The EU debate - Part III

The problem is that he contradicts himself throughout the whole thing. And it's a common trait with Milo. He accuses the left (which I have no particular allegiance to) of pointing the finger and name-call and accuse people of terrible things, when he himself is doing the exact same things. He accuses the left of being divisive when it comes to race, religion, gender but then goes on to say how one group hates another and singles out particular groups for attack.

It's much like this thread tbh. Nobody on here can see they're just as guilty as the other side of the attacks, diversions and name-calling.

Btw his final point (and one that is often misrepresented by the rest of the right wing) that somehow people are fed up with the establishment and therefore side with his particular brand of politics... is wrong. I agree that the vast majority (on both sides) ARE fed up with "establishment" politics but there is no outright disproportionate majority on the right. Whether it's Brexit or the U.S. election, the split is very much half and half. The Right will appeal to a certain proportion of the diseffected but they still arent seen as the solution by a significant proportion and in fact are turned off by them. You had one of the most disliked establishment candidates in Hilary and yet 50% of those who voted still weren't won over by Milo's ideology, and nor were the further 40% of the population (if I've heard that % correctly) who didnt vote - many of whom were Democrat supporters who were disillusioned by the establishment but still found the Trump rhetoric too extreme to vote for.

Personally, I think this belief that somehow the answer to establishment politics is only offered by the ideology of the Right is a misnoma. It just so happens that the Right have taken advantage of it earlier but the numbers suggest people are crying out for an alternative. Not saying it has to come from the Left either btw.

I've tackled only the content, so there!

 

Could you point out these strawmen, or at least a sample of them?

Clinton made a questionable claim by claiming that it was about 'threats to white identity', when it's clearly very different and much wider than that. Milo pointed that out.

The presenter made a few more, such as saying Trump wanted to ban muslims, when he has corrected his original statement.

Milo saying America was the greatest country in the history of civilsiation is disputable, but not particularly a strawman.

I'm not sure his comments on Sandy Hook were valid, but that's not a strawman either.

 

I think they're all fair points that you make.

By their very nature, reactionaries drive from one end of the spectrum to the other, with the consensus generally falling nearer to the middle.

I think people like him and Katie Hopkins get the topics on the table and strip away some of the restrictions and both readily admit to being provocative and supplying 'clickbait' to do that. Gavin McInnes tends to challenge the left leaning views by offering extreme rebuttals, but again, it does drive the issues and failings out into the open rather than trying to suppress them.

They're pushing a broad message, and deeper questioning does tend to show that the perception of extremism is driven by the need for soundbites by all of us rather than a fair reflection of the true extent of it.

Personally, I think it's more productive for a less divisive society than the left's method of making personal attacks and throwing abuse, or trying to drive away uncomfortable views by boxing them up and labeling them before trying to stuff them out of sight.

 

Dull was crapping on at 2.30am and is back on duty at 9.30am

 

And you went to bed earlier, and rose earlier, the difference in time between our breaks is about an hour, the difference in quality and relevance to the topic between our replies is light years.

 

Yes mate, crapping on endlessly in long, tedious, inaccurate posts whilst simultaneously telling a dozen people that they're deflecting demonstrates what a full life you lead. All that research before each post as well (the best ones are the cut and paste efforts you try to pass off as your own work)

 

Milo's a troll. He doesn't actually believe any of the ****e that he's pushing.
He's flipped between so many different opinions and stances that he often forgets which one's he's pushing.
He'll go from saying that feelings don't matter and we should all say what we think to doxxing people that do exactly that.

It's quite funny that anyone would use him to show that making personal attacks and throwing abuse is wrong.
That's his whole schtick, apart from self-hatred and gay jokes.
He's just trying to wind people up and earn ad-revenue.

He's typical of the movement in one way, though.
He'll write horrible **** in an attempt to appeal to those that actually believe it, then claim that he was joking.
He's serious until he's challenged, at which point anything can and will be waved away as humour.

 

Left wing extremists, right wing extremists, they're all the same. The clue is in the word extremist.

Both have a set doctrine from which they accept no deviation. Both try to suppress or crush any voice that disagrees with their views. Both are dictatorial and anti democracy by nature.

They can both **** right off, as far as I'm concerned.

 

So you realise that yet again, you try to offer an 'insult' that fits you as well, if not better than the person you're trying to abuse, and still offer nothing on topic.

 

I disagree, but you're making personalised generalisations rather than addressing specific points for discussion.

 

That's you that is.

Epic work Dull

 

He didn't make any new points. I've already addressed them when you made them earlier.
He's also completely disingenuous.

Repeatedly posting videos doesn't make for a good discussion, by the way.
If you think that there are some interesting points to be made, then feel free to make them.

 

I think the videos save pages of replies as they offer two sides and arguably bring in some wider issues. It's more productive than reply after personalised reply.

Others have managed to draw the points from them, and we've started to discus the points raised. Simply dismissing it with a broad brush isn't even discussion.

 

Yes.
The problem is that Hull can't see that he is one of them and Clinton isn't.

 

I wouldn't describe Clinton as left wing and I don't fit in the box you seem to have got for me, so don't write a label for it just yet.

 

I am not interested in people's opinions. I want to discuss what the real issues are from a factual position and what they tell us about solving them.
Data is useful but only if it is of high quality. Most videos you post have content which is so biased in selection that it is equivalent to lies.

 

You could apply that to most of the sources people on here use. Simply dismissing them isn't discussion.

You dismissed one earlier as being full of strawmen. I responded with a summary of some points, but you've yet to expand on your claim beyond a sweeping generalisation.

 

I've already wasted 10 min of my life watching that dross. I'm not going to waste more so that I can list the details.

 

So no strawmen, no data, just an opinion then. That's fine.

 

That ****ing right?