned (most recently in a discussion with mhaze (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19418#345212)), as this is what all the evidence suggests.

My only problem was that you originally portrayed transsexuals as merely delusional, and there is far too much evidence against such an assertion.

<<I note there are NO studies of "Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals". NONE!>>

There are plenty:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=female-to-male+transsexuality+causes

<<Why is that AJ, if people are *born* like this, and it's not socially motivated/constructed?>>

I have never claimed that sociological factors don’t play a role. Again, go back and read what I actually said.

It seems to me like you need to start reading what I say a little more carefully.

What does his dress sense have to do with anything?
Also this idea of 'inciting violence' - I'm calling BS.
It's silly people like you who mistake organised provocateurs deliberately intending to cause violence as legitimate protestors.

They do not want conservatives to hear their point of view.
These people deliberately attend these places to cause violence and try to silence the points of view they don't agree with.

This video is priceless.
It was great seeing Milo make her look stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7FtjtF4gM0
I'd like to know your exact reasons for thinking Milo was inciting violence here.

I'm not sure what you saw but let me tell you what I saw.

- A stupid know-it-all know-nothing Aussie girl who very foolishly thought she had what it takes to argue social and political issues with Milo Yiannopoulos.
That's like walking into a burning building and not even being aware of it - that's how stupid she was getting up on stage in the first place. Careful, ya might get burned.
Clearly she was inept, had little knowledge of that with which she was supposed to be defending, and Milo made light work of her feeble attempts to challenge him.
Remember she was the one who wanted to get in front of the camera to challenge him.
If she made a fool of herself then it was her own doing.

I think if someone says stupid things, they deserve to be called stupid.
Not only that, if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

"So to put it simply, if someone says something that say for example is overtly, somewhat or very controversial, this can as per the above, "incite violence". How much simpler does that have to be in definition?"

I dunno, but I'm betting you could make it even simpler.
- That's if your argument holds up, so lets put it to the test.

Could you please give an example of something someone might say where you think violence is a justified and reasonable response?

AJ "There are plenty"

Not in the wiki link you provided, which discusses brain function of every other transgender type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

"1.4 Brain function
1.4.1 Androphilic male-to-female transsexuals
1.4.2 Gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals
1.4.3 Gynephilic female-to-male transsexuals"

There is no 1.4.4 Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals.

Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals are not mentioned *anywhere* on that page.

Why is that, AJ?

Your other link is about "female-to-male transsexuals" not "Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals", so please specify a study of Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals.
I presume you don't actually know of one.

A person born female, who wants to live and dress as a "gay man" would have little social incentive/motive to transition, as s/he would be accepted by most in the queer community, and even look "butch" in the straight community without raising an eyebrow.
And growing up attracted to men would not have had any stigma, as s/he was seen as a "girl".

It is not "deluded" to be strange or unusual.
It is "deluded" to think you are a *specific* thing (man/woman) when you are do not meet the very definition of that thing.

If I desperately want to be "Chinese" in my heart, I can wear the clothes, learn the language, even have surgery on my face, but I will never be "Chinese" if I wasn't *born* with those genetic characteristics that define "Chinese" people.
Nor did I have the immensely important formative life experience of growing up "Chinese".

And it would be ludicrous to demand everyone else accept my fraudulent/delusional self-identification.

Changing my clothes or mannerisms, or artificially modifying my body, does not make me authentically "Chinese".

It is Aussie culture based on Western values to be able to debate opposing views without violence and to defend the right of the other person to say their views even though we disagree. That is why we have the Westminster system of Government with an opposition posing difference of opinion.

This forum is not a one side debate and all opinion is valid argument, all subjects should be able to be debated respectfully and intelligently. When a person loses an argument they either agree to disagree, or a poor looser turns to violence or abuse to destroy his opposition.

Hi Josephus,

Yes, what I love about OLO is that nobody can punch you in the mouth for having a different opinion. They have to either argue, descend into ad hominems, or bugger off. Spot-on !

AC,

Thanks for that brilliant video clip, I'm passing it around.

Cheers,

Joe

Nathan,

Your logic is faulty, MY has at no point incited his audience to commit violence. The violence is perpetrated by people either before he speaks or have not heard him speak.

INCITE,

encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behaviour).
"they conspired to incite riots"

synonyms: stir up, whip up, work up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, waken, inspire, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment, agitate for/against; More
urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way.

The onus for the violence lies completely with the left whinge fascist thugs protesting.

What you've all done, of course, is play right into MY's hands. He thrives on this stuff. My first reaction to him every time I see him, is to think how much he reminds me of Princess Diana in the way he shyly drops his head, lowers his eyelids and looks downwards to the right; he even starts looking like the woman.

I don’t know why that is, Shockadelic.

<<Why [are androphilic female-to-male transsexuals are not mentioned anywhere on that page], AJ?>>

If you want to know why there are so few studies done on that category of transsexual, then how about you ask an expert in the field instead of inserting your own assumptions as to why and assuming you have me cornered on something?

There may be far fewer of them, making the research dollars harder to attain or justify. You mention another possibility:

<<A person born female, who wants to live and dress as a "gay man" would have little social incentive/motive to transition, as s/he would be accepted by most in the queer community, and even look "butch" in the straight community without raising an eyebrow.>>

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to make it clearer as to what it is I have said that you have discredited. I have never argued that social factors do not play a role.

<<It is "deluded" to think you are a *specific* thing (man/woman) when you are do not meet the very definition of that thing.>>

Well, definitions change with changing views and new evidence, so I don’t think you’re on very solid ground there. If what you mean to say is that it is delusional to think that one is biologically the opposite sex to what they are biologically, then I would agree with you.

What is not delusional, however, is mentally being, or feeling like one is, the opposite sex to what one was born biologically.

<<Changing my clothes or mannerisms, or artificially modifying my body, does not make me authentically "Chinese".>>

By "authentically", I presume you mean “genetically”, in which case I would agree with you. You could still be culturally Chinese if you were raised there, though.

Hi AJ,

On your very last point: at the end of the First World War, a young unwed mother in Darwin passed her baby over to a Chinese family there, 'just for a short time' which stretched out to his entire childhood. A ginger-haired white kid, he was raised along with all the other Chinese-Australian kids of the family, took their name and was very much happily embedded in the Chinese community for the rest of his life. I heard him interviewed as an old man, and (so it seemed to a former Darwin resident like myself) he had a distinctly Darwin-Chinese accent.

So yes, one can become 'culturally Chinese' without any genetic changes. He probably wouldn't have had it any other way. But I'll bet he was surprised every time he looked in a mirror :)

Cheers,

Joe

The police are thinking of charging MY $50,000 for their small effort dealing with Left wing thugs. The dogs of the Left have infiltrated the police, too.

//The police are thinking of charging MY $50,000 for their small effort dealing with Left wing thug.//

Seems fair enough. They charge organisers of any large scale event for police operations... the cricket and football have to foot the bill (it's political correctness gone mad, I know), so why shouldn't other commercial enterprises.

Is it really the state's job to provide private commercial enterprises with free security? Sounds a bit socialist to me.

Hi Toni,

In the land of the fair go, maybe half of those costs could be billed to the Antifas ? Do they have a headquarters to send the bill to ? Maybe every time they disrupt some event or other ? Fair's fair, after all.

Cheers,

Joe

Hey Toni and ttbn,

I wouldn't necesarily be opposed to Milo paying for security at his venues, if all things were equal, but they aren't.
I think that particular argument is more complicated than what first meets the eye, and if you look deeper into it then it really starts to look like an outright attack on consevatives by the left.

Here's why I think that.

First and foremost, is the issue that these protesters and the groups they're aligned with are in many cases funded by Soros.

So lets look at how things filter down:

Soros funds activists such as ANTIFA, etc.
ANTIFA activists attack conservatives like Milo
Conservatives like Milo pay cost of ANTIFA activists

So Soros PAID to reduce Milo's income REVENUE.
It's clearly an attack by rich elites against conservatives.

Now, if Milo was Australian, should he still have had to pay the cost of Police?
I think if Australians want the right to speak freely, they shouldn't have to pay for police to do so.
But if foreigners come here and require taxpayer funded security, there is a case for them to cover their costs.
The problem in all fairness, is that conservatives don't have a hugely funded base with which to organise the type of income-damaging activities as the left does against them.

I think Soros should be held just as responsible for the costs of police.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Totally agree with you.
All the trouble-makers should share the costs involved,
which means also sending bills to - Reclaim Australia and the
True Blue Crew. People who
take part in violent protests should be held to account.
It is as you so rightly pointed out - the land of the "fair-go".

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, indeed: all those who commit or threaten violence and/or total disruption "in company", should have their 'company' billed, fascist and anti-fascist alike, IF they use or threaten violence, AND including trying to shout someone down. Too many times, and their organisation should be labelled something like a 'disorderly organisation' and banned, and associating with such a banned organisation should be an offence, like with bikies.

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

We don't want to turn into a divisive US style society
by allowing violent protesters to hijack our streets.

' In the land of the fair go, maybe half of those costs could be billed to the Antifas ? Do they have a headquarters to send the bill to ? '

yeah I suspect Centrelink.

Foxy,

If the bills for violence were spread evenly around the instigators of violence the left would bear 99% of the cost.

Secondly, the violence of the protesters is the single best advertisement that MY could get. His visit has been front page news every day that he has been here. The left whinge fascists pulled the same stunts at Trump's gatherings and look how that worked out. It was estimated that he got more than $1bn of free advertising.

If the left whinge Nazi thugs had simply gone home and watched the ABC, Milo would not be the superstar that he is today.

//In the land of the fair go, maybe half of those costs could be billed to the Antifas ?//

Yeah, it would be nice if we could make football hooligans foot the bill for football hooliganism.

And maybe one day we will be able to. But at the moment we can't, so we have an imperfect system in place, whereby if the football (or the cricket, or a popular music group, or MY, or his left-wing equivalent, or whoever) are a commercial enterprise who stand to make a profit from whatever the event is, and their commercial success of said event depends upon, or benefits from the security provided by police officers (who, let's face it, have better things to do with their time - that us taxpayers mostly pay for), then it is reasonable for them to pay for that security just as they would pay for private security. Unless we've decided that actually, there is a such a free lunch - but only if you're an alt-right pin-up boy.

The alternative is socialism.

If Milo was a lefty, would you be so quick to waive his tab? Fair's fair, after all.

//I think Soros should be held just as responsible for the costs of police.//

Yeah, whatever. I'm trying to reduce my intake of nuts, and between Zionist Dave and Op2, I'm going to have to avoid indulging on this occasion.

<<Could you please give an example of something someone might say where you think violence is a justified and reasonable response?>>

I can easily give you two examples.

1. I'm a farmer and I say, "Send the cows off to the slaughterhouse!" The cows are taken away by truck and subsequently killed (which is violent of course), with the final contents very nicely placed in the window of a butchers shop, for many people's enjoyment and consumption.

Personally, that's not something I would take on being vegetarian, I'd rather be a vegetable farmer, but I do accept and respect the choice of the majority of Australians to eat meat - despite the fact there is violence involved, which I disagree with.

a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

2. Another example is when I was living at home with my parents.

I had received a phone call from the police. I was accused of an action that was false. I found out I had been lied to by a security officer to get my details. Personally I was shocked.

One of my parents had taken in all of the conversation off the other cordless phone in another room. They came out very angry, came very close to my face and said something like: "Did you actually do any of that?"

Out of their complete disrespect towards myself (in terms of thinking I would do something that serious), I simply said: Yes!

I then got a slap across the face.

One may argue I deserved that, but what I said was a joke and my parents response was not something I was expecting to get.

So, make your own judgement. Please note I don't think I'll ever get over that slap across the face. I've probably got permanent facial damage.

//I don't think I'll ever get over that slap across the face. I've probably got permanent facial damage.//

Sometimes people just take things too far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Except in this case, I think we probably can make a judgement without the use of emoticons. 'I've probably got permanent facial damage'. Sounds like something (P)Rick off 'The Young Ones' would say.

If we want to ensure that the costs of having police at these events is paid for in proportion to the actual numbers of protesters from each side, there is but one solution - the protest has to become an all ticket affair.

Each protester must first go onto the ticketek (or other) website to purchase a ticket to the 'event'. The proceeds of the sales go to the police after deductions for ancillary costs of staging the event and supervising the sale. People like Milo could become a profit centre for the various police forces and would be invited back again and again.

The enterprising protest organiser would be able to innovate by selling different classes of tickets. A discounted family ticket so that the kids could see democracy in action. A basic ticket would allow you to stand at the back and wave approved signage displaying your outrage. More expensive tickets would enable the buyer to engage in more direct action - use pepper spray, hit opposition protesters, wack a cop etc. Security would need to monitor this to ensure people didn't over-step their approved allowance - "sorry you only bought a silver class ticket so you'll have to leave the baseball bat at the gate. You can collect it on the way out".

Seems reasonable to me.

Hi Mha,

Perhaps the Antifas could come to an arrangement with the police and purchase a block of 'seats', like companies at the football. [And the Profas as well]. They could then offer concession prices to their most loyal members, perhaps season tickets - with time allowances for any inconvenience like jail. Of course, the police could designate certain areas to be pro- or anti-fascist. Mr Whippy (does he/she still operate ?) could offer discounts on loud-hailers and baseball bats, and maybe star pickets as well. Maybe someone could do face-painting and/or drum practice.

A good time could be had by all. Bring an Esky !

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why is it that you consistently only find fault with
the "Left" side of politics but continue to make
excuses for what the "Right" side does. It's always
the fault of the "Left". How about condemning violence
from all sides, violence and provocation - no matter
who starts it or do you really believe that Reclaim Australia
and the True Blue Crew are such innocent people?

How about a bit of balance. Violence should not be tolerated
from anybody. And most voters are now also getting sick and
tired of the constant old "Left"/"Right" divisive tactics.
Which are so yesterday and don't achieve anything except
divide people even further.

Loudmouth,

Yeah I'm not sure about the season ticket idea. The problem is the paraphernalia that goes with the activity isn't really suited to multiple use. When you buy a Collingwood season ticket, for example, all you need is to buy your black-and-white scarf and you're good to go.

But your "Death to Milo" placard isn't really re-usable unless you're fortuitously protesting Cadbury next week.

But I do see a business opportunity here. Someone could manufacture multi-use placard. Printed with a "Death to" slogan and below it a strip of blackboard paint. So this week you chalk in Milo, next week "trump", then "the US", Abbott, "multinationals" and so forth.

The placard could even be used interchangeably for the footy fan ie "Death to Collingwood". Although I don't think the AFL would allow such a thing in the crowd deeming it hate speech. But you might be get it through by arguing its not hate speech but "Hope" speech.

The business opportunities are endless. Designer baseball bats. Pepper-spray refills. Some of the more charismatic antifas might even get sponsorship deals.

Foxy,

I do condemn all violence, but the point I was making is that for every one instance of violence by right wing elements, there are orders of magnitudes of instances of violence by left whingers. And where there are instances of right wing violence it is nearly always in response to left whinge violence.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course you would say that. Thank you for
proving my point.

Foxy,

If your point is that I tell the truth, then bravo. If not perhaps you can prove me wrong. Take this as a challenge.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't have to prove you wrong. The facts are on
the web for all to see except for those such as yourself
who brushes them aside as "Leftist propaganda".

I am a virgin when it comes to this guy so I 'bulked up' on him by consulting the book of Google. I am surprised at all this negativity around this guy. I found him to be clear and possibly well rehearsed but he puts himself out there and holds his ground to his credit. I can't fault his information nor his presentation. So all that's left is the left. As he says if you disagree with him because of his facts then the problem is you. I am surprised at my taking a shine to him given my stance on queers. I find him free of any political correctness and that to me is pure gold. So I'm sorry for all you detractors, you must be part of the 'rent-a-crowd' mob so you will not be taken seriously. Oh and by the way apparently you guys get a little too emotional and physical trying to push your puppeteers agenda. Stop it! You've been caught out so go find another 'real' problem to disrupt and vilify.

Foxy,

The facts are on the web, just you look in the places where they don't exist.

Every single violent demonstration has left whingers at the core of it.

Hi Foxy,

Let me add my take to this:

"Why is it that you consistently only find fault with
the "Left" side of politics but continue to make
excuses for what the "Right" side does. It's always
the fault of the "Left". How about condemning violence
from all sides, violence and provocation - no matter
who starts it or do you really believe that Reclaim Australia
and the True Blue Crew are such innocent people?"

That's really pretty simple:

The left represent 'OFFENSE'
The right represent 'DEFENSE'

Just a quick thought:
If you support Milo,
The left cant use racist, sexist, xenophobe etc
They're reduced to idiots and can't fight the issues on their own merits.
All they can do is try to silence him and incite violence, including attacking his supporters all in hope that stupid people are dumb enough to think Milo is responsible for it.

Yes Milo is gay, and it's a small step to the left, but he fights them well enough on his own merits the sum total is a larger step to the right.

Well, having read most of the posts, I have come to the conclusion that it is not Milo Yiannopoulos who is the joke, but the Left bed-wetters, as usual.

Hi Ttbn,

I'm inclined toggle with you. If anybody on the 'Left' had any regard for the freedom of expression, they would put somebody up against Milo who could match him. Can they ? It doesn't seem so. Does that mean that they don't have any counter-arguments ? Seems likely.

I had a good friend, now deceased, on that sort of 'Left', forty-odd years ago, when Prof. Hans Eysenck, a proponent of the racist notion that IQ was inherited, was due to speak at Flinders University. I suggested that his assertions should be challenged in public discussion (they used to have then back then). My friend said, "No, SMASH him !" I was a little non-plussed: I'd never thought of socialism/marxism as going down that path, but then I suppose I'd lived a sheltered life. He had a wild look in his eyes, as if he eagerly anticipating smashing at least somebody, anybody. Perhaps fascism lurks deep within all of us.

Question for the 'Left': come the day, will there be freedom of expression in your Utopia ?

Joe

Joe,

We already know that there could be no freedom in the Left's utopia. We have seen that utopia in Russia and Eastern Europe, and we still see it in Red China. We remember. The nappy-wearing Left are not taught history.

Hi Nathan,

How do you think your thread is going so far ? Is Milo really just a joke ? Or is it that the 'Left'has no-one who can match him ? No, I don't agree with much of what I've read and heard about him, but what I've read and heard seems be put in a very 'reasonable' way which nobody on the 'Left' can counter, except by taking the fascist path and 'smashing' him any way they can.

I wonder if the 'Left' cares that their tactics are totally counter-productive except in the hipster cafes and bistros of Carlton. Do they have better arguments ? Clearly, so far, no. The 'Left' is perhaps not a joke, but it certainly can't be taken seriously, except, hopefully, by some members of the AFP.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

As Miss Piggy once said - "Judgements are in the
eyes of the beholder and it may be necessary
from time to time to give a stupid, ignorant,
or misinformed beholder a black eye." ;-)

There is an imported culture of US 'Progressive' Left violence.

The Left as it used to be, the Sixties fighters against censorship, freedom of speech for everyone, would never have countenanced supporting the dishonourable and grubby politics of Victoria's police minister, The Hon. Lisa Neville MP, who grandstanded to publicly boast that Milo Yiannopolous would be sent a bill for police officers to attend a demonstration organised by the authoritarian Antifa and others.

Politician Lisa Neville was at pains to point out that while she should get the political credit from the leftists, according to Neville it was the police whose idea it was to send a bill (yeah, right as if the police minister wasn't involved!), so if anything backfired the chief cop could take the blame instead.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm tempted to agree, but the Right can be tackled in more peaceful ways. Such as polite discussion. I look forward to a dose of 'Left'-wing Milo, if there are any on the 'Left' with the intellect. No, I suppose not. I'm not interested in the use of brute force, it's simply counter-productive. And frankly, I suspect that the violent anarcho-nihilist groups on the 'Left', and the racist/fascist groups on the extreme Right, need each other. They're just two sides of the same proto-fascist coin, after all.

I remember, from maybe forty years ago, an episode of some British TV drama or other, in which one undercover cop casually mentions that a Trotskyite group had received its secret monthly payment from some extreme-Right group. I've never forgotten that possibility, even though it may have been not quite non-fictional.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Assistant Commissioner Stephen Leane put it so well
when he said :

"We live in a world of Kardashian-style popularity,
it's no different to the tactics that are being used by
the left and the right".

"I think what we're seeing in the whole world is that
if you don't have a 30 second grab of something really
exciting then you're not going to make the front page
of the news. We know that both these groups, the left
and the right will do everything they can to goad and
to attack the police to get that one shot where it looks
like our police are responding in an aggressive way".

And hundreds of left and right protesters gathered in
front of the Melbourne Pavilion on Racecourse Road and
Stubbs Street where they faced off and fought with sticks.

Riot police stormed the protest and used pepper spray to
subdue the crowd which included Reclaim Australia, the
True Blue Crew, The Freedom Party and the Campaign
Against Racism and Fascism group.

And of course Milo Y. benefited from all this free publicity.

He's not a joke.

As the American comedian George Burns once said:

"The secret of success is sincerity.
If you can fake it, you've got it made".

//If anybody on the 'Left' had any regard for the freedom of expression, they would put somebody up against Milo who could match him. Can they ?//

What I wouldn't give to see a debate between Milo and the late Christopher Hitchens. Poor little boy would get Hitch-slapped so hard it'd make his head spin.

I suspect the Hitch was not the last of the great debaters, and that there a quite a few who could give mop the floor with our hero. Last time I bothered watching one of Milo's 'debates', his arguments were one big fallacy-fest and his strongest tactic was to constantly interrupt and speak over his opponent. Of course, his opponent was no better.

Somebody like Stephen Fry would tear him a new one. But I'll wager that you never get to see it happen. Milo doesn't seem like the sort of bloke who'd get into a debate with somebody who is better at it than him. Losing would damage his brand and his ego. Far easier to shoot fish in barrels and then sit back and receive the adulation of the easily impressed.

Joe,

It appears you’re now a Milo convert. I’m not sure why you think his arguments are so good.

I can think of plenty of lefties who could take him down pretty damn quickly in a debate. The names Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens immediately come to mind. Then there’s Stephen Fry. Matt Dillahunty, the guy in the video I linked to earlier, who regularly engages in formal debates, could absolutely take the little show pony down quite easily.

If Milo wants to debate Islam specifically, then I would recommend he go up against Maajid Nawaz. I suspect Milo would be as confused and as caught-off-guard as what the Right think the Left are over Milo’s seemingly contradictory sexuality and political views.

Heck even I’d be happy to debate Milo. I’ve seen plenty of his material now and could point to a few areas in which he is wrong, and, more importantly, why he is wrong (in fact, I’ve already done so in this thread).

I’ve even seen right-wingers (e.g. Ben Shapiro) discredit some of his arguments, and using the same lines of reasoning that lefties would.

It appears you’ve seen a few rowdy protesters, and an informal debate of Milo’s with one bimbo Muslim, and suddenly think his arguments are bulletproof.

P.S. You can stop putting quotation marks around ‘Left’. The two sides of the political spectrum are an inadequate dichotomy, and can even overlap in certain areas. I’m not sure you really understand what constitutes Left and Right

Hi AJ,

No, I don't agree with most of his positions. But I do enjoy how he operates. I just wish the 'Left' had people who could counter him - certainly, rather that the the anarchist-fascist tactics of brute force. I'm sure you wouldn't support that alternative. :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

No, I don’t support “anarchist-fascist tactics of brute force”. The video I linked to earlier should have made that clear.

I don’t like how Milo operates. I probably would have liked it more ten years ago, but I realise now just how counter-productive his style is, as people will all-too-often use a strident tone to dismiss everything you say - especially when it conflicts with their views. I’ve also been finding it increasingly distasteful, and for no apparent reason other than perhaps the fact that I’m just getting older. I’ve been getting into the whole ‘street epistemology’ approach to communicating, it appears immensely effective (for both sides), and it's more how I'd discuss differences of opinion face-to-face. But street epistemology is a topic for another day...

<<I just wish the 'Left' had people who could counter him - certainly, rather that the anarchist-fascist tactics of brute force.>>

Well, Toni Lavis and I have mentioned some. Or do the quotation marks around ‘Left’ denote a section of the Left meant to remain ambiguous?

Hi AJ,

I suppose the Left (including the 'Left') is a very broad church - I still think of myself as being out on one tiny wing of it (if churches had wings). As an ex-communist and -Maoist, I don't think of the Labor Party as being all that Left, and - excuse me - I think, up their inside my tiny brain, of the Greens as generally belonging to various factions of the 'Left'. Some of them might even be genuinely Left.

What's the difference ? God, it's so hard to put into words. To my slow (and slowly deteriorating) mind, support for Rohingyas would be one touchstone. A clear-eyed and qualified support for refugees, climate change action, Indigenous affairs and public funding in health and education would be included. In fact, most issues would be open to qualification, nothing much is 100 % squeaky-clean progressive, in my view.

In his last years, Karl Popper described himself as a liberal and a socialist. I'm not quite sure how to square those positions, except that neither is perfect, and each has its positives. In my last years, I'm comfortable with that/those positions. Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be. When I was a Marxist, and actually reading Marx and even more so Lenin (and of course Mao), I had a few doubts about some of their basic assumptions. It didn't seem, for example, that the workers were becoming ever-more immigrated: they seemed back then too be doing not too bad. Skills seemed to be an ever-expanding proliferation rather than an ever-simplification.

Looking back,

[TBC]

[continued]

Looking back into the sixties and seventies, it seems that my view of Marxist-Leninist socialism has expanded from a naive notion that all of us would become willing workers, Stakhanovites, pulling together in common cause, to a more nuanced differentiation between Stakhanovites, 'managers' and executioners: and one could always easily see which 'socialists' favoured which branch-line.

And I realised how few Stakhanovites there might be in our future perfect society: socialists would prefer to be either - as they were in Soviet society and now Chinese society - managers, planners, organisers, administrators, dictating to the masses, and/or secret police, executioners, winkling out dissidents. I thought, bugger it, I'm condemned to remain a dissident and, where it was possible, a Stakhanovite. So I realised I would never fit into actual, real-life socialist society.

Then I read about the Mafia, about patron-client systems, and realised that the socialist and/or communist apparatus was just another one: a manager-type or executioner-type could as easily spout Marxist slogans as work for Tony Soprano, or Ferdinand Marcos. Hence the attraction on the 'Left' for Saddam or Gaddafi,or even Mugabe, I suppose.

I don't know how the Greens are organised but I imagine their structure and activities could operate similar to a Mafia-type organisation, tarted up of course as a socialist one. What put my spinning brain off-track ? Probably reading Solzhenitsin; Mao's murder of Lin Piao; of course, Pol Pot, all back in the seventies. And sheer life experience.

It's lonely out here, AJ. :). But to thine self be true. I hope this is useful.

Cheers,

Joe

This thread has run out of puff, and the conclusion must be that it is Nathan (who originally called a young bloke many times smarter than he is a 'joke'), along with the rest of his Lefty mates, who are the real jokes; they get funnier all the time, and they continue to display just how uproariously funny they are each time they post, most of them seemingly getting their lines from what passes for comedy on the ABC.

AJ,

"It didn't seem, for example, that the workers were becoming ever-more immigrated: they seemed back then too be doing not too bad. " Jeez. "Immiserated", not immigrated. Smart-arse computer.

Joe

<<This thread has run out of puff, and the conclusion must be that it is Nathan (who originally called a young bloke many times smarter than he is a 'joke'), along with the rest of his Lefty mates, who are the real jokes>>

ttbn, if you would like to know, I'm actually quite conservative on some issues. I can change my position on any issue at any time, based on information put out by others.

For example I now agree with Foxy, who recently said:

<<He's not a joke. As the American comedian George Burns once said:

"The secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake it, you've got it made".>>

To put this in perspective, for example the recent events in Australia people had to pay to see Milo Yiannopoulos:

1. For a private VIP Dinner Ticket $995.00
2. For a Backstage Pass $495.00
3. For a VIP Meet & Greet ticket $295.00
4. For a Gold ticket $89.00
5. For a student ticket $49.00

So clearly, there are a lot of people, willing to pay these sorts of prices, with nearly all shows across Australia a sell out.

I would easily put the attendees of Milo's events in the same category of the elitist arts/farts community in Australia who are also willing to pay expensive prices to attend events, and want many day to day citizens kept out of their elite environment.

Milo also has many supporters. So in that context his messages are getting out to many people. If these are taken seriously, there is the possibility, this will lead to quite negative outcomes in the community.

On the other hand many religious and other organisations, some more independent than others are providing important services to the homeless, people in financial difficulties and assisting people around Christmas time and this involves a lot of volunteer work.

With Milo, I checked online and he doesn't do much for the community. I could only find one example of charity assistance. His real desire is to take money from the public with no real public benefit at all.

Nathan,

I merely disagreed with you. I did not expect you to change your mind. I certainly didn't expect you to do an about face because someone as shallow as the ideologue and bully, Foxy, made one of her school-marm statements (copied from someone else, as usual, you should note).

I wouldn't cross the street to hear Milo – and not just because I wouldn't want to be physically attacked by Left-wing thugs. I can seem him on YouTube for nothing, and on Mark Latham's Outsiders for a small subscription. To me he is, like the rest of us, imperfect; but he is a welcome addition to the political scene and, unlike the Left loonies, he doesn't do violence. The Left is becoming increasingly violent the more they get away with it.

ttbn,

Don't be jealous. You too could quote from some
of the world's wittiest men and women if you
bothered to become literate instead of
consistently lowering the bar in all discussions
and behaving like the same old sausage fizzing and
sputtering in your own grease. Get a life, Read,
take your medication - and buy a personality.

<<I wouldn't cross the street to hear Milo – and not just because I wouldn't want to be physically attacked by Left-wing thugs.>>

Well I could argue ttbn, you are coming up with two things to make up such an excuse:

1. You are weak. Don't forget all of the Milo Yiannopoulos events were all a sell out. So there were plenty of others willing to 'cross the street and be physically attacked by Left-wing thugs'.

or

2. You were not be willing to pay prices ranging from $49.00 up to $995.00, with an extra booking fee needing to paid on top of that.

So Milo Yiannopoulos is not a joke. He is an exceptional business person, he has been able to keep going financially very well and at the same time he has a lot of supporters on board - including yourself.

//unlike the Left loonies, he doesn't do violence. The Left is becoming increasingly violent the more they get away with it.//

Yeah, because that's how it works. Everybody on the right is a paragon of virtue, and neo-Nazis, Klukkers and sundry other right-wing extremists never, ever commit any violence except in self-defense against the left. And everybody on the left is a violent extremist. Even the pacifistic ones like Quakers and hippies.

Sad thing is, I think some people around here would accept that as fact and fail to notice the obvious sarcasm.

Toni,

The problem with your rant is that the left whingers such as the Fascist Antifa, are responsible for far more violence than all the right wingers put together. The main thrust of the left whinge fascists is to prevent the free discussion of ideas that they don't agree with.

Nathan,

Excuse. What excuse?

Foxy,

Good luck with your 'dinner party'. Do they really still have such things? You and hubby will undoubtedly be sniggered at as two old farts desperately trying to be relevant in a world that has left you behind.

@NathanJ, Sunday, 10 December 2017 2:31:24 PM

I have done charity and other volunteering for years. It is highly improbable that MY's visit could have have negative impact in that area.

On the other hand it could easily be argued that the 'Progressive' left extremism and political correctness do threaten those increasingly broad areas where charities, more often requested, initiated and administered by church congregations, such as education, home visits, soup kitchens and so on.

You should be ware that federal government, BOTH sides of the federal Parliament, have sought and succeeded to pass the responsibility for (even) welfare housing onto the private sector and the community over recent decades.

It is the ideological Marxist fundamentalism of the 'Progressive' Left that throws the good done by church congregations out with the bathwater, as they ('Progressive' Left activists - which includes feminists of course) attack Christian churches (somehow Islam gets a free pass) along with any other despised 'traditional'(sic) institution (include free speech in that) that might be construed as criticising their morality.

To be blunt, you are seeming to give Ros Ward et al a free pass while slamming MY for his comedic satire of them. To add, his offence to them is as he says minor when compared with the disgraceful name-calling and sledging of the ordinary public by the illiberal 'Progressive' Left.

As for income, MY rightly says that he would earn far more and far more easily if he was to 'turn' and become the stereotypical Gay poster boy promoted by the Left.

ttbn,

Thank You for your concern about the dinner party
last night. It was held in a private
venue. It was also a fund-raiser for a very good
cause. We had a lovely time and yes - people do these
things nowadays, especially those that have something
to celebrate and are able to give
their time and their money for good causes as well.
A very inspiring evening. And I loved being able to
dress-up.

cont'd ...

ttbn,

BTW - will you be going to Tony Abbott sister's
wedding next year. We are!

Tony Abbott's sister has a name, Christine Forster.

OLO posters kindly expressed concern when Christine Forster was violently impeded in a demonstration and her clothing torn, but there were some notable exceptions,

'LEFTIST THUGS ASSAULT ABBOTT'S SISTER

Leftist thugs use illegal immigrants as their excuse to assault people here: "Tony Abbott's sister Christine Forster ... was attacked by an angry group of protesters who surrounded her and her partner outside a Liberal Party fundraiser. Ms Forster had her jacket torn to shreds." '
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/leftist-thugs-assault-abbotts-sister/news-story/f2882f082275d1ef67938017e43b5304

I have gone and viewed some of Milo's videos and read a couple of his written pieces and I have actually found him bloody entertaining.

To borrow from the Life of Brian “He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!

This bloke is laughing all the way to the bank and good on him. A young Jewish lad married to a black male partner who has all these rightwingers not only fawning over him but paying up to $1000 to hear him speak.

There is something very Sasha Barron Cohen about him. He must be pinching himself wondering how long he can get away with it but he is certainly playing the long game.

Some of what he says is so absurd, but the alt right just pick it up and run with it. He has made a few missteps such as his comments about sex with older men but he keeps getting away with them. On the whole he is pushing button with gay abandon and people are lapping it up. Bolt loves him and Latham even opened his events. Lol.

I hope I'm around to read his memoirs because I think they will be pretty revealing.

Well played mate.

Give her my best wishes, Foxy :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'll add your name to the list.

I would not trust the naivety of Foxy, she cannot be trusted.

https://lens.monash.edu/2017/12/07/1276100/same-sex-marriage-australia-finally-achieves-equality-but-theres-more-to-be-done

https://www.facebook.com/Monash.University/videos/10155510463863937/

The Catholic Church has Gays molesting children that is why homosexuality is not accepted in Christian services to children.

Dear Josephus,

No one is denying that sexual abuse of children is
horrendous and intolerable and that the failure of
the churches to deal with it effectively has done
immeasurable damage to victims. However I think that
you are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia.Clergy
who sexually abuse children are pedophiles.

The cover-ups, the protection of abusive clergy and
the refusal to admit egregious mistakes by churches
are unjustifiable. We have not yet even begun to
calculate the damage these crimes have done to
people's trust and to the reputation of the churches.

The churches have simply moved demonstrably abusive
clergy from parish to parish, thereby giving them
access to new victims. There is no doubt that the
clerical profession has taken a severe battering
and that respect for the clergy is, understandably,
at an all-time low. However blaming homosexuality
for these acts is wrong. . Not all heterosexuals are
violent and abusive and rape women. So not all
gay men abuse children. And the ones that do are
known as pedophiles. You need to make the distinction
between the two.

SR,

Yes MY is very entertaining. That he is extremely well informed and regularly shreds the left whinge identity politics makes him a conservative darling.

That he is Jewish, gay, and married to a black man strips the left whingers of all the epithets that they like to yell at conservatives. According to the left whingers Milo is a Jewish Nazi, a homophobic gay, and a white supremacist married to a black man.

Which is precisely why the radical left hate him so much, as it shows that they are even more fascist, homophobic and racist than the conservatives.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Sure, but he is also a very naughty boy.

Lol.

Dear SteeleRedux,

According to The Guardian Milo Yiannopoulos is
"an empty vessel who can thrive unchecked by
turning hate speech into show business."

Outrage appear to be his lifeblood and as The
Guardian points out without it he is nothing.
A shallow amoral actor who plays the bad guy
for money. A smirking void who should not be
taken seriously. Sadly he is.

And the conservatives love him. Conservative
according to The Guardian regard him as a
"brave conservative standard bearer" and that
he presents an "important perspective". Not
because he says anything of value but because
protesters hate him. That's the level debate over
free speech has sunk.

The more people he insults the more attention
he gets. However according to The Guardian - he's
vindictive. And his vindictiveness is not an act.

He co-founded in 2011 the tech journalism website
Kernel. In 2013, the Kernel was successfully sued
by former editor Jason Hesse for non payment of
wages and one female staffer publicly complained
about similar treatment. In a vicious email, Milo
threatened to ruin her career and called her "a
common prostitute". Many profile writers have
noted that Milo's critics won't speak on the
record for fear of vendettas.

Iain Martin, the Telegraph's former comment editor,
remembered "talk of him being someone who should
not be crossed", and was shocked by the cruelty
of his mob-like followers, which included rape
threats and doxing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-rise-and-fall-shallow-actor-bad-guy-hate-speech

Foxy,

Milo Yiannopoulos does reserve some of his strongest criticisms for Left (and Rainbow) bullying of ordinary people as 'homophobes', 'racists' and 'xenophobes'. -Not to mention the awful things feminists say about men. The left cannot abide any alternative opinions and definitely no 'conservative' views, let alone people who might question them.

So Foxy, to set things straight from the start, you wouldn't be one of those dreadful types who cat-calls opponents as 'homophobes' and demands restrictions on freedom of speech, now would you? Because if so, Milo might have you in his sights.

leoj,

I'll take your comments as an attempt at
provocation. Try again.

Foxy,

So you can't even give a straight answer about the language, the foul allegations such as homophobe, you may have directed at others on the forum and the general Australian public

leoj,

Keep trying.

While you're at it - how about you
going first? Your record on this forum
far outshines that of any body else and speaks
volumes.

Now, now kids. It's hard to convince someone that has believed in something for so long. You realise there is no winner in any of these forums. As someone who had never heard of this Milo guy or his, I'm not sure, nemesis? Ben something. Since this post began I have been bulking up on these two, and I've gotta say, I LOVE EM! They don't mince words. Ben being a typical Jew, says it like it is and as he himself says 'if what I say offends you, too bad, I just don't care' he explains he is making a point if you are affected by that point then respond, he will not feel anything, he is not driven by emotion just facts. As for Milo, his strengths are in the fact that he is a queer.Gaiz have an inordinate ability to say and do things normal people would not. He also has his facts covered and he too does not care if his comments offend as he too says 'I don't care'. I love them both they are top orators and unfortunately I see a side of Obummer in them. That's all Obummer was good at. He would speak for an hour and say nothing. These guys actually say something and people understand them. Why anyone would put them down I can only imagine are from the left or from rent-a-crowd.

leoj,

You've
CAT
to be
kitten
me right
MEOW : )

ALTRAV,

Unlike some here who seem to live this political stuff, I hadn't had exposure to MY before. He is smart. I meant that as a compliment and he has principles. I don't know how people in his position can handle the hundreds of often tricky questions put to them. Or how they endure the misinterpretations later.

Have you read any of Bettina Arndt's articles or seen her videos? I'd take her opinion above most. She is independent, forthright and her heart is in the right place.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/blog/

Dear AJ Philips,

I've taken a little peruse through the earlier posts and seen you had compared Milo to Borat as I had done. I'm not sure you can really say he takes it much further than Borat though, perhaps the change in target? I don't think he does and he seems to be having a lot of fun with it as well, but each to their own.

Dear Foxy,

Can I invite you to give Milo another chance? Perhaps look at this clip and notice Joe Hildebrand connecting with him. He gets him far more than the other guests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ef7Us0zw8Q

Not only is Milo Jewish, gay, and married to a black man but he is also effeminate, a grammar school lad with a decent dollops of Cambridge education to complete the package. He is everything the alt right loves to hate yet here they are eating out of his hand. I love it. It is interesting to see Alex Jones' body language at the start of the clip Armchair critic supplied us
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om5eCFOu9Oc&feature=youtu.be&t=58m58s
Milo came dressed in a stylized Grammar School blazer and Jones can hardly look at him yet here he was giving Milo two hours on his show. Astounding!

This is a clip of him singing 'America the beautiful' with a group of well known far right identities. They were so into him they were giving celebratory Nazi salutes. All this for a 'gay, pommie, intellectual toff'. Bloody top shelf stuff. He must be pinching himself. The brilliant absurdities like these that this man manages to repeatedly conjure up are wondrous.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMPDQ9Y43os

As I said I am really enjoying him and find him deliciously subversive. Put aside everything you have read and go along for the ride for a bit. Lots of fun to be had, especially seeing the usual suspects here lining up to polish his boots. Beautiful.

//I've taken a little peruse through the earlier posts and seen you had compared Milo to Borat as I had done.//

I still think he bears more resemblance to David Icke. Sacha Baron Cohen is quite open and upfront about his various characters being satirical creations; Icke and Yiannpolous are better about not breaking character. And they are both screamingly funny, and I suspect most people do get the joke. But you also know that, disturbingly, there will be people buying their books and going to their speaking events and taking it all completely seriously because they haven't realised it's a piss-take.

Toni L, why do you suggest that people like MY are taking 'the piss'? I feel people like Milo and Ben Shepiro are putting on a show because there is a demand for their particular brand of product. What I am really shocked about is that there are people out there who would bother to protest about them holding these shows. I cannot get my head around why they are so 'dangerous' and why there is so much dislike aimed at these guys. I would rather see politicians cop the flack these guys get. These guys expose the lies and corruption of the pollies and yet they are the ones being vilified and threatened. If the troublemakers are part of a rent-a-crowd campaign then I get it. But if they are serious then they just keep proving how stupid people really are. By holding these protests they are helping people like Milo and Ben by giving them free advertising and legitamising them. People who never heard of these guys will now want to go to their shows because the stirrers have brought them to their attention. Had they done nothing the public would have been none the wiser. You never know the stirrers are probably hired by Milo and Ben to help promote themselves. Just another angle. Never-the-less, I like them and their 'shows'!

As an old Marxist, I enjoyed this interview with David Horowitz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UZqfU4Ei8A

except for his support for that moron Trump.

Now, now Loudmouth. No one knows the real Trump. I like him because he is the cat amongst the pidgeons. For too long the Rothschilds have owned the US and other countries. It's good to see these bastards losing control, if only for a while. Sure Trumps not a politician. I've said previously that he is just like the American majority and he talks to them. Have you heard some of the crap the 'average' man comes out with? Well here they are all wrapped up into one person. He's trying to act the statesman but it's just not in him. Consequently he comes across as a bit of a fool. One of the things I like him for is that he was going to 'clean out the swamp'. I'll bet it isn't generally known that MOST of the close operatives surrounding the previous Presidents were all Rothschilds stooges. That's what he meant by 'cleaning out the swamp'.
Nah, he's OK, he just isn't popular with people who have pre-concieved ideas about how a President should conduct himself. As for his personal opinions and comments, I get him and so do millions of others out there. The soft cocks don't get him but their opinions are swayed by their feminine side so anyone bragging about touching up a woman is suddenly, what? Normal! All you fake men and women get some hormones and estragine or whatever and stop thinking like narrow minded, ignorant, intolerant, narcissistic morons and let him have his moment of glory. We all know he won't be there much longer, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

//anyone bragging about touching up a woman is suddenly, what? Normal!//

No, ALTRAVING, sexual assault is not normal behaviour.

Alt Rav,

If any woman passing by suddenly grabbed you by the nuts, for the amusement of all other women watching, and it happened again and again, would you go along with the 'joke' ?

Rape is rape. Sexual assault is an offence. Gosh, even against women.

Joe

Look the pair of you, firstly if women kept coming up to me and grabbing me by the nuts, would I go along with the joke? What are you de-ranged or lost some of your faculties? I WOULD WELCOME IT! Have you never herd the one about two guys walking down the street and every time a woman walked past he would stop her and whisper in her ear. To which he would get a slap for his trouble. One day his friend curious about all this asked him what he would whisper in these womens ear that caused them to respond as they did? He said, happily, I simply ask if they want a root? What? said the surprised friend, but you get so many slaps. He replied, Ah yes but I also get so many roots! Now re-think your question to me. Honestly, what are you a woman? Or.
As for you Toni, my little wall flower. Grow some stones. How quick the soft cocks of today reach for the PC manual. I don't give a rats about your PC sexual assault crap, but for a man wanting to touch up a woman, IS normal! just because you and the rest of the 'un-naturals' want to side with the 'bitches' movement, I like Milo, don't care. Assault? Do you or the rest of your moronic type know what assault is? I hope you get assaulted one day, if for no other reason but to stop using the word for simple acts of normal human interactions. Just because you and your lot don't like it. Too bad!

Dear ALTRAV,

And what if it were guys reaching for your balls? Would you welcome that?

But seriously mate you ain't a Milo so emulation without the intellect looks pretty silly.

As to Trump draining the swamp lowering the corporate tax rate so that the Rothchilds companies are swimming in foregone taxes sounds pretty much like he is giving them the big finger. I'm not sure how they are going to withstand such a hammering.

But part of me does welcome what a Trump presidency has done. It has forever stripped the power from the so called 'moral majority' which was always a minority of white, Christian evangelicals who had far too much power within the Whitehouse. By supporting a thrice married sexual predator they have lost any moral authority they have had. Pre Trump only 27% of them believed you could act immorally in private and still make a good president, now it is 77% greater than any other group.

They are gone dictating to the rest of America.

It is glorious.

//I don't give a rats about your PC sexual assault crap, but for a man wanting to touch up a woman, IS normal!//

For rapists.

SteeleRedux, 'If it were guys reaching for my balls, would I welcome that?' Hmm let me think. Firstly you're going to have to explain yourself as I can't see the relevance of that question, but, in the meantime I will respond while we wait for your explanation. I would respond with actual assault and not this poofter generated assault you and your lot of PC's have come up with.
Another one of your baseless comments. How on earth would you or anyone else know if I am a 'Milo' or not? Your going to have to do better than this to get cred on this forum. I'm not bothered with the Trump comments as I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from. You see I don't get sarcasm so the Trump stuff didn't stick.

Alt Rav,

We might 'want to' but most of us don't. That may be the difference between a scumbag like Trump and most ordinary male human beings. Power of course seems to be the driving force, as it usually is in the case of men assaulting women, sexually OR physically. 'If you've got it, abuse it', seems to be Trump and Weinstein's motto.

Joe

Dear ALTRAV,

What on earth are we to do with you? Well certainly not to give a detailed explanation on something that is self evident that is for sure.

And what is with all this macho chest thumping bulldust? Why are you so triggered? Are you that bloody insecure in your own sexuality that you have to lay it on that thick?

Anyway from my understanding of your post it is you deem it quite reasonable to react to unwelcome groping with violence when the fancy takes you but not alright for women who find the same attention not within the bounds of 'normal human interaction' to get upset.

As to ever mistaking you for Milo I think your own posts means that will never happen mate. A very poor Milo wannabe about sums it up.

But I would encourage you to keep trying. I will let you know when I start laughing.

Toni, no not rapists. They attack and sometimes physically hurt the women. BTW, not being a rapist, I don't get how a guy can still be sex-ready if he is fighting with this screaming scuffling cat? I would have thought after all that fuss and fury he would have lost the urge and I do mean his err#(t!on.
SteeleRedux, you started the Milo comparisons. I'll leave you to discuss that with yourself. You imagine me as macho, chest thumping speaker of bull dust. Firstly I have no insecurities about my sexuality but it appears you and the rest of the soft cocks do. For some years now men have been swayed by these 'men haters'. Men have simply given up and have turned into flailing wimps. Since we allowed the women to think they are equals we have been slowly pushed off our throne. As Men we are the alpha of the species and that means we carry the burden of responsibility in life. You and pathetic parents are the chief cause of this problem. So yes I have a problem with anyone who assumes a level and standing in life they are not entitled to only because some pathetic weak minded men give in to them. This crap that all top positions should have at least a 50/50 mix of men and women. Bloody rubbish! In my business I hired on ability not sex. What gives you and your lot the right to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do. Your attitude is so un-healthy. So in your world trying to chat up a woman as we did in the good o'l days, is a serious offence. You have lost your way and you really need to rethink your standing as a MAN and not a jelly baby. As for touching up a woman, if nothing was broken or damaged as the girls of the past would say, 'now stop that' with a giggle or a laugh and just walk on or they would stand and talk. I will never submit to this new PC of lies.

//They attack and sometimes physically hurt the women.//

Oh, right. But a bit of uninvited groping is just harmless fun, yeah?

I thought of some songs you might like, ALTRAPIST. These ones crack me up. They're intended as a parody of misogynistic 'gangsta' rap. But I reckon they'll be right up your alley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAu1h2NE9Uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c--NVZh37o

//Since we allowed the women to think they are equals we have been slowly pushed off our throne.//

You shouldn't sit on the throne too long, ALTRAPIST. It gives you piles.

//As Men we are the alpha of the species//

Alpha males don't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTyQgwVvYyc

Toni, Your comments aren't very productive. You are spending far too much time making up childish names and not enough time actually digesting the posts. We don't need any more name callers. So do yourself a favour and read the posts then give constructive criticism, or not. I tell you what. I'm feeling playful, so let's see if I can come up with some names for you.
Now, how about Toni Baloney, Toni Macaroni, Toni Lavatris, Toni Lavish.

Yawn, I'm bored, that's enough. You get the idea.

Dear ALTRAV,

Well my blossom buttocked friend you certainly are not a man by any stretch of the imagination. Your utterances show you as a naughty boy who demands to be able to do what he wants then gets all petty when it is explained that he can't.

My father was a champion boxer in the navy. I never saw him take a backward step in any situation and I once saw him take on 5 men, two who were armed with machetes. Yet he was deeply respectful to all women. From a very early age these things were instilled in me as well and even if holding a door open for a woman might be getting a little old fashioned I still do it.

He was a man while you are a petulant child in comparison and I can assure you if you behaved the way you have indicated in front of either he or I you'd be flat on your arse.

No reasonable adult let alone anyone who considers themselves a gentleman would be spouting the rubbish you have done on this thread. Despite your protestations it speaks directly of a person highly insecure about their sexuality and one who feels deeply threatened by women.

Have you thought of seeking counseling or even striving for puberty?

SteeleRedux, firstly it is you who is petulant. You let your guard down by coming out with all the name calling. Like a petulant child. I'm fine with my sexuality and affirm same in my text. It is your sexuality that is brought into question. BTW don't insult me by calling me a gentleman. I'm a man! I never said I don't respect women. Women today, don't respect men. And twats like you are facilitating them and helping put more nails in our coffin. It's sad you can't see it. I still respect women, but only those who respect men. I, like your father grew up in a time of chivalry and respect. But unlike today, we ALL knew our place. Like me your father will have questions about what happened for us to end up with everything turned around. Now whether you like it or not, all I want to see is the natural order of things brought back into line. And if you don't like that then more's the pity. I do not respect anyone who does not respect me, and that is the basis of my comments. Women have pushed their way to the front of the line for far too long now. Do you know that we have men with families who would otherwise have a job if these bloody minded maggots who should be at home looking after their children did not work because of mostly selfish logic. The stupid PC mentality of today that we should have a 50/50 mix of women in top positions. NO we shouldn't! No wonder everything's doing to crap. I hire on ability not gender. I speak harshly of women because they have gone too far and the softly, softly approach is not the answer. If I have to come across as an arse-hole to get things back in perspective then so be it. Before you take the soft cocks line on this, take a hard look around you, if don't see it, you are not worthy of further comments.

//Now whether you like it or not, all I want to see is the natural order of things brought back into line.//

A commonly held desire amongst tories, to reverse the flow of time until we go back to the Golden Age of Mankind when everything was perfect. You know, the one that has never actually existed.

Unfortunately, according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, the only way to reverse time in this fashion is to get a Kryptonian who has grown to maturity under a yellow sun to fly around the Earth in a direction opposite to it's rotation. Which poses a few practical difficulties.

//Women have pushed their way to the front of the line for far too long now.//

What line?

// Do you know that we have men with families who would otherwise have a job if these bloody minded maggots who should be at home looking after their children did not work because of mostly selfish logic.//

Winding the clock back to before women could obtain paid employment? Jesus, that's some serious time reversal. Like, pre-Industrial era at least. Bugger that for a joke: the pre-Industrial era was definitely not the Golden Age of Mankind. I tend to think of more as the Turd Age, because they hadn't worked out sanitation, people used to crap out of their windows, and pretty much everything was covered in shite. And poor Superman is going to get dizzy if has to fly around the Earth that much (can Superman actually get dizzy without the influence of kryptonite?)

//The stupid PC mentality of today that we should have a 50/50 mix of women in top positions. NO we shouldn't!//

Quite right. If they have more ability, there's no reason why women shouldn't occupy all the top jobs.

//I hire on ability not gender.//

But women are all useless, right ALTRAPIST?

//I speak harshly of women because they have gone too far//

Well that's easily fixed by shortening their chains. They won't be able to get out of your basement then.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! huh? what? Oh sorry Toni, I nodded off. Fell asleep reading your post. I'm sorry I thought you were responding but you never actually made any point, just a lot of scattered ramblings. I'll just let you compose yourself, and look forward to your next comment.

Toni, it just occurred to me, that you seem to come out fighting for the female cause. Is it because you ARE a female? It would help answer a few questions one way or the other.

//Is it because you ARE a female?//

Back to flogging that dead horse, ALTRAPIST?

Toni, back to name calling I see. Anyway carrying on. I am not taking the piss. Seriously, I am curious whether you are a male or a female. There is no hidden agenda, simply getting a better understanding of who's who.

Dear ALTRAV,

Well my little petal bum you never had respect for women when you have admitted viewing forcing a slap and tickle on a woman is a 'simple act of normal human interaction'.

Saying you are fine with your sexuality when your posts scream the exact opposite is when your problem lies. If you were a 13 year old lad dealing with puberty we might cut you a little slack but I assume you are not.

One thing is very clear though is that your posts indicate you are not acting like a man in any sense and I apologise if my slack sentence construction impugned I thought you were a gentleman. That is most certainly not the case.

However I do concede I am possibly missing where you anger is coming from. I also hired for my companies on merit and unless you owned a major business you would not have come under any affirmative action provisions. You mate are gilding the lily.

No, what I think has happened is that you were passed up for a position in favour of a women and now you are venting with all the class of a 6th grader.

I recently didn't bother sticking my hand up for a board position because 50% had to be women and 50% farmers. Now there are plenty of female farmers which would have potentially opened up a spot but I felt having woman on this particular board would have been a positive.

It didn't cause me to go around calling them maggots. I didn't see it as a threat to my masculinity. It didn't cause me to spew bile online.

Just grow up mate otherwise you are going to end up one of those bitter and twisted blokes who the rest of us write off as just nicked in the head.

//Seriously, I am curious whether you are a male or a female.//

The same as the last time I told you. If I have a sex change I'll let you know, but I don't think that's very likely.

SteeleRedux, I learnt many years ago, if I don't know the answer, don't ask the question. For the record I have worked for myself from an early age. I picked up on the flaws of industry,such as, if you don't own the company, you don't know what you're talking about. As for calling them maggots. I have good cause to do so. I will say it again. Women should NOT be in high ranking jobs, especially board rooms. Many years ago a survey showed that women were more likely to have some kind of emotional event, at least once a month. The workplace and men especially have been the subject of vilification and abuse by these, shall I say 'man haters' for many years so that they can be accommodated into this new world order. You have never heard of them. I lived through them. As I said I am no gentleman, I am however, a man. Unlike these new 'soft cocks' of today, like yourself, I still believe in the Alpha male. There is absolutely no equality between men and women and it is a myth started and promoted by women. I cannot believe that people out there have allowed this political correctness crap to infect our lives to this extent. Society and especially men have allowed themselves to be led down the dumb down garden path where the men have turned into wimps, beholding to women. I warn everyone if men do not start turning things around we will end up in one hell of a shitstorm. And stop trying to vilify me and criticise me, I'm not the problem. Calling me all the names under the sun while you are facilitating the women who are the real problem, is not the answer. Take a look at how far the men have gone, then have look at how far the women have gone in the same period. And don't even think about pushing their line of, 'we have been oppressed for so long we are merely catching up'. Rubbish!

//Many years ago a survey showed that women were more likely to have some kind of emotional event, at least once a month.//

Funny, you're typically very dismissive of surveys.

Could we have a link please, in order to better understand this ground-breaking study that nobody else has ever heard of? What do similar studies of men have to say about the frequency of their 'emotional events'? Has anybody ever tried to replicate the results? Are you just making it up?

Hitchen's Razor, mate: evidence or it never happened.

//I still believe in the Alpha male.//

You're wrong. They don't exist. The scientist who first wrote the paper coining the term 'alpha male' realised later that the conclusions he had drawn based on limited observation were erroneous... there are no alpha males. It's a silly, made-up term that you seem to have adopted as an integral part of your personal identity, and you'll be damned if you're going to give it up, regardless of the evidence. And you claim you're not religious...

Let us hope that ALTRAPIST never discovers Nietzschean philosophy - he'll get it even more wrong than Adolf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb5zUG9UzFE

//There is absolutely no equality between men and women//

Well, not if you can help it.

Thankfully the power in society rests with less retarded people.

//And stop trying to vilify me and criticise me, I'm not the problem.//

Yes, you are.

Toni, you like others always ask for proof, except when you and your running mates make a claim, you give some reference and expect it to suffice. I can't help it if you and your lot don't want to agree with me but just because I can't quote you chapter and verse does not mean it's not true. I did not make up the fact that women have periods once a month. It is during this time they undergo these 'moments'. For this reason they suffer varying degrees of emotions making them unreliable at these times. Obviously not all women suffer this to the same extent. You guys reject anything that is not favourable to your argument. I know what I know from the past and I believe in many things from the past. We would all be better off taking heed from the past and not knocking it by suggesting the past was backwards in philosophies. Remember 'if you don't learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it'. As for alpha males, they are around you everywhere, from your group of school mates to your workplace. Anyone who leads either by stealth or authority, is an Alpha male. I'm not referring to monkeys or dogs/wolves or any other long forgotten example. The word once created can never be erased, just because a few petulant people want to win/make a point. Oh and don't you dare try and deflect or dismiss the fact that men and women are NOT equal. End of. Just because you guys have had your stones plucked by some maggot and you've given in to political correctness, does not automatically give you cred. My comments are based on years of living through some of the worst times and politics. Another example was clearly demonstrated recently. I have warned of the repercussions of this SSM decision by giving you your precious proof. Did anyone acknowledge that? NO well I now have an insight into our future. If you have not looked up what I suggested, you will be totally un-prepared for what is coming.

Dear ALTRAV,

You are articulating views that are are that patently juvenile that I can in no manner countenance calling you a man.

You obviously have deep anger issues derived from some real or imagined sleight where you have felt directly threatened by the authority of a woman.

These things happen. Might be time to grow out of it.

Respect for women is part of my upbringing and part of what I see as my masculinity. You obviously have a different view and seek to deride me and those who have similar values as 'soft cocks'.

We all have our weaknesses, god knows I have mine, but to dismiss a set of values you said you were raised with because you are threatened by women in positions of power is really weak.

Be an adult for a change.

[Deleted for abuse.]

SteeleRedux, do you really think from what you know of me that I would have any 'issues' about my manhood or women in general? No my concerns are with the 'anti men movement', 'feminists' and the guys who support them. I am not dismissive of surveys, I am skeptical about them as they are usually tilted towards a pre-concieved agenda. Don't try to be stupid. Only stupid people refute the fact that women have emotional issues during menstruation. Every time you answer to your boss or anyone who holds a higher position than you, in life, you are answering to an Alpha male. Just suck it up. I don't care what version your referring to, what I know is what I said. How retarded must you be if you can't see that men and women are not equal. What you really want to say, but don't have the stones for it is, that you agree with me but because you don't want to be seen as an individual with secular thoughts and actions you would rather play the 'I'm with them' card.
You and your lot are the retards. Just ask a nutter if he's nuts, he'll say NO. You just don't want to see that you're the real problem. I'm just making you all feel uncomfortable by forcing you to acknowledge your weaknesses and ignorance. Honestly, why they allow anyone younger than ten on this forum is proving to be a big mistake. How you people can comment about life when when you haven't experienced life yet and it shows as your comments are so child like.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“SteeleRedux, do you really think from what you know of me that I would have any 'issues' about my manhood or women in general?”

Of course I do and it is something I have reiterated time and again so why even ask the question?

And what is this?

“Honestly, why they allow anyone younger than ten on this forum is proving to be a big mistake. How you people can comment about life when when you haven't experienced life yet and it shows as your comments are so child like.”

So you tried copying Milo and now you are copying me by going the child angle?

Sorry mate but it doesn't fly and actually looks a touch sad. You have exhibited remarkably juvenile attitudes toward women now you are imitating others yet you want us to view you as a man. Fat chance my friend, at least not without you gaining a sizable chunk of maturity.

For all his childish antics Milo is far more a man than yourself. The sooner you recognise that obvious fact the better.

SteeleRedux, again your mouth runneth over. Dismissing all that you wrote as clutching drivel, I don't know where you get your reference to Milo and I somehow knowing each other. I have never stated I have any connection to this guy, so again your deflecting and really low at that. If you feel I display similarities to this guy, then thank you, you are finally showing some wisdom,if not.............................

Dear ALTRAV,

It appears you may also have the comprehension of a juvenile.

Look mate I will concede I have probably laid this on a little thick but the rubbish you were coming out with was many levels above that, especially the derision you were prepared to heap on other forum members.

I have a more traditional view of what it takes to be a man and a respectful attitude toward women is included. You have ditched this because you have got your knickers in a knot either that our you have brought into this alt-right rubbish which seems to include a group of so-called men shedding tears about not being respected any more. Bloody snowflakes all of them.

There are many women who I have met who have deported themselves in a manner which does not reflect well on them. I would never take that to mean I have the right to physically force myself on them as you seem to do. Do you have any idea how pathetic and loathsome that really is?

Time for a rethink .

SteeleRedux, NO! I have no 'idea how pathetic and loathsome that really is', but apparently you do! Stop trying to suck up to the politically correct soft cocks. You are NOT men. You are just or barely males. You malign any real man for being overly masculine or displaying acts of manliness. You dismiss this person as some kind of dinosaur. Your comments are immature and show YOU up as petulant. I'll bet you don't see how women have be-littled them selves by trying to be equal to men. By doing so they have said men are a better species therefore we want to be more like them. Women have value as women. It's insulting to women to say that they need to say they have the same qualities as men to be of value. And I reject your attempt at making me look like I go around attacking women. I can't do anything about correcting this malicious new low but I can say I don't take kindly to such threats. I would happily teach you and your father all about being a man. And I won't need 5 men and two of them with machetes. Keep it clean. Do not make threats. You will be pulled.

Dear ALTRAV,

You really are a keyboard warrior and a snowflake aren't you. You come in here calling everyone softcocks and wallflowers and then when you get it dished back you crack the bloody sads and talk about pulling people off which I hope doesn't mean what it sounds like.

Just take a good hard look at yourself mate because what I see ain't very pretty.

You now say “And I reject your attempt at making me look like I go around attacking women.”

But earlier you told us; “As for touching up a woman, if nothing was broken or damaged as the girls of the past would say, 'now stop that' with a giggle or a laugh and just walk on or they would stand and talk.” and you called Trump's behavior normal.

So are you now saying you weren't speaking from experience?

Then you delivered this gem;

“I would happily teach you and your father all about being a man. And I won't need 5 men and two of them with machetes. Keep it clean. Do not make threats.”

So you make a threat then tell me not to make a threat? Sorry old chap but coherence isn't your strong suit either.

Further it is highly unlikely you would be in a position to teach me anything.

Grow up.

SteeleRedux, so let me get this straight. You can throw all kinds of fictional accusations and the accused is not allowed to respond? And yes 'touching up a woman' and Trumps behaviour are quite 'normal'. Just not normal for politically correct, new world order people, (soft cocks) like yourself. You claim the moral high ground. You first have to earn that right. You have done nothing to stand in judgement of anyone. The real men are sick of twats like you. If you want to throw accusations make them time relevant. If what I and Trumpy are accused of doing was so bad, according to you we should have been charged with whatever crap you soft cocks have dreamed up that would constitute an offence. Well bad luck Nancy, that was life back then, if the girls were so offended by it, it would have stopped very quickly. No guy wanted to be doing something which was un-acceptable to someone they were trying to 'chat up'. Now do you get it? Oh, and as for teaching you anything. You're right you can't be taught anything because you think you know it all already. BTW as Foxy said, get back on topic or start your own thread relating to this drivel you have deflected on to. Your off topic!

Dear ALTRAV,

Stop being a pathetic juvenile.

Our society has rightly judged grabbing a woman by the genitalia as assault whether you like it or not no matter how much you want to whinge about it.

You support assaulting women and want to call it normal behavior.

Why shouldn't the rest of us regard you as a sad tosser, an idiot and a reprobate.

SR your off topic again. If you want try and regain some self respect by arguing your lost cause, do it by starting an appropriate thread on the topic.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“SR your(sic) off topic again.”

I am fully on topic young lad. You are trying to emulate Milo, the topic at hand, but don't have any of the intelligence to pull it off.

You are just a wannabee failing miserably. You really don't get him do you.

As to self respect how much could you possibly have left when you reject your upbringing and support those sexually assaulting women?

I repeat, grow up.

SR, others have already said (like Foxy) your off topic. The topic is about this Milo guy not whatever you have dragged us all into. As is the general consensus, if you wish to carry on this feign attempt at winning your point, start a new discussion.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“SR, others have already said (like Foxy) your(sic) off topic.”

No mate neither Foxy nor a single other person on this thread besides yourself have claimed I am off topic.

You also wrote;

“if you wish to carry on this feign (vain?) attempt at winning your point”

I'm not trying to win anything. All I want to do is use every opportunity you give me to reiterate to yourself and others how reprehensible and juvenile your attitude toward the sexual assault of women really is.

There perhaps a very small hope that by hammering it in repeatedly something might twig.

So every time mate, every time.

Violence of any kind should not be tolerated.

If a guy wants you for your breasts, thighs, or
legs - he should go to KFC.

Foxy,would you mind correcting SteeleRedux, as he has dismissed me for suggesting that you and others, including myself, have asked that he, and others, stay on topic. As for KFC. Gawd if I came across a woman with thighs, breasts or legs that had skin like KFC, I don't think even if she were 'hot n spicy' that I would be inclined to entertain her. LOL.

Dear ALTRAV,

SteeleRedux is always on topic. He responds
to what others post that he feels warrant a response.
He does not divert discussions with irrelelvant
issues - which a few well known people do on this
forum. It was to them that I was referring when they
attempted to introduce other topics that had no relevance
to one of my discussions. One in particular is well-known
for his rants and raves. Steel is not one of those people.

Foxy, I must make note that on several occasions SR has in fact commented on women and sexual assault more than once as per the example on page 32. I thought the topic was about Milo Yiannopoulos and him being referred to as a 'joke'. Whilst on topic I must emphasise that this Milo guy IS so many times more knowledgeable and convincing than all of us put together. So much so that I will retract my statement if anyone on this forum can show me their itinerary and income on their talks around the world. C'mon you clowns you detractors are the joke.

Dear ALTRAV,

Even Andrew Bolt found some of what Milo had to say -
rather awful. And Milo explained that it was "all a
joke". Well, he's a guy who's turned hate speech into
show biz. And he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Milo is just one person, a comedian employing satire and on the conservative side. However, as Milo says himself and in that very interview, there are the many left 'Progressive' and feminists who have been directing far worse abuse at the public and especially at those despised white men for years.

The PROBLEM is that Yiannololous is on the right'. As he says, if he was the picture of the left's stereotypical Gay he could use whatever epithets he wished against the conservatives and the more horrid the better. He would be feted, earning squillions, be offered sinecures, money for jam and held up as an example of 'Progressive'.

Fortunately we can take it as read that no-one on OLO, especially those who might lecture from their high moral platforms would ever have been guilty of labelling their perceived opponents with those truly vile epithets, 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobe' and so on, that Milo criticises the left and feminists of using.

Dearest Foxy,

I've watched a few of Milo's Youtube videos, but I haven't noticed anything particularly hateful, or inciting hate or violence, in any of them. Perhaps you can give examples ? Certainly, he advocates positions that others may strongly disagree with but, unless 'disagreement' and 'offence' is now termed 'hate', he has every right to his opinion, subject as it is like all opinions, to criticism.

Love,

Joe

Foxy, I think I have finally found a major flaw in the Milo detractors. I did some research into this Milo guy and I don't find anything hateful about his comments. He is blunt (he is after all jewish)and therefore very clear about his convictions and how he puts across his points, but I cannot for the life of me detect anything hateful about his comments. He like Ben Shapiro explain and expound very clearly and without emotion. As Milo has pointed out on many occasions. If you or your lot are offended by something he says then, as he puts it, 'I don't care'. If you are calling these speeches 'hate' speeches, then you are all reaching. You are deflecting because you're actually saying, 'we don't like what you're saying'. Again he, like Ben, is right. You cannot call something a hate speech if it is true. All the video's I saw on them were very clear about their message. So I'm sorry you have exposed yourselves a little on this one. And again I state, very clearly, he is not the joke his detractors are.

Foxy, re Andrew Bolt. I saw that interview and he was well and truly taken by him. So again, if we are talking about the same interview. You are wrong! As for the quip about 'the joke'. I again dis-agree. I think you may be seeing what you want to see, but any reference to a 'joke' was not meant to be aimed at his shows or his speeches. So again sorry, reaching!

Dear ALTRAV,

Andrew Bolt wrote about Milo Y in an article in the
Herald Sun, Dec. 7th 2017 . Bolt
spoke about the article on TV in which he
listened by the side of the Adelaide stage, having
introduced Milo and Bolt felt "sicker and sicker".
There's more to the article that you can access if you
are a subscriber.

Anyway, I've already discussed Milo in great length on
this discussion and have no wish to give him any more
publicity. He does very well without my help.

I only came back into this discussion because you asked
me about SteeleRedux. I've answered your questions
concerning Steele.

I have no further wish to argue with you about Milo Y.

Cheers.

Of course Milo is voicing hate speech, he would not be doing much of a job as chief troll if he weren't.

There is a huge difference between saying Isalm is AIDS and calling for all Muslims should be deported.

I think most manifestations of Christianity are hugely problematic. For instance given the recent Royal Commission findings we should have real concerns that we are bring in purposefully celibate priests into this country.

It is the same with fundamentalist Islamic and Christian preachers. Shut the door to the lot of them.

But as soon as you paint all adherents of a major faith and call for their expulsion you are using hate speech. To argue anything different is to defy both good sense and our English language.

But it is pretty hard to get upset by Milo. He is being such a naff lad and the way he has got the rightwhingers eating out of his hand and defending his every move is a bloody marvel.

More strength to his arm.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the endorsement, I'm not sure it is fully deserved but I will take it.

Foxy, Oh no you don't. I too have found one of many interviews between Andrew Bolt and this Milo guy and again I have the proof that questions your portrayal of this guy Milo. The proof is in the form of a You Tube interview that clearly displays a much different Andrew Bolt than you describe. The video is entitled Milo Yiannopoulos and Andrew Bolt (Dec 4 2017)The aggressive left in Australia, (Bolt Report). It's replayed from a Sky News segment. Now Foxy, either You or Bolt is not to be believed. If you have cherry picked to make your points then ALL your posts are in question. You may not wish to argue about Milo, and I am starting to see why. I had moved on, like you, but having information which is in clear conflict with yours, I think you will agree I cannot let it be as you and others always maligned me insist on proof. So here it is. If you choose to look at the video interview you will see that here is a man clearly enthralled by Milo, happily chatting in a friendly non confrontational manner. Not at all the picture of someone who 'felt sicker and sicker'. If that were the case Andrew Bolt is not one to shy away from a fight. So why did he not attack Milo instead of having a pleasant compliant interview?