Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

SeanW

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You're absolutely right, it's clearly the greatest problem that faces humanity right now.

So you're fine with all that then?

El_Dangeroso

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You are the only one saying that, because you are trying to deflect and conquer.

People are getting really tired of that bully tactic.

Yes you got me, it was all part of a diabolical conspiracy, but you saw right through it.

Sweetemotion

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Yes you got me, it was all part of a diabolical conspiracy, but you saw right through it.

I sure did and so does everyone else.

El_Dangeroso

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I sure did and so does everyone else.

Well done, gold stars all round.

Sweetemotion

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well done, gold stars all round.

It's not gold stars all around, people are just tired of being labelled and bullied.

El_Dangeroso

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It's not gold stars all around, people are just tired of being labelled and bullied.

I bet they are.

SeanW

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I bet they are.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well done, gold stars all round.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Yes you got me, it was all part of a diabolical conspiracy, but you saw right through it.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You're absolutely right, it's clearly the greatest problem that faces humanity right now.

Do you actually have a point? Because this just looks like thread hijacking.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Milo has being really floating some ideas out there recently. Most notably that homosexuality in his case was more nurture based rather than nature.

I've heard this theory put across before by other gay men and it is quite interesting.

Milo himself cites his grandmother as having an influence over him as a young child. She used to dress him in women's clothing and put make up on him. Apparently his mother did her absolute nut when she discovered this was happening.

FA Hayek

As I mentioned before, the likes of Milo and his like is a reaction to the politically correct cultured that has manifested itself over the past number of yeas. Rubin is correct in that Milo and the 'Alt-right' uses outrage culture against itself.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

Au contraire mon petit ami, Tritium addressed nothing.

Mon chéri, he most certainly did:

tritium wrote: »

......all im seeing here is a project that is delayed, an explanation that may or may not be true but is at least plausible, and a number of sources who have a different political leaning to Milo seeing a chance to engage in slightly thrashy journalism under a "public interest' shield.

Most people would probably wait and see what happens here rather than calling Milo out as a crook or hypocrite at this stage.

I'm not above condemning Milo by the way if I feel it is warranted. I think taking the pictures of the overweight guy at the gym was disgusting.

B0jangles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mon chéri, he most certainly did:

Thats not an explanation, that is an excuse, an exceptionally weak one too.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

Thats not an explanation, that is an excuse, an exceptionally weak one too.

Look, you, and others, are just scraping the barrel here, in an obvious attempt at deflecting away from the issue at hand (Jack Dorsey). Maybe there are some hiccups? More to it all than he first thought? None of us know either way and as Tritium suggested: it's really just a case of 'watch this space' right now but the relevant website does state:

The full grant program will be administered for the 2017-2018 school year. More details will be released in the coming months.

Not sure what more you want from people but if you believe this some kind of 'gotcha moment' for Milo, and that it shows that he is some kind of thief.. well then it's quite a poor one as it does nothing of the sort.

B0jangles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, you, and others, are just scraping the barrel here, in an obvious attempt at deflecting away from the issue at hand (Dorsey). Maybe there's some hiccups. More to it than he first thought. None of us know either way and as Tritium suggested, it's really just a case right now of 'watch this space' right now. The relevant website states:



Not sure what more you want from people but if you believe this some kind of 'gotcha moment' for Milo, and that this shows that he is some thief.. well then it's quite a poor one as it does nothing of the sort. Next.

Yeah....btw I have the deeds for the Eiffel Tower for sale if you're interested?

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ah, I get it now, hahaha! Very funny. Thanks Pete, my eyes have been opened. This is clearly a really serious problem. More important than the world refugee crisis if you ask me. I bet top minds are looking into it right now.

So let's recap; you want to play right into the usual stereotype of "women are always victims feminist who never actually delved into her recieved dogma folds at first factual response to their dogma/nonsense and reverts to deflection and ad hominems"? Nice. *thumbs up* If it helps maybe suggest the posters shaking your house of cards have a small penis, no girlfriend and live in basements practicing onanism as a religious faith. Go for broke like.

In short your dogma fails on the first contact with facts. Read more, come back, try again.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

Milo has being really floating some ideas out there recently. Most notably that homosexuality in his case was more nurture based rather than nature.

I've heard this theory put across before by other gay men and it is quite interesting.

Milo himself cites his grandmother as having an influence over him as a young child. She used to dress him in women's clothing and put make up on him. Apparently his mother did her absolute nut when she discovered this was happening.

Nature versus nurture has been bandied about for donkey's years when it comes to homosexuality. It seems nature holds the lion's share of the influence. Genetics and varying exposure to hormone levels in the womb seem to be the bulk of it. In men anyway. There may be other/different factors with lesbians and bisexuality appears to be largely ignored in research for some reason.

Milo is actually and laughably pulling the victim card here, so he can play to the cheap seats of his American "no homo" lunkhead followers. Basically "I know I'm a screaming queen who loves chugging the Black pipe, but I'm one of you, it's not my fault. It's a woman's". GTFO Milo.

steddyeddy

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

OMG!! An AD WAS TAKEN down!!! Gosh i just don't know what to say.. I'm so sorry you had to endure that.

Jesus what a way to engage in debate. We also had the case of a scientist who landed a rocket on a comet being told what to wear by feminists.

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

So let's recap; you want to play right into the usual stereotype of "women are always victims feminist who never actually delved into her recieved dogma folds at first factual response to their dogma/nonsense and reverts to deflection and ad hominems"? Nice. *thumbs up* If it helps maybe suggest the posters shaking your house of cards have a small penis, no girlfriend and live in basements practicing onanism as a religious faith. Go for broke like.

In short your dogma fails on the first contact with facts. Read more, come back, try again.

Ahahaha! Thank you so much. I honestly haven't had a belly laugh like that in a really long time! Wow. You argue about this a lot online don't you? Or else have made-up shower arguments about it. I can tell because you're bursting with the seams with your little talking points that no one has actually brought up.

Haha again thanks for the laugh though. I'm a firm believer that humour keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously, and I can always tell a zealot from their lack of ability to laugh at themselves or the more absurd aspects of their philosophy.

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ahahaha! Thank you so much. I honestly haven't had a belly laugh like that in a really long time! Wow. You argue about this a lot online don't you? Or else have made-up shower arguments about it. I can tell because you're bursting with the seams with your little talking points that no one has actually brought up.

I'm not sure whether I'm fascinated by the level of irony displayed or the staggering lack of insight. It's a coin toss really. Sorry, I'll update my advice list for you: If it helps maybe suggest the posters shaking your house of cards have a small penis, no girlfriend, live in basements practicing onanism as a religious faith, argue online about it and have shower arguments(you might have added; "if they shower at all" for more colour. Another time perhaps?). *waits for penny to drop*

Haha again thanks for the laugh though. I'm a firm believer that humour keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously, and I can always tell a zealot from their lack of ability to laugh at themselves or the more absurd aspects of their philosophy.

Irony overload. Again. I would argue one can always spot the true zealot by their inability to debate points backed up by facts with points of their own, instead resorting to deflection and attempted insult, hopefully playing to the gallery for support. You have literally become the stereotype. *slow handclap* We await the final death rattle of what passes for your argument with hysterical hoots of misogyny.

Again I offer you a simple choice; debate the points if your argument has merit or deflect because you know full well it doesn't. So far all anyone has seen is the latter.

SeanW

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ahahaha! Thank you so much. I honestly haven't had a belly laugh like that in a really long time! Wow. You argue about this a lot online don't you? Or else have made-up shower arguments about it. I can tell because you're bursting with the seams with your little talking points that no one has actually brought up.

You seem to be posting an awful lot about an issue you supposedly don't care about. The problem is that all of it is sarcasm and insults. I'll ask one more time - do you actually have a point?

FA Hayek

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I can always tell a zealot from their lack of ability to laugh at themselves or the more absurd aspects of their philosophy.

Zealot is quite apt here. Pot kettle etc..

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not sure whether I'm fascinated by the level of irony displayed or the staggering lack of insight. It's a coin toss really. Sorry, I'll update my advice list for you: If it helps maybe suggest the posters shaking your house of cards have a small penis, no girlfriend, live in basements practicing onanism as a religious faith, argue online about it and have shower arguments(you might have added; "if they shower at all" for more colour. Another time perhaps?). *waits for penny to drop*

Irony overload. Again. I would argue one can always spot the true zealot by their inability to debate points backed up by facts with points of their own, instead resorting to deflection and attempted insult, hopefully playing to the gallery for support. You have literally become the stereotype. *slow handclap* We await the final death rattle of what passes for your argument with hysterical hoots of misogyny.

Again I offer you a simple choice; debate the points if your argument has merit or deflect because you know full well it doesn't. So far all anyone has seen is the latter.

Thanks for the reply, I can see this is something you really care deeply about. So it's understandable that you project the same level of obsession and fervour on to other people. So in your head right now I'm like this big fascist who you want to multi-quote for the next 20 pages, nitpicking quoting sources and facts that you've probably quoted at least 30 times before.

I am deeply sorry I can't be that person for you. And luckily for me, I don't have to select either of your two options. More so I can sit back and laugh at the absurdity, something you've forgotten to do in a while.

El_Dangeroso

FA Hayek wrote: »

Zealot is quite apt here. Pot kettle etc..

Zing!

El_Dangeroso

SeanW wrote: »

You seem to be posting an awful lot about an issue you supposedly don't care about. The problem is that all of it is sarcasm and insults. I'll ask one more time - do you actually have a point?

Do you?

Outlaw Pete

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ahahaha! Thank you so much. I honestly haven't had a belly laugh like that in a really long time! Wow.

...

I'm a firm believer that humour keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously, and I can always tell a zealot from their lack of ability to laugh at themselves or the more absurd aspects of their philosophy.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I can sit back and laugh at the absurdity, something you've forgotten to do in a while.

You keep on saying that you can laugh at stuff while others can't and yet you were the one that quoted a joke about the Hunky Dory's advert and got all het up about it.

El_Dangeroso

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...


You keep on saying that you can laugh at stuff while others can't and yet weren't you the one that quoted a joke about the Hunky Dory's advert and got all het up about it? I think so.

I have to laugh at every joke? Is that a law?

Skylinehead

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, I can see this is something you really care deeply about. So it's understandable that you project the same level of obsession and fervour on to other people. So in your head right now I'm like this big fascist who you want to multi-quote for the next 20 pages, nitpicking quoting sources and facts that you've probably quoted at least 30 times before.

I am deeply sorry I can't be that person for you. And luckily for me, I don't have to select either of your two options. More so I can sit back and laugh at the absurdity, something you've forgotten to do in a while.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Zing!

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Do you?

Mod: These are way off topic and smell heavily of derailment. Back on topic please.

El_Dangeroso

Skylinehead wrote: »

Mod: These are way off topic and smell heavily of derailment. Back on topic please.

Apologies! Sure thing!

Now IIRC the actual topic was that twitter banned Milo. This is one of the most egregious breaches of civil rights since Rosa Parks was made sit at the back of a bus. What are we going to do about this guys?

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, I can see this is something you really care deeply about. So it's understandable that you project the same level of obsession and fervour on to other people.

Not particularly. *shrug* I just like to call bullshít where I find it(inc that utter muppet Milo BTW). It's hardly taxing for me. I've plenty of overhead left to talk about other stuff, which I do. I suppose I do "project", rather expect a better level of discourse than a barely disquised "no, you smell!" that seems to be in play here. And apparently I'm getting worked up?

So in your head right now I'm like this big fascist who you want to multi-quote for the next 20 pages, nitpicking quoting sources and facts that you've probably quoted at least 30 times before.

I know, facts. Scary things indeed.

I am deeply sorry I can't be that person for you. And luckily for me, I don't have to select either of your two options. More so I can sit back and laugh at the absurdity, something you've forgotten to do in a while.

So you've apparently worked hard to establish you have no response based on facts, or even reasoned opinion, just believing recieved "wisdom" because it suits your narrative and firing out schoolyard stuff by way of deflection? Cool beans and let's face it hardly a shock. That you quote Tolstoy in such a manner in your sig is the icing on the cake of irony and monumental insight failure.

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

Not particularly. *shrug* I just like to call bullshít where I find it(inc that utter muppet Milo BTW). It's hardly taxing for me. I've plenty of overhead left to talk about other stuff, which I do. I suppose I do "project", rather expect a better level of discourse than a barely disquised "no, you smell!" that seems to be in play here. And apparently I'm getting worked up?

I know, facts. Scary things indeed.


So you've apparently worked hard to establish you have no response based on facts, or even reasoned opinion, just believing recieved "wisdom" because it suits your narrative and firing out schoolyard stuff by way of deflection? Cool beans and let's face it hardly a shock. That you quote Tolstoy in such a manner in your sig is the icing on the cake of irony and monumental insight failure.

You have a lot to say about my narrative considering I haven't said what it is. What do you have to say about the actual topic?

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You have a lot to say about my narrative considering I haven't said what it is.

Yep, you have. You're so used to your position you've entirely forgotten you have one.
QV

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The rest of us are just getting on with it living our lives blissfully oblivious to the evil feminist conspiracy threatening the very foundations of society. :rolleyes:

Give me one concrete example of feminism having a negative impact in Ireland.

What do you have to say about the actual topic?

See earlier in the thread, but funny enough not too far removed from what you wrote here:

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

He is an attention seeking narcissist, media coverage is his oxygen, otherwise he's just a sad man ranting at nothing.

Also WTF is a 'liberal'. Stupid American bull**** terms that have no relevance in this country.

Milo is a largely invented anti US college liberal/feminist revved up and dumbed down for the yanks and hard of thinking. He takes a sprinkling of actual good points and inflates them to the point of farce and slapstick, which again goes over well with the mob. That he is openly flaming like a forest fire and a "conservative" for hire appealing to the "no homo" do you even lift alpha male lunkheads is deliciously fucking brilliant for me. If he didn't exist it would behove someone to invent him as high farce(Trump ditto). Which is essentially what happened but muppets took him seriously and crazy gets clicks. Which would also mostly sum up my general opinions of the majority of US college "liberals" and feminist hacks. The local flavour being Una Dulally et al. Crazy gets clicks and the mob buy into it and believe the facts they want to believe. The facts with the most feelz. Sadly both extremes have real world affects.

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, you have. You're so used to your position you've entirely forgotten you have one.
QV



See earlier in the thread, but funny enough not too far removed from what you wrote here:



Milo is a largely invented anti US college liberal/feminist revved up and dumbed down for the yanks and hard of thinking. He takes a sprinkling of actual good points and inflates them to the point of farce and slapstick, which again goes over well with the mob. That he is openly flaming like a forest fire and a "conservative" for hire appealing to the "no homo" do you even lift alpha male lunkheads is deliciously fucking brilliant for me. If he didn't exist it would behove someone to invent him as high farce(Trump ditto). Which is essentially what happened but muppets took him seriously and crazy gets clicks. Which would also mostly sum up my general opinions of the majority of US college "liberals" and feminist hacks. The local flavour being Una Dulally et al. Crazy gets clicks and the mob buy into it and believe the facts they want to believe. The facts with the most feelz. Sadly both extremes have real world affects.

Thinking Milo is an attention whore and that we shouldn't give a **** about him is a narrative?? Wow, you flatter me!

I think you VASTLY overestimate the importance of online discussion. That's what's so very funny to me.

This incident has absolutely zero impact on my life (nor anyone else's if they are being honest) so I will treat the internet manbabbies throwing their toys out of the pram with the hearty laugh it deserves.

Glad you're coming round to my POV!

Outlaw Pete

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

This is one of the most egregious breaches of civil rights since Rosa Parks was made sit at the back of a bus.

Nobody thinks that. Nor while I'm at it, does anyone think:

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

This is clearly a really serious problem. More important than the world refugee crisis if you ask me.

You seem intent on exaggerating people's positions.

Wouldn't happen to be because you don't have an actual retort for what they do think now would it.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Au contraire mon petit ami, Tritium addressed nothing.

Have you anything to say about Milo collecting money for a (so called) charitable cause and then doing nothing whatsoever for them?

Actually i did. Just because you dont want to listen but would rather criticise people you disagree with while giving those you align with a free pass for remarkably similar activities doesnt make that less true. If Milo turns out to have run away with the money fair enough but right now all thats there is an allegation with no substance made by gutter press.

El_Dangeroso

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody thinks that. Nor while I'm at it, does anyone think:



You seem intent on exaggerating people's positions.

Wouldn't happen to be because you don't have an actual retort for what they do think now would it.

I don't need a retort for people getting upset about this. I just need to laugh at them. I thought you liked jokes?

Wibbs

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thinking Milo is an attention whore and that we shouldn't give a **** about him is a narrative?? Wow, you flatter me!

Like I say you're so engaged with it you've forgotten your position. You're a feminist. Small f. You'll identify as one, but haven't actually looked much beyond the surface of the feminist handbook facts you firmly believe are self evident because you were told they were. About the only difference between your set of beliefs and the nuttier among the "manosphere" is yours have become more mainstream. Doesn't mean they're not often hot air, deflection and nonsense and the most pushed agendas are even more likely to be. There's a reason why muppets like Milo get traction.

I think you VASTLY overestimate the importance of online discussion. That's what's so very funny to me.

Laugh away. Online discussion on twatter, arsebook and the like most certainly has wider influence, particularly among those who grew up with it as part of the background noise. Media in general has huge influence on lives and culture.

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

Actually i did. Just because you dont want to listen but would rather criticise people you disagree with while giving those you align with a free pass for remarkably similar activities doesnt make that less true. If Milo turns out to have run away with the money fair enough but right now all thats there is an allegation with no substance made by gutter press.

Erm no, the allegation was originally made by Margaret Maclennan, who was supposed to be running the scheme on Milo's behalf. The press reported it, as is their job (Also this is the first time I've heard The Guardian described as "gutter press").

The fund’s troubles came to the surface on social media this week in a public spat between the two proprietors of the operation, Yiannopoulos and Margaret MacLennan, a self-described “Canadian conservative” YouTube personality who she said was tasked with running the grant.

MacLennan alleged in a tweet that Yiannopoulos was transferring money intended for the grant to a personal account. MacLennan posted a screenshot of the alleged transfer to bolster the claim, sarcastically stating, “We all know I clearly profited from donations to the Grant.” She claimed to The Daily Beast that this was for the purpose of transparency.

The screenshot was of a document given to donors that provided instructions for wiring money into Yiannopoulos’s bank account (PDF).

“It is the only indication anywhere about the destination of the money,” MacLennan said. She said she was unaware as to how much had been collected.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/breitbart-editor-milo-yiannopoulos-takes-100-000-for-charity-gives-0.html


I just love the special pleading on Milo's behalf - he's probably trolling his own supporters with as much glee as he trolls everyone else and they are lining up to defend him.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wouldn't happen to be because you don't have an actual retort for what they do think now would it.

As I said earlier we're dealing with the internet equivalent of "no, you smell!" with passive aggressive "LOL!!" thrown in, all in lieu of an actual argument.

RDM_83 again

Something I don't really get is this.
Milo does make occasionally good points and is definitely very good at playing the controversialist game but he doesn't seem to believe a lot of what he says (I think he has basically admitted it at points).
Why would he bother behind the scenes organising his followers to attack this "comedian", I cant see any advantage to him for that action and he is a fairly smart operator.
A public spat with her is good for him as it builds his profile but arranging trolling of her behind the scenes is really of no benefit to him.

Oafley Jones

Wibbs wrote: »

As I said earlier we're dealing with the internet equivalent of "no, you smell!" with passive aggressive "LOL!!" thrown in, all in lieu of an actual argument.

It's amazing how petulant and adolescent the tone is when you consider that these are people in their 20s and early 30s. I wonder how much of this is rooted in a background of "participation medals" and everyone being a winner. Where an entitlement culture now clashes with the harsh reality of the world. I guess it's easier to blame others than focus on your own failure. The Internet and its ability for similarly disenfranchised people to silo themselves just exacerbates the whole thing.

steddyeddy

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thinking Milo is an attention whore and that we shouldn't give a **** about him is a narrative?? Wow, you flatter me!

I think you VASTLY overestimate the importance of online discussion. That's what's so very funny to me.

This incident has absolutely zero impact on my life (nor anyone else's if they are being honest) so I will treat the internet manbabbies throwing their toys out of the pram with the hearty laugh it deserves.

Glad you're coming round to my POV!

Manbabbies.......... sexist twaddle. The mask is slipping.

Ken.

Mod- El_Dangeroso do not post in this thread again.

El_Dangeroso

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I say you're so engaged with it you've forgotten your position. You're a feminist. Small f. You'll identify as one, but haven't actually looked much beyond the surface of the feminist handbook facts you firmly believe are self evident because you were told they were. About the only difference between your set of beliefs and the nuttier among the "manosphere" is yours have become more mainstream. Doesn't mean they're not often hot air, deflection and nonsense and the most pushed agendas are even more likely to be. There's a reason why muppets like Milo get traction.

Laugh away. Online discussion on twatter, arsebook and the like most certainly has wider influence, particularly among those who grew up with it as part of the background noise. Media in general has huge influence on lives and culture.

I will continue to laugh because you keep giving me the opportunity. You're so desperate to reframe the argument to be about feminism that now you're making up my position for me. You could probably have the debate all by yourself at this stage.

Edit: just saw the mod note now. I guess some people's opinions are just too harsh for delicate ears. Later!

Rjd2

Wibbs wrote: »

Y

Milo is a largely invented anti US college liberal/feminist revved up and dumbed down for the yanks and hard of thinking. He takes a sprinkling of actual good points and inflates them to the point of farce and slapstick, which again goes over well with the mob. That he is openly flaming like a forest fire and a "conservative" for hire appealing to the "no homo" do you even lift alpha male lunkheads is deliciously fucking brilliant for me. If he didn't exist it would behove someone to invent him as high farce(Trump ditto). Which is essentially what happened but muppets took him seriously and crazy gets clicks. Which would also mostly sum up my general opinions of the majority of US college "liberals" and feminist hacks. The local flavour being Una Dulally et al. Crazy gets clicks and the mob buy into it and believe the facts they want to believe. The facts with the most feelz. Sadly both extremes have real world affects.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/meet-milo-yiannopoulos-the-appealing-young-face-of-the-racist-alt-right.html


Think that is an article that sums up Milo pretty well, the author when he spotted him early days was pretty impressed with how he challenged tedious SJW warrior types, but like many the more and more he discovered about him was quickly turned off.

RayM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why would he bother behind the scenes organising his followers to attack this "comedian", I cant see any advantage to him for that action and he is a fairly smart operator.
A public spat with her is good for him as it builds his profile but arranging trolling of her behind the scenes is really of no benefit to him.

I don't think he even needs to actively orchestrate abuse. His hardcore fans are easily impressed and really, really eager to impress him, so all he has to is mention someone he dislikes/disagrees with and they immediately spring into action.

I have first-hand experience of this tactic. I once said something extremely mild about Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter (I observed that he must have been disappointed not to have been banned from an Economics Society event at UCD, because it meant (a) less publicity, and (b) he now had to actually attend the stupid thing). He somehow noticed and then retweeted me. Within seconds, I was bombarded with tweets from people with anime avatars, telling me why I was wrong, stupid, ugly, a 'cuck', an SJW, a white knight, a homophobe and a fag. They even trawled through my tweets, randomly arguing with various things I'd said, or stuff I'd written, in the past. I didn't engage with any of them and it all fizzled out within a couple of days.

It amazed me that they were prepared to spend so much time having a go at some random nobody from Ireland with no more than a couple of hundred followers, and who wasn't reacting to them anyway. But it wasn't really about me - they were simply thirsty for approval in the form of retweet (or maybe even a follow) from Milo. I thought there was something quite sad about that.

Outlaw Pete

RayM wrote: »

Within seconds, I was bombarded with tweets from people with anime avatars, telling me why I was wrong, stupid, ugly, a 'cuck', an SJW, a white knight, a homophobe and a fag.

Sorry about that.

RDM_83 again

But that's not a justification to ban him from Twitter, isn't the whole point of Twitter that you can react to what other people say (referencing him retweeting u not the abuse).
There is plenty of people with a toxic user base associated with them, say something bad about Beyonce for example and things can go very badly same with lots of the shaming related SJW stuff.

Shouldn't we be judging people on what they actually do and say rather in which case she is a much worse offender than milo in terms of twitters rules.

PS like the fact they called you both a fag and a homophobe cos among some of his hardcore fan base there is definitely some weird attitudes (obviously not saying I like the abuse just what it highlights).Overall I do think it's good that there is an LGBT person saying what he says to often non mainstream sexuality is automatically associated with left 'libralism' when it comes down to it they really don't have much to do with another

Venom

RayM wrote: »

I don't think he even needs to actively orchestrate abuse. His hardcore fans are easily impressed and really, really eager to impress him, so all he has to is mention someone he dislikes/disagrees with and they immediately spring into action.

I have first-hand experience of this tactic. I once said something extremely mild about Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter (I observed that he must have been disappointed not to have been banned from an Economics Society event at UCD, because it meant (a) less publicity, and (b) he now had to actually attend the stupid thing). He somehow noticed and then retweeted me. Within seconds, I was bombarded with tweets from people with anime avatars, telling me why I was wrong, stupid, ugly, a 'cuck', an SJW, a white knight, a homophobe and a fag. They even trawled through my tweets, randomly arguing with various things I'd said, or stuff I'd written, in the past. I didn't engage with any of them and it all fizzled out within a couple of days.

It amazed me that they were prepared to spend so much time having a go at some random nobody from Ireland with no more than a couple of hundred followers, and who wasn't reacting to them anyway. But it wasn't really about me - they were simply thirsty for approval in the form of retweet (or maybe even a follow) from Milo. I thought there was something quite sad about that.

But this is not something unique to Milo or his fanbase but merely a sad reflection of modern living and how screwed up the lives are of alot of people with internet access. How ****ed up in the head do you have to be to get so angry and worked up over something so trivial :eek:

Twitter blaming Milo for the actions of others is not only wrong but screwed up when they took no action regarding Jones siccing her fans on some ordinary job soap.

holly44

"Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded.... They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them."
-John Wayne
Duke sums it up perfectly.

PopePalpatine

holly44 wrote: »

"Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded.... They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them."
-John Wayne
Duke sums it up perfectly.

Poor choice of idol.

John Wayne wrote:

I believe in white supremacy, until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility.

Arcade_Tryer

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Poor choice of idol.

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

holly44

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Poor choice of idol.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

Never mind who said it, it a good quote, that no one can dispute!