You're comparing the left to Nazi's? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why do Libs riot ?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
I wasn't the one who brought up the idiotic comparison to begin with. Comparing a gay man to the Nazis is rich considering the Nazi's thoughts on such things.
Some posters need to quit assuming they know everything about every issue. The protests that are happening on today's left are much more akin to the actions taken by the Nazi opposition the Roter Frontkämpferbund (RFB) which was a militarized group that supported the Social Democratic Party of Germany or the Communist Party of Germany when they were having their fallout with the Nazis and the Sturmabteilung (SA) which was the militant precursor to the SS purged by Hitler during the night of the long knives.
I'm not even saying that today's violent left or the RFB in the 1930's were good entities, but they did battle the views coming from Hitler's Nazi Party. The only difference today is that Milo and Breitbart don't have (or need) a Sturmabteilung to combat the left anymore. They just use social media and propoganda instead. Instead of the Jews they're targeting immigrants.
I like the fact that he compared the American Left to radical Communists....
Yup. Simply because they are on the left, they've been violent, and they're opposing a hate filled far right. Instead of workers they are fighting for immigrants. (Although the RFB did fight for jews to some degree)
I figured you'd get a kick out of that. But really I'm just saying the far left that has started this violence. I don't really think it's productive. Their desire might be in the right place, but their execution is just making the far right stronger.
I saw a bird on a pond. It looked like a duck. I offered it some cracked corn and it walked over like a duck. It looked up and quacked. I think it had a strong resemblance to a duck.
Lets ask a holocaust survivor which side they think is which and see if it's Trump's people or Clinton's people that they think are actually the ducks in this scenario.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.1d10bba69bed
You're right. The far right already has people like you to go to bat for them. They don't need you to go out and protest.
You realize that true neo nazis would have zero to do with Milo simply due to his sexual orientation....right?
Like I said previously, I don't think it's the most effective way to combat social / racial / political injustice, but some people will always see it that way.
Hard to say exactly, but I'll make sure it's broad enough to silence my political enemies since that's always been the intent
He's railed against his own sexual orientation as a way to get around that. The fact that he's gay hasn't stopped any of them.
I don't think many liberals are going to try and silence actual political discussion on the fronts of things like budgetary spending, or trade policy, or public land sales as things like hate speech. It's only when you target entire subsets of people in a negative way. Like Milo targeting Gay and Trans people, Femenists, Blacks, Muslims, etc...
I find it interesting then, that I don't recall your posts denouncing the violence...
Please posts some links. He has some unconventional thoughts but I have never seen anything which I would considering targeting...and again...true Neo Nazis aren't supporting a flamboyant gay man. They are as intolerant as the far left.
Last edited:
Economic policies are not the only areas where conservatives are allowed to have an opinion and socially conservative opinions, even those I disagree with like arguing against gay marriage, are not inherently hateful. Milo is intentionally provocative, but he is far from the only conservative to be targeted like this. Relatively mainstream positions get labeled hate speech.
If I used the term the way the left does I could easily define a lot of your descriptions of religiously conservative people as hate speech.
The difference is, I'm not advocating the end to religion, or that religious people are fundamentally subordinate or evil. Nor do I think they need to renounce their faith to be decent human beings. I'm not declaring war on religion.
He was permanently banned from Twitter for "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others"
As I said....please post some anti-gay targeting rhetoric. There's no doubt he got into some heated exchange via twitter. There's also no doubt that his political leanings played a significant part in the ban by liberal leaning Twitter.
Here's the thing with any speaker who is speaking in a private forum. No one is being forced to go and listen. Milo speaks in front of thousands upon thousands of people every year with no issues with those in attendance. If you think you don't like what he will say then don't go. This applies for liberal and conservative speakers btw.
Last edited:
I'm not defending Milo. I'm defending his right to speak and the right of people to hear said speech. Frankly I'm shocked that Libs aren't onboard simply based on principle. What's next.....book burnings? Let's remove books we don't agree with from college libraries. Have we forgotten the purpose of college? If you don't agree with the speech or content of the book.....Don't listen or read it.
Dude's book sales are probably booming now and I bet he's been doing the rounds on TV. They sure did a great job making sure his views didn't get a platform
Similar to what Trump is doing for the NYT circulation numbers.
I would also defend that right.
But you said he doesn't target people, so I gave you an example.
I said I wasn't aware of him targeting gays and asked for some links showing the same.