He's certainly literate and eloquent. I don't find him to be particularly funny, but I can see why people would; he just doesn't appeal to my sense of humour. But I definitely don't think that he's thought provoking. He's never once challenged me to reconsider what I already believe.
Yes, well, we get that a lot from you. Who
is someone who has challenged you to reconsider what you already believe?
Besides, someone doesn't have to be thought provoking to everyone. Likely Milo isn't thought provoking to those who don't agree with him. Likely there are people who are so turned off by the tone of what he has to say that they can't dig deeper to see where he's coming from. That's fine.
He is a good enough communicator to clearly express his often controversial opinions. Controversial opinions can often be thought provoking, because they're opinions that we tend to dismiss out of hand. Actually stepping through them logically can be insightful, even if it doesn't change your mind.
He can't champion free speech and then tarnish anyone who disagrees with him as hating free speech.
That's enough. I want an actual instance of him telling someone he disagrees with that they hate free speech for no other reason than to shut them down. Telling people who are actually behaving in opposition to free speech doesn't count. Making a witty come-back doesn't count. He's a controversial figure and I'm guessing there's plenty of examples of people telling him that he can't say or print what he does.
I'm fairly sure that there will be an instance somewhere, he's a public figure and no doubt at some point he's done so. Probably everyone has from Bannon to Obama to Mahatma Ghandi. Everyone has a bad day. But I'm interested in how hard you have to look for it. If he's as incorrigible as you say it should probably be on the front page of Google or Youtube.
Reading over those comments, I am struggling to come up with a reason why. Are my opinions more legitimate if I denounce them, or less legitimate if I don't? And if so, isn't that putting a condition on my participation? It's not the same as someone saying "you can only continue to post here if you express this opinion", but I don't really see how you can continue to have that discussion about free speech when there are conditions attached.
Kinda. If you don't denounce them then you're exposed as a massive hypocrite. At which point it informs everyone that your opinions likely have no validity or rational basis whatsoever.
You can say whatever you like in answer to the question. The point is not what the answer is. The point is how it meshes with your other stated opinions, because that does indeed allow people to judge whether they should take any notice of you at all. Or if you're just trolling again.
If you read my comments, I haven't denounced them. But I haven't condoned them, despite the implication that by failing to denounce them I must therefore condone them when they are not mutually exclusive events. And I do admit that after a while, my curiosity got the better of me. I started to wonder how the conversation might play out if I said nothing one way or the other.
Which is fine to start with, but when people ask whether you might agree with denouncing them and you don't, then one starts to wonder if it's because the answer you would give undermines your position in other ways. There's no real reason to avoid giving an answer, other than your penchant for attempting to troll people and bait them into a reaction.
It'd really be nice if you'd stop that and just participate in the conversation like an ordinary person.
age:d_flagship3_feed;5BLF2ai9ikLAknzeefnf/A==
