Milo Yiannopoulos LIVE NOW at DePaul University!

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: schuyler

I've watched him speak a few times actually. That's why I said earlier that I wanted to hear him here. He's a smart guy and I like the fact that he's in a unique position that puts him out of reach of the normal labels people use to shut down discussion.

Feminists can't label him, or Liberals, or Conservatives, etc. because they don't have any prefab negative comments about the labels you can actually give him without being the one in the wrong by saying it.

It allows for the conversation to ride on just the facts and opinions about the topic at hand rather than labeling the messenger as something then attacking that.

You JUST explained why they had to shut him up.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I just wish I could have heard what was said that made it all crazy to begin with.

I didn't know I was getting there that late. It was already a mess when I started watching and what sucked is that nobody was taking control of it. Everyone just stood around and let it all fall apart for some reason.

What a waste.

a reply to: mOjOm

But you nailed it.

you framed it perfectly when you said. . .

Feminists can't label him, or Liberals, or Conservatives, etc. because they don't have any prefab negative comments about the labels you can actually give him without being the one in the wrong by saying it.

It allows for the conversation to ride on just the facts and opinions about the topic at hand rather than labeling the messenger as something then attacking that.

People don't WANT to debate on the facts, not when the facts aren't in their favor.

ENOUGH!

This is NOT the Mud Pit.

All members WILL abide by this:

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Stay on topic. Discussing each other is OFF TOPIC.

Anymore posts like that will result in post removals and post bans handed to.

Do not reply to this post

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: schuyler

I've watched him speak a few times actually. That's why I said earlier that I wanted to hear him here. He's a smart guy and I like the fact that he's in a unique position that puts him out of reach of the normal labels people use to shut down discussion.

Feminists can't label him, or Liberals, or Conservatives, etc. because they don't have any prefab negative comments about the labels you can actually give him without being the one in the wrong by saying it.

It allows for the conversation to ride on just the facts and opinions about the topic at hand rather than labeling the messenger as something then attacking that.

You JUST explained why they had to shut him up.

Sounds like Bill O'Reilly to me.

No matter who Bill debates or claims to debate - - he declares himself the winner.

Whatever position another takes, Bill just refuses to acknowledge it as if its not an issue worth giving credit to.

When you come from a position of "My thinking is all that matters" - - there is no other position.

That's really not debating.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I have a very arrogant brother. He's always right. Or so he says.

a reply to: Annee

The I'd stop watching Bill O'Reilly.

Milo wanted to debate.

The opposing side couldn't attack him as they normally would, so they had to resort to violence in order to shut him up..

And they succeeded!

I'm sure many are celebrating tonight.

a reply to: mOjOm

That's why they won't debate him. They can't.

...and you perfectly explained just why.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, it may appear to be a win but ultimately it's just one more brick in the wall, the end of the left is coming and they aren't going to go peacefully or quietly.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, it may appear to be a win but ultimately it's just one more brick in the wall, the end of the left is coming and they aren't going to go peacefully or quietly.

It's a win for authoritarians who cannot debate on facts and only want to silence or punish anyone who doesn't obey.

It's a loss for freedom.

But that's an over-rated old-timey thing that's passe'.

originally posted by: Annee
I have a very arrogant brother. He's always right. Or so he says.

Is he married??? Because I bet if he is his wife wouldn't agree with that at all. They never do. I only get to be right a couple times a year and that's only when my wife allows it. Even when I already know if I am right.

My dad always tells me, "You want to be right or do you want to be happy???" So far I've been choosing happy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Milo wanted to debate.

Doubt it.

Reminds me too much of my brother.

He'd be fine as long as he's in control. If anyone were to get the upper hand, he'd talk over them, try to make them look like fools, or dismiss them as having no valid point.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm sure many are celebrating tonight.

Little realizing, or caring, that they're just tightening the noose.

When freedom of speech, or any freedom, is denied, all freedoms die just a little bit more.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Annee
I have a very arrogant brother. He's always right. Or so he says.

Is he married??? Because I bet if he is his wife wouldn't agree with that at all. They never do. I only get to be right a couple times a year and that's only when my wife allows it. Even when I already know if I am right.

LOL, he has a girlfriend that left him, but she came back.

We've always been like Oil & Water, I haven't spoken with him in years.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Everyone just stood around and let it all fall apart for some reason.

Gee, I wonder what that reason would be.

The university wanted this to happen. They wanted the disruption to succeed so that Milo couldn't speak, but they also wanted to be able to blame someone else (BLM or whoever this is) for it--maintaining an "arm's length from the transaction" in the process.

This is institutional "no-platforming" in action.

It's repugnant to anyone who favors open discourse in a "free" society, which is why many were taken aback by your perceived (whether you intended it or not) defense of these little brats. Anything but condemnation of their behavior signals some degree of sympathy.

Surely you can understand that.

a reply to: TheBulk


Milo just got this short clip up. Yep, looks tolerant of others and peaceful to me! /sarcasm



Here is how they took over the event.

a reply to: seeker1963

#Hashtag Gay Lives Matter.

a reply to: NthOther

Well that is somewhat along the lines of what I was getting at. A free and open discussion isn't really want you want in that case. Because a free and open discussion allows for what we saw. Because nobody is made to respect anyone's speech.

That's why someone should have set up a controlled debate. Because in an actual debate setting you can't just yell a bunch of stuff over the top of someone. It can be rigid even in how you're allowed to speak and when.

You're still allowed to say whatever you want but you can't just say it whenever you want. That is what was needed. That's what a debate actually is. A real debate doesn't even come close to what we just saw. That guy with the whistle would have been gone as soon as he blew that stupid thing.

Even our presidential debates are way loose compared to an actual debate. It's a joke almost. That is where Free Speech has it's bad side. If everyone exercises it at the same time, sure it's free speech and that's nice and all but it's not very productive. Unless people actually respect the other speaker all you have is noise.

I'm pro free speech but I'm also pro productive speech too.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Milo wanted to debate.

Doubt it.

Reminds me too much of my brother.

He'd be fine as long as he's in control. If anyone were to get the upper hand, he'd talk over them, try to make them look like fools, or dismiss them as having no valid point.

I've watched him debate.

he's actually very polite and simply responds with facts.