The narratives about Trump thread.


I’m inclined to think Milo actually is the kind of person you (and many others) say he is, but you’re asking us why we wouldn’t ban him, and we’re saying it depends on exactly what he says.

Remember the “foreign wolves” controversy? Context matters.


I once made a comment referring to an old slang for communists and a widely known festival in Yunlin China where they consume the meat of a certain animal. I did not use racially charged words or ephtithets. I interchanged white with right, when referring to political right. That was not met with warm eyes. And referred to a seemingly pro-China commentator as a member of 50 cent party. I was nearly permanently banned. All was done in a more sarcastic and banterish way. But I think that was lost in that this is a medium which nuances can easily get lost. I am not defending myself or in any mood to wake up sleeping dogs, just trying to make a point.

I think now you can understand my trepidation in posting, or even linking to some of Milo’s more charged posts. Or even Richard Spencer. People want proof, but complain that it is not a direct quote, or too long.


I just saw your edit and watched the interview you say could get him arrested.

Not naming names is usually just a matter of self-protection. If he came here and named names without providing evidence, we would probably delete them (as we have in labor disputes and so on) because we can’t afford hot shot lawyers to defend us in libel suits.

If it’s true that failing to report those alleged crimes is illegal in California, why not let him speak? You don’t want him to incriminate himself?

Did you?

And referred to a seemingly pro-China commentator as a member of 50 cent party. I was nearly permanently banned.

You made a public accusation of trolldom (with a nasty tone to boot). That’s an ad hominem attack. We do care about trolls, but we ask you to flag suspicious posts, so we can sort them out. This is explained in the rules.

I think now you can understand my trepidation in posting, or even linking to some of Milo’s more charged posts. Or even Richard Spencer. People want proof, but complain that it is not a direct quote, or too long.

Spencer is someone I’ve heard enough from. Milo is someone I keep hearing of, but rarely from.

Btw if someone registered here with a name like “the_dangerous_faggot” (what Milo had on the side of his tour bus, apparently), we would definitely consider taking action. We only just barely let @BiggusDickus get away with his name, after all.


Maybe the statutes ran out. I did not think there is a statute on felonies, but then…

Naming names of his “enemies” is his MO. He outed a transgender student.

Yes I did. I can PM you with what was actually said. I do not feel like mentioning it here, for obvious reasons. As for the “trolldom” comment, I didn’t actually call the person that, but made reference to that. Ah, its done and over with.

Is his real name Dick, or Richard? True story, I went to school with a kid named Richard Head.

You have heard of Marquis De Sade? Have you read any of his works? There is some opinion that he was actually a troll of his time. Seeing what he could get away with at the time. Not a lot, since he spent time in the Bastille. He wrote about extreme sexual perversion. A 18th century Bob Guccione, or Larry Flynt of his day. Milo is like the modern version of that. Except with racism and bigotry added in. He knows what will get a rise out of people, and what kind of response he will get. He also knows he has a following. As explained in the article accidentally double posted, hate speech does not help in defending FoS. It hampers it.

“Hate speech is not compatible with reasoned debate. You can’t talk to it. When you try, it talks over you and ignores you and calls you a fat ugly whore and publishes your address online. If you’re not scared out of engaging with it for fear of reprisal, chances are you’ll die of exhaustion. How many times do you have to explain to people that “racism is bad” or “women are not worse than men” before you give up because it’s not worth the bother? These are not discussions worth having. They shouldn’t even be discussions.”

But now we have something called “Absolutism” which is just a few steps beyond anarchy.


You don’t need to use the T word to accuse someone of trolling.

Anyway, Milo made fun of a transgender student by making a distasteful comment that I would throw in the flame bin if it happened in my forum. Did he actually out the person?

As for Hollywood, don’t be daft. You know many of those people are millionaires and billionaires. Accusing them of serious crimes with zero evidence is not in the same category as mocking some random student’s appearance.


I would think, that a crime of that seriousness would at least have been investigated. Or maybe it was the wealth that prevented such.

That or he is talking out of his ass. That would make everything else he says suspect and disingenuous. Thus, making him a fake, phony, and fraud. Kind of like Alex Jones. Ah, but people believe that, and bad things happen. Like the pizza restaurant.

You are asking for proof, of which something I do not have. I was not there. A VDO exists of the event, I have posted links to it. I am beginning to believe I am the only one who knows how to use the Google.

That article I double-linked to? It says it all. I am exhausted having to explain and back up what should be common knowledge of man, of a movement. If I cannot provide first-hand evidence, then it can be easily excused by simply using MSM tags or bias. I give up.

It is tiring trying to argue that hate speech is not a good thing and should not be defended and that FoS is a two-way street, but people do not get that. I do not care any more. A once great nation has fallen into the hands of degenerates and regressives who wish to erase all social progress we have made, and end the great multi-cultural experiment. Let them win. My grandparents spent a portion of their youth fighting against this tide. It took 70 years, but it appears that tide has won and lives lost fighting against that tide were all in vane.


Of course I know how to use the interwebs, but finding specific dirt on a generally dirty person I don’t have any personal connection to or economic interest in isn’t usually my idea of time well spent.

With all the time we spend talking about these context-rich direct quotations that should exist somewhere, it’s a little odd that you can’t reproduce them here. You know what they say about the scientific method… :idunno:

Oh, and I don’t fault people for citing mainstream sources. (If I ever did, it was probably in jest.)


Don’t you mean the Socratic method? Oh, that does not work here. I have tried.

I do not understand why what I have linked to does not qualify. Are you saying that without a provable direct quote, its all fruitless? Is the video of him outing the kid not enough?

I honestly do not know what you want. I am beginning to think people are taking the piss now.

It has kind of went like this: “Prove he said it.” ok, here is a link. “MSM. Not good enough. Second-hand story. Too long. Is there a direct quote? No video, will not watch.”

I guess if that is not good enough, I will just concede that he is a fine, outstanding man who everyone would be proud to have speak at their wedding, bar mitzvah, sweet 16, corporate event, day care, graduation, Eid, ICE office gathering, or whatever you have in mind.


Nobody does hubris better than Trump.


First it was freedom of speech that “doesn’t work.” Now it’s the Socratic method that’s “not working right.”

What’s next?


No, I mean you should be able to reproduce someone else’s result if it’s really a scientific phenomenon, and you should be able to find a piece of information everyone says exists if it really exists, Mr. Anti-Wiki. :unamused:

I do not understand why what I have linked to does not qualify. Are you saying that without a provable direct quote, its all fruitless? Is the video of him outing the kid not enough?

I guess if that is not good enough, I will just concede that he is a fine, outstanding man who everyone would be proud to have speak at their wedding, bar mitzvah, sweet 16, corporate event, day care, graduation, Eid, ICE office gathering, or whatever you have in mind.

I never said Milo was a fine, outstanding man.
I never said I agreed with any of his comments.

I was responding to your concern that Mick’s interest in hearing him out means we support hate speech, which btw we don’t.

I’ve already told you I would not allow the “I could still bang him” comment in the Legal forum. (To put a post “in the flame bin” means to remove it because it’s too nasty to live.) It turns out the exact words were “I’d almost still bang him”, but I would still remove that and give him a warning about ad hominem (or ad feminam) attacks.

Where’s this outing incident you speak of? She said she wanted her presence at the event to be seen as a protest, so it stands to reason that she was already out. The article also includes a claim of harrassment (separate from the “bang” incident), but no specifics.

Follow the link about the Twitter ban, and you get this.

It says he led the campaign but provides no specifics. Follow the multiple links to the same article in there, and you get nasty tweets about Leslie Jones, but no mention of Milo. :idunno:

I’m inclined to believe Twitter wouldn’t have banned him without a good reason, but the official statement from them gives no specifics either, so it doesn’t set a clear precedent.

George Ciccariello-Maher, a professor at Drexel University, claimed reliable sources believed Mr Yiannopoulos was planning on outing undocumented students.

“Reliable sources say Milo planned to publicly name undocumented students @UCBerkeley. Debate over: shutting him down was necessary & good,” he wrote on Twitter.

Kumars Salehi, a Berkeley PHD student, claimed Mr Yiannopoulos was planning to broadcast the talk in an online live stream.

Two accusers, zero hard evidence.

If someone decided to use the Legal forum to out illegal immigrants in Taiwan, I would delete the posts, not because I support illegal immigration or any other illegal behavior (as you know if you read my comments reminding people not to work illegally or cheat on their taxes etc.) but because we’re not in the business of dealing with allegations like that and don’t want to get sued for libel, insult, or violation of privacy.

A general comment like there are many illegal kindergarten teachers in Taiwan would stay, because it’s not an allegation against a specific person or a group with a registered representative (ergo no-one can sue us) and also because it happens to be true, as far as I can tell.

A whisper in my ear to the effect of so-and-so is going to out an illegal immigrant later today would get my attention, but I wouldn’t ban the person because of an unsubstantiated rumor. Would you?

(Incidentally, our spam filter does hide some questionable posts until we’ve had time to check them, but that’s not the same thing.)

A bizarre comment like “gay rights have made us dumber” said by an openly gay person (still waiting for that one to be confirmed – a Guardian editorial is better than Wikipedia but still not a smoking gun) would also get my attention, but I would at least read the accompanying explanation before jumping to conclusions about what it means and whether or not it constitutes hate speech or any other violation of forum rules.

It’s sort of like if the Israeli embassy in whatever country organizes a screening of Triumph of the Will (which has happened btw), you may find it surprising, and you may find it distasteful, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the embassy has been taken over by Nazis or that the screening should be canceled.


I wouldn’t be so sure of that, my family have been lifelong subscribers to the Guardian, they are quite left leaning and far from objective. But they did summarize quite well the main complaints I hear about Milo, lets take a closer look.

Calling transgender people mentally ill is obviously going to hurt the feelings of transgender people. If that was the purpose of making the statement, i.e. to hurt a particular groups feeling with no substantive quality to the claim, they would be removed. I have zero frame of reference to this claim, I would expect Milo who is gay and would have had much more contact with this community to have given this more thought than I. In this case I would ask for a backup to such a claim, in fact out of curiosity i did a search and this came up.

Are we not allowed to ask questions related to the subject of being transgender? What happened to the left being all about science based facts? Not like it’s trivial either, kids are being taught they can choose their gender, I think it was Angela Jolies child who was going to undergo hormone treatment therapy at something like the age of 12.

calling rape culture “a fantasy”,

This one is naughty because his claim is that when people say there is a rape culture on college campuses, his claim is this is false. To claim he called it a fantasy without giving context of what he is saying implies he somehow fantasies about a rape culture. He claims the numbers claimed (1 in 4 or 1 in 5, I forget) is simply unbelievable and on par with the kind of numbers you would expect to see in the Congo, where rape is used as an instrument of war and argues that is certainly not the culture on American campuses.

or being banned by Twitter for allegedly encouraging trolls to attack Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones with a tirade of racist and sexist abuse, you can usually find him saying something pathologically awful.

Lastly the Leslie Jones thing. The Guardian knows it seems Milo said nothing racist, which is better than most of the people who interview him. He started a Twitter feud between himself and Leslie Jones by saying he was glad they cast a black man into the role of Leslie Jones. She had more than a few choice words for him too iirc. Im not sure what the Guardian means when they say he encouraged his twitter followers to attack her, he either did or he didn’t, why the need to use the word “allegedly”.

What’s unsettling for the left is Milo is mocking some of the ideas they hold most sacred and subjects which must not be questioned. He is something new and they don’t know how to deal with him, he likens himself to someone on the left like Jon Stewart, sometimes funny and cheeky, sometimes serious and discusses the issues. Yet the left take his jokes as political commentry and his political commentary as jokes.


Wow. Did I just read what is effectively an endorsement of “gay therapy”?

If we want to argue MSM/Media Bias, the CNS is a right wing website and the article mentioned comes from a conservative publication. Not saying anything, but it is possible they found an opinion that vibes with theirs.

The APA takes a different tact.

I view the Guardian as similar to NPR. About as vanilla as they come overall with a moderate bias, one way or the other.


I really don’t know anything about the subject JB, but are you telling me this is settled science?

I mean, Im not agreeing with him, just asking if he is allowed to voice that point of view. As of July 2016 WHO categorized Transgender as a mental issue. Although they were planning to change that and may have done already.

Im not arguing with you about what transgender is, so lay off the links trying to educate me, I am well aware of how it is defined by the left. The question is if Milo’s comment is so fringe censoring it would be warranted. Frankly as a cursory look on the internet shows, it doesn’t appear fringe at all.


the guardian’s “”“MODERATE”"" bias is as moderate as The Daily Stormer’s, but to each their own.


The Guardian is considered a “mainstream left” paper in the UK, which would make it a little left of Fidel Castro by American standards.


@Mick @JB_IN_TW Perhaps there can be another thread about the discussion of if being transgender is a mental disorder. I know it may get some heat but it’s something I’m also wondering myself. And I agree with @Mick that I’m wondering if it indeed a settled issue. Because people who are transgender used to be considered as body dysmorphia. It was in all the previously DSMs until DSM 5 which is the standard of diagnosing mental disorders. I learned under DSM 4 and it wasn’t until recently the DSM 5 changed it. I’m wondering if it’s truely because that’s the case or they felt the pressure from many groups to change their definition of it.

It’s a hard discussion because often people find any other view or saying it is a mental disorder as being hateful. But I believe the suicide rate for transgender people is as high as 50% which is alarming and no one other groups is as high as that even compared to high trauma victims like rape survivors or wounded combat veterans. It’s a crazy high rate. And there’s no statistically significant rate of it lower even after one undergoes surgery and reassignment. I think it’s a conversation worth having if people can be open minded.


anything with a ~50% mortality rate should be considered a serious issue, but apparently that’s transphobic.


Sorry for being so long- conversations move fast these says!
Trump’s connections with Russia go back to the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013. He was a "name’ as far as the Russkis were concerned; he needed finance because no banks in the western world would touch him. When he began to run for President he got a little help, but no-one took him too seriously. When he became a serious contender, and then candidate, he started to attract people working for the Russians like Manafort and Flynn Sr.and Jr. From there the situation continued with Russian bots and sites spreading news, and drew in people like Jared and Trump jr.
The motivation for the Russians was getting the sanctions lifted, ratf**king U.S’ elections, and weakening America; for Trump & Co., it was money.- power came second- including Ross, who had a leetle more connection than that.


Sorry, forgot link about Wilbur: