Can't Silo the Milo (Yiannopoulos)

[Draco-Onis]

no but if someone showed me a clip of her outwitting and outarguing someone and asked for my thoughts on how the discussion went i'd talk about that instead of fixating on her general buffonry that wasn't actually a facet of that video.

Also Trump basically shit-posted his way into the White House so we shouldn't under-estimate trolls either..

Very true because the media loves trolls, I rather discuss people who are really conservatives not using it to stuff their pockets. His followers cheer whatever he does when he makes it pretty obvious he is only after their money, whatever point he may have is void since it comes from a very hollow place.

[Fadeslol]

I'm OK with the idea of independent media in theory. Not OK with how it's being practiced. Zero sources, citations, or evidence on some huge portion of all these independent sites popping up. But if someone had an independent media site that actually backed up their claims and acted in a non-partisan manner, sure, that would be great.

Not going to comment on MSM beyond stating that it's a mixed bag.

You can't break up the 2 party system without eliminating FPTP. 2 party system is a direct result of FPTP.

1) About your first statement, of course they need to provide evidence. BTW i don't believe everything i hear anyways, i go and do the research myself and look into the facts. Side of me is a Thomas Jefferson Liberal, be a free thinker. We lost all the journalism in this country. You can disagree with this but i'm sorry, 6 corps shouldn't control 90% of the media. Yes we have a free press but people shouldn't just take the word of MSM. They need to start using their brain and expand their thoughts.

2) It's a complex situation, but it's ok don't worry about it.

3) I don't believe FPTP applies to the US? correct me if i'm wrong.

[Bodakane]

So you're sticking to the idea that Milo is a racist?

Yeah see this is the kind of doubling down on crazy that means we're gonna get 8 years of a lunatic in the white house instead of 4

Maybe just admit that Milo obviously isn't racist, is a very smart guy, a great speaker and might have some good points?

Stop being triggered and pay the fuck attention to what was written.

Forget Milo. Forget Trump.

In general, why does saying someone likes black people for sex disqualify them as a racist?

[Paranoid Android]

Stop being triggered and pay the fuck attention to what was written.

Forget Milo. Forget Trump.

In general, why does saying someone likes black people for sex disqualify them as a racist?

You can argue that racists would love to dominate that said race below them. Sexually would be one way.

[Fadeslol]

This is a gross oversimplification of the media that is dangerous because it encourages excessive distrust of what is essentially reality. Certainly, media are friends to no one but themselves and prioritize their agenda over the good of others, but that doesn't mean everything they say is wrong or that everything they do should be rejected out of hand. Most of what they report is in fact true, though the facts they choose to report are usually the ones that best serve their agenda. That's why you don't just blindly accept what the first outlet tells you, but check with multiple sources and try to corroborate the information. The very system of utilizing the media that I just outlined is most definitely an exercise in using your brain, as it's basic critical reading (or viewing) in action.

But if you reject the MSM entirely, which is a hell of a lot more than just the half dozen or so major news stations, then what? Do you just go to the fringe sources that have no more of an obligation and arguably even less of a desire to be impartial? Do you go to sources that take the smallest grain of truth and craft a fantasy novel out of it to slander someone with? Where are you getting your information from that isn't the MSM and is supposedly so much better than them? You can't get away from the fact that people have their own agendas and that with as many people dedicated to immersing themselves in their own narrative as there are, they're going to keep selfishly pushing a particular view. For better or for worse though, the simple fact that the MSM are more heavily consumed means they're more at risk of getting sued for slander or libel, which means there is a de facto higher standard they must adhere to. The best thing you can do is not simply disregard them, but to try to get the situation from multiple angles and corroborate what they say as best as possible with primary sources.

None of this really has much of anything to do with the two party system, which is a product of our legislation, not the media. The media will no doubt prop up any system that's put in place.

First part of your statement, when 6 corp control 90% of the media, then that is very dangerous.

"Certainly, media are friends to no one but themselves and prioritize their agenda over the good of others, but that doesn't mean everything they say is wrong or that everything they do should be rejected out of hand. Most of what they report is in fact true, though the facts they choose to report are usually the ones that best serve their agenda"

They have an agenda, to serve the govt instead of the people. It's all the standard talking points.

"That's why you don't just blindly accept what the first outlet tells you, but check with multiple sources and try to corroborate the information. The very system of utilizing the media that I just outlined is most definitely an exercise in using your brain, as it's basic critical reading (or viewing) in action."

100% agree, if u look at my old post i always say that. Problem is, we don't have real media in this country anymore.

"But if you reject the MSM entirely, which is a hell of a lot more than just the half dozen or so major news stations, then what? Do you just go to the fringe sources that have no more of an obligation and arguably even less of a desire to be impartial? Do you go to sources that take the smallest grain of truth and craft a fantasy novel out of it to slander someone with? Where are you getting your information from that isn't the MSM and is supposedly so much better than them? You can't get away from the fact that people have their own agendas and that with as many people dedicated to immersing themselves in their own narrative as there are, they're going to keep selfishly pushing a particular view. For better or for worse though, the simple fact that the MSM are more heavily consumed means they're more at risk of getting sued for slander or libel, which means there is a de facto higher standard they must adhere to. The best thing you can do is not simply disregard them, but to try to get the situation from multiple angles and corroborate what they say as best as possible with primary sources. "

When wikileaks have more credible than our MSM, thats the problem. I shouldn't have to get my news from Wikileaks.

None of this really has much of anything to do with the two party system, which is a product of our legislation, not the media. The media will no doubt prop up any system that's put in place. "

when you have 2 party system, u have 2 "sides" Left and Right. It's easier for the media to keep people in control.

[Bodakane]

First part of your statement, when 6 corp control 90% of the media, then that is very dangerous.

"Certainly, media are friends to no one but themselves and prioritize their agenda over the good of others, but that doesn't mean everything they say is wrong or that everything they do should be rejected out of hand. Most of what they report is in fact true, though the facts they choose to report are usually the ones that best serve their agenda"

They have an agenda, to serve the govt instead of the people. It's all the standard talking points.

"That's why you don't just blindly accept what the first outlet tells you, but check with multiple sources and try to corroborate the information. The very system of utilizing the media that I just outlined is most definitely an exercise in using your brain, as it's basic critical reading (or viewing) in action."

100% agree, if u look at my old post i always say that. Problem is, we don't have real media in this country anymore.

"But if you reject the MSM entirely, which is a hell of a lot more than just the half dozen or so major news stations, then what? Do you just go to the fringe sources that have no more of an obligation and arguably even less of a desire to be impartial? Do you go to sources that take the smallest grain of truth and craft a fantasy novel out of it to slander someone with? Where are you getting your information from that isn't the MSM and is supposedly so much better than them? You can't get away from the fact that people have their own agendas and that with as many people dedicated to immersing themselves in their own narrative as there are, they're going to keep selfishly pushing a particular view. For better or for worse though, the simple fact that the MSM are more heavily consumed means they're more at risk of getting sued for slander or libel, which means there is a de facto higher standard they must adhere to. The best thing you can do is not simply disregard them, but to try to get the situation from multiple angles and corroborate what they say as best as possible with primary sources. "

When wikileaks have more credible than our MSM, thats the problem. I shouldn't have to get my news from Wikileaks.

None of this really has much of anything to do with the two party system, which is a product of our legislation, not the media. The media will no doubt prop up any system that's put in place. "

when you have 2 party system, u have 2 "sides" Left and Right. It's easier for the media to keep people in control.

The MSM isn't trying to control anyone, they're trying to generate dollars. The right media is, in fact trying to control people. Neither is good, but one is objectively and purposely evil.

[Fadeslol]

The MSM isn't trying to control anyone, they're trying to generate dollars. The right media is, in fact trying to control people. Neither is good, but one is objectively and purposely evil.

ROFl wrong, MSM if anything is evil, it's only Propaganda. Right media? define so ik which ones you're trying to label as so i can answer you.

[Bodakane]

So far, I've only heard people (including Milo himself) say he's not racist because:

- He likes sex with black men
-.....
-.....
-.....

[Kathandira]

So far, I've only heard people (including Milo himself) say he's not racist because:

- He likes sex with black men
-.....
-.....
-.....

And the only reason people who say hes a racist say so is because he supports Trump.

Neither side has a worthy argument or defense. So the issue should be dropped as it is just pissing in the wind.

[Bodakane]

ROFl wrong, MSM if anything is evil, it's only Propaganda. Right media? define so ik which ones you're trying to label as so i can answer you.

Nothing you're saying makes sense.

MSM answers to their advertisers. Their advertisers are many of the major corporations the right likes to hoist up on pedestals. The problem with MSM is that they are more beholden to advertiser dollars then they are important stories.

The right media, like Fox and Breitbart, (its completely intellectually dishonest for you to ask who is the right media) are not as beholden to advertisers as they are beholden to political agendas.

[xChurch]

Well SJW college kids have been a dog-whistle for the right for a long time now, why stop now? Feels like anytime people want to discuss the Left, it's always about naive college kids trying to somehow magically trying to enforce their views on the country. People grow out of this stuff but now because of the internet we're bombarded with every little controversial thing that happens on capmus' so it creates the illusion of this being some wide spread problem. I've still yet to encounter this anywhere in reality though.

[Bodakane]

And the only reason people who say hes a racist say so is because he supports Trump.

Neither side has a worthy argument or defense. So the issue should be dropped as it is just pissing in the wind.

No, he's a racist because he works for Breitbart (an avowed alt right organization) and because of his racist tweets and attacks. I know, I know, the right only thinks someone is racist if they make a formal declaration they are racist, but really a person's actions and words are what define them as racist or not.

Either way, a white person banging black people no more disqualifies someone from being racist than being a male who has sex with women disqualifies them from being sexist.

[Scathbais]

Usually white supremacists aren't ashamed of the fact that they are white supremacists. Same with people who are actually alt-right.

I just love (not really) how the left created the term "alt-right" because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary Clinton LOST because she was a horrible candidate.

It is so hypocritical that Black-power, feminism, gay pride are all a-ok, but any sort of white, middle class anything and you are labeled as racist, bigoted, anti-semite, homophoboislamophobo-deplorable.

I think you need a great big mirror to stare in until you understand why you blame the failings of your own ideology on an "alt-right" conspiracy.

So sad.

[Zelk]

No one cares about this weirdo

[Fadeslol]

Nothing you're saying makes sense.

MSM answers to their advertisers. Their advertisers are many of the major corporations the right likes to hoist up on pedestals. The problem with MSM is that they are more beholden to advertiser dollars then they are important stories.

The right media, like Fox and Breitbart, (its completely intellectually dishonest for you to ask who is the right media) are not as beholden to advertisers as they are beholden to political agendas.

Yes because ik everything the MSM tells you is fact. First of all, Left doesn't believe in the first amendment that's why can't debate and claim racist/sexist/homophobia/Islamophobia etc. The right starts random wars without evidence. Lets be real, MSM includes Fox. Now if we actually had real MSM in this country, you wouldn't have them cover for the govt instead of actually doing real journalism

[Bodakane]

I just love (not really) how the left created the term "alt-right" because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary Clinton LOST because she was a horrible candidate.

It is so hypocritical that Black-power, feminism, gay pride are all a-ok, but any sort of white, middle class anything and you are labeled as racist, bigoted, anti-semite, homophoboislamophobo-deplorable.

I think you need a great big mirror to stare in until you understand why you blame the failings of your own ideology on an "alt-right" conspiracy.

So sad.

Your facts suck.

The term alt right was created BEFORE this election. It was created by the alt right.

It was actually created because your side was mad we elected a black president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

But you know, keep spreading bullshit.......

[Scathbais]

Nothing you're saying makes sense.

MSM answers to their advertisers. Their advertisers are many of the major corporations the right likes to hoist up on pedestals. The problem with MSM is that they are more beholden to advertiser dollars then they are important stories.

The right media, like Fox and Breitbart, (its completely intellectually dishonest for you to ask who is the right media) are not as beholden to advertisers as they are beholden to political agendas.

You honestly and with a straight face can say that MSNBC, CNN and, most egregiously, the NY Times don't put ideology before all else?
Just look at the election coverage. The truth is staring you in the face.

[Bodakane]

Yes because ik everything the MSM tells you is fact. First of all, Left doesn't believe in the first amendment that's why can't debate and claim racist/sexist/homophobia/Islamophobia etc. The right starts random wars without evidence. Lets be real, MSM includes Fox. Now if we actually had real MSM in this country, you wouldn't have them cover for the govt instead of actually doing real jouralism

Still you're not making sense.

The left loves 1A. No one is trying to make racist speak against the law.

Actually, what you don't realize is that the PC culture you so despise is a product of Capitalism nothing liberal.

You know what is happening though? The right and right media are trying to push Christianity on people and trying to force anti Muslim agendas and also trying to quell free speech. And they are trying it through laws not business.

Conservative Hypocrisy™

- - - Updated - - -

You honestly and with a straight face can say that MSNBC, CNN and, most egregiously, the NY Times don't put ideology before all else?
Just look at the election coverage. The truth is staring you in the face.

Yes. I challenge you to look at the numbers. They talked about Trump waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more than Clinton.

[Paranoid Android]

Nothing you're saying makes sense.

MSM answers to their advertisers. Their advertisers are many of the major corporations the right likes to hoist up on pedestals. The problem with MSM is that they are more beholden to advertiser dollars then they are important stories.

The right media, like Fox and Breitbart, (its completely intellectually dishonest for you to ask who is the right media) are not as beholden to advertisers as they are beholden to political agendas.

I agree with your statement, but Fox and right media is beholden to money/advertisers. Rupert Murdoch, while very conservative himself, knew he could make a right biased news channel that would get views, thus making him lots of money. Look even at just the Fox channel. They have super liberal shit on there like Family Guy. Murdoch don't give a shit, since it makes him money.

Whether Murdoch is super brilliant or stumbled upon that his ideals, mashed up with a larger viewership than MSNBC and CNN combined. The dude so far has picked the right side as far as viewers.

[Scathbais]

Your facts suck.

The term alt right was created BEFORE this election. It was created by the alt right.

It was actually created because your side was mad we elected a black president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

But you know, keep spreading bullshit.......

You are correct. I misspoke. What I meant to say is that you liberals took the term "alt right" and applied it in a broad brush stroke to a large portion of the population that disagrees with your world view. Just the same way you throw around the terms racist, bigot, misogynist, and homophobe toward anyone who doesn't conform to your political correctness.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake because the truth is far more telling.

Edit: I must admit I had never even heard of the term "alt-right" until the media started spewing it out as the reason why their chosen one Hillary wasn't ahead by 50 points in the polls and I've voted in 7 Presidential elections. The left blamed the Tea Party in the last few elections, and before that it was the "vast right-wing conspiracy".