UK publishers shy away from 'alt-right' star Milo Yiannopoulos

a reply to: paraphi

He is an Oxford educated Journalist who is as camp as anything, talks sense in a provocative manner which causes a fuss.
He has often been on Telly here in the uk.



He really pisses off feminists. (some anyway).

Slightly off topic, breaking news: Milo has just been voted LGBTQ Person of the year by LGBTQnation readers.

www.lgbtqnation.com...

Probably makes it even more difficult for the SJW snowflakes to criticise him. :-)

originally posted by: svetlana84
Slightly off topic, breaking news: Milo has just been voted LGBTQ Person of the year by LGBTQnation readers.

www.lgbtqnation.com...

Probably makes it even more difficult for the SJW snowflakes to criticise him. :-)

When the Orlando murders happened, he turned up and made a speech that everyone was expecting to be a bit of grandstanding, but turned out to be a strong and powerful appeal to the gay community to wake up to the growing threat - something that others were too scared to say.

It starts around 12 minutes in. Worth listening to all of it. If you want to skip straight to *that* moment with Gavin McInnes (aka "The Straighest Man On The Internet"), it's at 29m30s

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


We got rid of the totalitarian PM last year and so far...our liberal one has been okay.

Well I don't live there and only know what I'm told by the internet, but from what I hear Trudeau is a problem. He openly supports all the totalitarian SJW agendas. A Canadian guy on youtube called "Black Pigeon Speaks" talks about him often. I'd link you up, but can't do it at the moment.

I find him repulsive. He undermines average homosexual males (like myself) with a superficial 'attention-seeking' persona, full of double entendres and innuendo. It is not the normal gay stereotype, far from it. Sorry Milo, its been done to death on the gay scene for decades. Its BORING and its FAKE and you are in fact, quite a poor amateur at it. I mean seriously, telling black females in an audience you have shagged their boyfriends isn't wit, its bitchy playground talk *yawn*

This does what exactly? Is it illegal to ship books overseas? 

The book will still be available (especially in this Age of the Internet) just not published in the UK, so it won't have the advantage of the usual UK retail channels. It also won't have the grammar and spelling tweaked to match British English standards.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Butterfinger

The whole Leslie Jones thing for one.

TBH I hadn't heard much about him until that. I scrolled through his twitter feed after that whole debacle, before he was banned.

Atrocious comments.

I think you meant to say "hilarious" comments

a reply to: EvillerBob

people still buy books? If its on kindle who cares what country its published in. The only reason I go to a bookstore is to burn time and get a coffee, if I got an hour or two I'll take a book off the shelf, read it and then put it back on the shelf.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Butterfinger

The whole Leslie Jones thing for one.

TBH I hadn't heard much about him until that. I scrolled through his twitter feed after that whole debacle, before he was banned.

Atrocious comments.

Fair enough.
So how do you feel about the racist garbage Leslie has been saying on Twitter for years?
Don't let your double standard blind you now...

I offer you a challenge to find me just one thing Milo has said or Tweeted as inflammatory as the things I just showed.
Go ahead I'll wait...

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: uncommitted

Canadian here and we don't really have freedom of speech laws.

Not as concrete as the 1st amendment in the states anyway.

But I see your point.

~Tenth

Cheers, couldn't remember if you are American or Canadian, it was the "but I'm not surprised countries, that don't have freedom of speech laws are giving him a hard time. " comment I was referring to as it's often assumed on here by those that don't know better (including many from the UK!!!) that our freedom of speech is much more curtailed than it is in reality.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

This country has freedom of speech laws. It just so happens that they recognise that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Say what you like, as long as you have the balls to take your medicine afterward.

originally posted by: jellyrev
This does what exactly? Is it illegal to ship books overseas? 

Actually, that depends on the book I think from a historical perspective. With this one though, I think when the potential publisher in the UK said it was 'toxic' they really meant they wouldn't cover their publishing costs due to the low number of potential buyers.

originally posted by: uncommitted

Cheers, couldn't remember if you are American or Canadian, it was the "but I'm not surprised countries, that don't have freedom of speech laws are giving him a hard time. " comment I was referring to as it's often assumed on here by those that don't know better (including many from the UK!!!) that our freedom of speech is much more curtailed than it is in reality.

Interestingly enough, the US and UK are roughly equal when it comes to banning books, though the UK bans more films. However, many of the films restricted were due to being outright pornography or excessively violent - the producers were still able to resubmit edited versions for consideration. Thus, even though the "freedom of speech" was restricted, it was rarely related to what the person was trying to say, but rather where they were using gratuitous methods to say it. In several cases in the UK, the films could still be shown in the cinema but simply failed to get certified for release on home video.

The numbers might be a bit skewed because I think some things might be banned at the state level rather than the national level.

In researching this, I learned a new and, quite frankly, rather disturbing word - irrumatio.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: uncommitted

Cheers, couldn't remember if you are American or Canadian, it was the "but I'm not surprised countries, that don't have freedom of speech laws are giving him a hard time. " comment I was referring to as it's often assumed on here by those that don't know better (including many from the UK!!!) that our freedom of speech is much more curtailed than it is in reality.

Interestingly enough, the US and UK are roughly equal when it comes to banning books, though the UK bans more films. However, many of the films restricted were due to being outright pornography or excessively violent - the producers were still able to resubmit edited versions for consideration. Thus, even though the "freedom of speech" was restricted, it was rarely related to what the person was trying to say, but rather where they were using gratuitous methods to say it. In several cases in the UK, the films could still be shown in the cinema but simply failed to get certified for release on home video.

The numbers might be a bit skewed because I think some things might be banned at the state level rather than the national level.

In researching this, I learned a new and, quite frankly, rather disturbing word - irrumatio.

I've just had to look that one up................................. disturbing?

a reply to: Morrad

Do you realise that he is an idividual and therefor does not represent all gay men?
(as you don't either).

Besides, it s about his bookdeal, and the leftist reaction it created. Not about his or your manners, or gay manner stereotypes.

originally posted by: uncommitted
I've just had to look that one up................................. disturbing?

That might depend on which definition you found, some of them were quite... wide-ranging

Unfortunate choice of smileyface is... unfortunate...

a reply to: svetlana84

It was a quick off-the-cuff remark last night in response to what Charlie said in his OP.

He isn't unique. He spouts the same mantras as most right wingers.
But the token "homosexual extreme right winger" part that he plays seems to sell for him.

Some men are naturally feminine. Using double entendres and sexual innuendo is not natural behaviour ... its fake behaviour. You say it isn't relevant.

Yiannopoulos told the Hollywood Reporter:

‘Every line of attack the forces of political correctness try on me fails pathetically. I’m more powerful, more influential and more fabulous than ever before’

Of course its relevant. Narcissistic supply camouflaged as fake camp bitchy queeny "I'm special" behaviour.

The book deal boycott can be looked at as censorship but publishers are not government and can publish whatever they want to. There is also a bigger picture here. The alt-right and the illiberals truly deserve each other in my opinion. They feed off each other, they need each other to survive. Seriously, are you not able to see this?

a reply to: Morrad

Why is it a boycott? Publishers choose what to invest in based on potential return. Clearly they think the return may not be as great as the expenditure so didn't choose to invest. That's not a boycott, it's sound business.

a reply to: uncommitted

I made an assumption based on the following. There is also the business scenario as you mentioned.

Needless to say, the book deal hasn’t gone down well with media types. The Chicago Review of Books has refused to review any of S&S’s titles across all its imprints. ‘[Yiannopoulos] is a clickbait grifter who has made a name for himself spewing hate speech’, wrote the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Adam Morgan, in the Guardian. ‘The literary community must stand against anyone – author or publisher – who peddles hate speech for profit.’ Leslie Jones has similarly accused S&S of ‘spreading hate’, and author Karen Hunter has said that she’s ‘rethinking’ her relationship with the publisher.

Link