Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/world/backed+military+vehicles+police+riot+gear+arrest+protestors+dakota/12972938/story.html




Our president has a financial stakes in this one.

 jasper76 wrote:

Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.

And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,

As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.

With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Yeah, but the ones on the right are actually worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

That's the thing...people on the right think that people on the left are worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

Huge double-standard going on. It's OK when my team does it, because we're always correct.

No. It's not a double standard. There is a huge difference, morally spealing, between wanting discrimination with no rational basis stopped and xenophobic bigots. Plus the special snowflakes on the right who complain when they don't get special priveledges for their 'religion' and aren't allowed to force other people to follow the tenets of it.

Jasper, you might enjoy reading the book about The Daily Show. Stewart discusses that very phenomenon. When he came into the show after Kilborn, they routinely mocked nobodies who couldn't defend themselves, and Stewart was disgusted. Since then, he made it the mission of the show to always "punch up". Sure, some of the people they mocked later on were unknown nation wide, but they tended to be people with real political power or a hand at shaping legislation, not just schmoes.

For current comedians, I have never seen Colbert or Myers punch down at random Republicans. They might pull some Jay Walking level behavior, but nothing targeted at destroying an individual. Samantha Bee tends to get a bit uglier with the average joes, but her show is a very angry show in general.

For the record, I was very put off by how the media elevated Ken Bone only to destroy him. Mocking some up and coming politician is very different than making roadkill out of some bystander who accidentally became a meme.

jasper76 wrote:Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?

The black dressed people are not the same as the ones who destroy stuff although there can be overlap if some anarchists/extreme elements want to cause trouble. Black bloc tactics were initially developed as a defence because police (who tend to be on the right wing of the political spectrum) have often attacked protestors (on the left). The police tends to bend the rules and attack protestors (to bait them into retaliation so they can point at violence from protestor) in different ways, hoping to shut things down quickly (and that's what you tend to not see in the news). That includes everything from arbitrary arrests, randomly pepper spraying, misdirection and kettling to cause panic (instead of safety and orderly procession), as well as sexual assault and violence. I think I already mentioned that when somebody asked about (black bloc) protestors in the past.

The uniform black clothes and masks are for organisation (so you can find/organise a black bloc when you arrive at a protest and want to participate as they tend to draw more police attention and violence). They are also used to hide their identity so police can't find them a week later and retaliate/isolate/intimidate them.

To this day the police here in Germany can find Neo-Nazis, with (Neo-)Nazi iconography, who are involved in racially motivated attacks, and declare the attack as not "racially motivated". The protestors from the left (actual left, not US democrats or social democrats over here) don't trust the police because to them the police has not shown to be trustworthy and they use black bloc tactics to protect themselves and other protestors.

Some destroy property to make a point (read the subsection tactics in the linked black bloc wikipedia article above for a possible explanation) but that's not an universal thing. Some might be more anarchistic and destroy property, others might be purely defensive, and some might try to block streets, and others try to disrupt Neo-Nazi rallies (talking about Germany here).

jasper76 wrote:
I wonder if it even occurs to these young rioters that the "preview" of anarchic syndicalism they are showing the world is that they stand for violence, destruction, mob-rule, keeping workers from going to their job or getting home to their families, etc. Maybe they don't even care about things like PR. Anyways, if it's chaos on the streets vs. Trump, I'll happily keep Trump, warts and all, thank you very much.

They know how they are seen in the media. and it's not "chaos on the streets vs. Trump" but "chaos on the streets because of Trump (and what he's enabling, like this)". Or how about all the bathroom bills that get pushed from the right? You might not see it as violence because it doesn't affect you but the we get stuff like this. It might not be a punch in the face but if roughly one third of trans people avoid eating and drinking so they can avoid public bathrooms then that's suffering in a way that the rest of us don't have to endure. Just try to imagine how messed up a situation has to be for you to avoid eating out of fear and that hunger throughout the day becomes the lesser inconvenience in your life? Milo and his anti-trans rights rhetoric, his "free speech" in general, is contributing to minorities being harassed and that includes this type of suffering and intimidation (while calling himself a troll or provocateur). Why should his free speech be worth more than that of others?

And I don't know which red/black flag you were talking about but this one (on the right) was inspired by communist and socialist antifascists from the 20s and 30s (that's what the box says, if you were curious). They are also quite handy when you want to cover up Swastika graffiti.

CptJake wrote:When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

I'm not really interested in WW2 aircraft models. Is that actually happening or just a generic "Germany doesn't allow depiction of Nazi iconography" argument? Because it's not simply a "no Swastikas" law like people often assume.

jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So is it correct to assume that you believe in the principle of freedom of speech, up to the point where you draw a personal line?

Most people do. Freedom of speech in the sense that a government can't easily dictate what people can and can't publish or otherwise express is fine and good. It depends very much on what precisely the "principle of free speech" is.

So you think the government generally should not dictate what people can or can't express, but you think an angry mob should be able to? I'm just trying to figure out why you are coming to the defense of the rioters who shut down the Milo show in Berkeley. I'm aware that they perceived him as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, that they probably perceived the people going to the show in the same way, but I do not think any of that that justifies the violence and destruction that ensued.

If I'm wrong here, and you don't condone the violence, then we're in general agreement and I'm happy to end the conversation.

The protestors at the Milo/Berkeley event were allowed to be there, it's part of their free speech. The violence is another thing. The protests were the last resort. Students have petitioned the university to not accept him there because he leaves a trail of harassment and intimidation behind. For some reason the university didn't care that his free speech and intimidation endangers the free speech of those directly affected by it (if I remember correctly he wanted to target immigrants in his Berkeley event). He's not just perceived as homophobic. He has actually said these things (like here, warning Breitbart also includes a nice serving of pseudo-science) or how about some transphobia? Him being disliked is not a perception issue, it's actually about the stuff he says in his own words, it's not some wrong interpretation or him being misquoted.

jasper76, it seems I've been quoting/answering you a lot recently. It's not intended as an attack on you (or me trying to be confrontational) but you ask questions that I felt were worth answering.

On another note, not exactly related to all of this but still funny: https://twitter.com/braddybb/status/834594322141978625


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Jasper, you might enjoy reading the book about The Daily Show. Stewart discusses that very phenomenon. When he came into the show after Kilborn, they routinely mocked nobodies who couldn't defend themselves, and Stewart was disgusted. Since then, he made it the mission of the show to always "punch up". Sure, some of the people they mocked later on were unknown nation wide, but they tended to be people with real political power or a hand at shaping legislation, not just schmoes.

They have also addressed this. These people know they ended up on the Daily Show (with Jon Stewart) and they still agree to be interviewed and sign the necessary contract. If I remember correctly the correspondents also tell them it's for a joke on them and people still want that publicity.

 skyth wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Yeah, but the ones on the right are actually worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

That's the thing...people on the right think that people on the left are worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

Huge double-standard going on. It's OK when my team does it, because we're always correct.

No. It's not a double standard. There is a huge difference, morally spealing, between wanting discrimination with no rational basis stopped and xenophobic bigots. Plus the special snowflakes on the right who complain when they don't get special priveledges for their 'religion' and aren't allowed to force other people to follow the tenets of it.

Mocking "nobody's" because their political positions differ from you're own is either bad, or it isn't. I won't accept that it's bad for conservatives, but awesome for progressives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Jasper, you might enjoy reading the book about The Daily Show. Stewart discusses that very phenomenon. When he came into the show after Kilborn, they routinely mocked nobodies who couldn't defend themselves, and Stewart was disgusted. Since then, he made it the mission of the show to always "punch up". Sure, some of the people they mocked later on were unknown nation wide, but they tended to be people with real political power or a hand at shaping legislation, not just schmoes.

For current comedians, I have never seen Colbert or Myers punch down at random Republicans. They might pull some Jay Walking level behavior, but nothing targeted at destroying an individual. Samantha Bee tends to get a bit uglier with the average joes, but her show is a very angry show in general.

For the record, I was very put off by how the media elevated Ken Bone only to destroy him. Mocking some up and coming politician is very different than making roadkill out of some bystander who accidentally became a meme.

Thank you, I'm glad someone sees my point, at least with the Samantha Bee stuff.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

jasper76 wrote:
I wonder if it even occurs to these young rioters that the "preview" of anarchic syndicalism they are showing the world is that they stand for violence, destruction, mob-rule, keeping workers from going to their job or getting home to their families, etc. Maybe they don't even care about things like PR. Anyways, if it's chaos on the streets vs. Trump, I'll happily keep Trump, warts and all, thank you very much.

They know how they are seen in the media. and it's not "chaos on the streets vs. Trump" but "chaos on the streets because of Trump

Either way, its chaos on the streets, and nobody wants it. I suggest a serious revamping of the PR campaign, because all these people are accomplishing is making the entire left look like a bunch of fanatic lunatics hell-bent on chaos. Well, they might also be encouraging Trump's worst 'law and order' impulses, so kudos to them for that accomplishment, as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No hand waving away here, but I do see that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of "team red". Trump preemptively blaming judges for ruing against his immigration policy is separate from calling into question the need for a judiciary. It's bad form to move the goalposts and then accuse someone of ignoring a point that you had not yet made, and then ignore evidence that shows Presidents calling out the judiciary is not new.

Except your evidence was contrived, bordering on dishonest. Trump's statements about individual judges were very different to previous presidents stating they disagreed with specific decisions.

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

Well the swedish democrats have had problems with nazism in the past so...yeah you have to take anything they say with a huge grain of salt

So, the Trump White House asked the FBI to knock down media reporting that there had been no contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI refused as there is an open investigation.

Asking the FBI to lie to help spin a negative news story? Nothing abnormal about that

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

The Sweden Democrats are the Trump equivalents of Sweden, running on a nationalist, anti-immigration, social conservative platform with...more than a few links to former *actual* Nazi's/SS members and groups/people like David Duke in the US in the past.

One will notice those are about the only voices from Sweden concurring with Trump.

I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

Prestor Jon wrote:
The NYT hired a journalist that turned out to be plagiarizing and fabricating news articles. If one of their reporters is a liar then it makes all their other reporters suspect too.

Here you're attempting an absolutist argument that is beyond ridiculous. The White Sox throwing the 1919 World Series doesn't mean we should assume all White Sox games thereafter, or all world series, were also thrown.

I mean, in this case we're not even talking about collusion between multiple people, it was one employee. It is reasonable to point out that verification standards were badly lacking, but that argument goes nowhere because in the wake of the event verification standards were massively improved.

I'd rather go eat somewhere else that hasn't fethed up my order even once.

You're using an impossible standard to contrive an equality between real world news services. Sure, the Imagination Land Times might report everything perfectly, all the time, but in the absence of that paper in the real world you have to pick from news services we actually have. And when making that choice, it's pretty clear what the difference is between NYT, which screwed up your hamburger once, ten years ago, and Breitbart, where the business model is that you can get away using ground up yoga mats for burger patties, as long as the sauce spells out 'black on black crime'.

The claim was made that the NYT, NBC and CBS don't product false news.

No, the claim was that they aren't fake news. The difference between organisations that are fake news and organisations that have produced incorrect or even invented stories was already explained to you.

The NYT also had to print a correction for the article, twice, that they misstated the agreement between Hillary Clinton and Pres Obama regarding the Foundation accepting foreign donations. So was the article an accurate depiction of a problematic relationship between the SecState and the Clinton Foundation or was it a hit piece that tried to make something out of nothing? If the NYT is a trusted source with journalistic integrity then it was perfectly legitimate for the Republicans to question Hillary's ethics and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation right? Or was that just a partisan witch hunt?

And here you're confusing news with that people might not agree with, with fake news. Partisan and controversial news reporting is okay. It is what good papers are supposed to do. This is different to news that is wholly invented from the ground up, or carefully curated to only depict one political point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, and sadly that's increasingly what it looks like the goal is here.

What's really sad is that so many people seem to be willing to do most of the work for them. You can see them in this very thread trying to invent ways in which all news is to be equally disbelieved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

You had blasphemy laws on the books for 150 years. They weren't used much, and people had some success in seeking constitutional protection from them, but it wasn't until the 1950s that you finally got a ruling that said blasphemy was constitutionally protected as free speech.

I think it's interesting that people have this idea that freedoms were once absolute, and then are steadily chipped away. In truth freedoms wax and wane over time.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure someone who was screaming for Clinton's blood will soon belong to tell us how the FBI should just take his word for it or some such

They're probably in line right behind the state's rights and small government advocates who are outraged that the federal government will again start enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Truly, America is on the road to being Great Again

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

You know I have a neighbor, a very nice guy, who told me about the proper way to fold a flag, raise a flag, present a flag etc, and all I could think is that he's worshipping an inanimate object like a god. Strange too, because the guy's a devout Christian, which IIRC means he's not supposed to worship idols...anyways, no skin off my back, but it's a material fetish I never identified with, even thouvg I love the USA and am glad I'm lucky enough to have been born a US citizen.

It isn't "worship". It called proper handling and respect for the symbol of your nation and what it represents. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's a tired old argument based around false equivalency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
No, I was referring to the trans person above. I guess I was misinformed.

Regarding Myers/Bee, are you talking about, for example, when they get a clip of a Trump supporter at a rally saying idiotic things then make fun of that? I always thought those people were actors.

No, I mean more generally when they target a public figure for ridicule. What I'm getting at is that this outrage seems to be selective. When my team does it, it's OK, but when the other team does it, its a travesty of epic proportions.

Please note that if Milo has indeed outed a private individual and mocked them, I think that's really messed up. I just haven't seen any evidence so far that he's actually done that.

There is plenty of selective outrage from both sides of the aisle when it comes to Milo the Troll.


Milo gets cooked over some of his comments on age of consent and for making off color, smartass remarks about being molested by a priest. Now Bill Mahr (who claimed credit for "taking down" Milo) is now getting some of the same crap.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill-maher-under-fire-for-1998-comments-condoning-sex-between-35-year-old-woman-12-year-old-boy/ar-AAngRG2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



However, George Takei gets a pass for some of the same crap as spouted by Milo in that old interview:



https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/




I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

It isn't "worship". It called proper handling and respect for the symbol of your nation and what it represents. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's a tired old argument based around false equivalency.

Fair enough. Respect it, worship it, fly it, burn it, salute it, give it the finger, I really don't care.

Hell, I don't even care if you decide to molest it.

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

It isn't "worship". It called proper handling and respect for the symbol of your nation and what it represents. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's a tired old argument based around false equivalency.

Fair enough. Respect it, worship it, fly it, burn it, salute it, give it the finger, I really don't care.

Hell, I don't even care if you decide to molest it.

Spoiler:

That is one creepy pic you posted. Trump seems to be getting a little TOO friendly with the flag.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

There is plenty of selective outrage from both sides of the aisle when it comes to Milo the Troll.

Milo gets cooked over some of his comments on age of consent and for making off color, smartass remarks about being molested by a priest. Now Bill Mahr (who claimed credit for "taking down" Milo) is now getting some of the same crap.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill-maher-under-fire-for-1998-comments-condoning-sex-between-35-year-old-woman-12-year-old-boy/ar-AAngRG2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

However, George Takei gets a pass for some of the same crap as spouted by Milo in that old interview:

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/

I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

I'm not surprised that Milo ended up getting the Scarlet Letter. If you spend that much effort provoking people, you shouldn't be surprised when people get provoked.

At the same time, I'm betting that this "Milogate" thing will have very little impact on how his fans view him.

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

There is plenty of selective outrage from both sides of the aisle when it comes to Milo the Troll.

Milo gets cooked over some of his comments on age of consent and for making off color, smartass remarks about being molested by a priest. Now Bill Mahr (who claimed credit for "taking down" Milo) is now getting some of the same crap.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill-maher-under-fire-for-1998-comments-condoning-sex-between-35-year-old-woman-12-year-old-boy/ar-AAngRG2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

However, George Takei gets a pass for some of the same crap as spouted by Milo in that old interview:

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/

I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

I'm not surprised that Milo ended up getting the Scarlet Letter. If you spend that much effort provoking people, you shouldn't be surprised when people get provoked.

At the same time, I'm betting that this "Milogate" thing will have very little impact on how his fans view him.

Agreed 100%. Milo is a gigantic ass. And I always expect his detractors to take a swipe at him. And I agree that his fans won't give up on him. He has too big a "cult celebrity" (for want of a better term) following.


Same goes for Mahr.


Now that I think about it, Takei's "cult" following among Trekkies (who are terrifying when riled up ) and uber-nerds is probably why nobody made issue out of his comments, despite getting attention on Twatter and Farcebook with his criticisms of Trump.

A lot of folks are just sick of hypocrisy and double standards from the fringes.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



There is plenty of selective outrage from both sides of the aisle when it comes to Milo the Troll.


Milo gets cooked over some of his comments on age of consent and for making off color, smartass remarks about being molested by a priest. Now Bill Mahr (who claimed credit for "taking down" Milo) is now getting some of the same crap.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill-maher-under-fire-for-1998-comments-condoning-sex-between-35-year-old-woman-12-year-old-boy/ar-AAngRG2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



However, George Takei gets a pass for some of the same crap as spouted by Milo in that old interview:



https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/




I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

while perhaps fair on the double standard to some extent, and I'm not going to get into the right/wrong/appropriate/inappropriate of their comments, Takei is an actor, Milo held a senior position at a major news organization and made a career of saying disturbing stuff all along.

The big thing is more that Milo finally went somewhere the Right just couldn't handle and got hoist by his own petard, and the Left is now needling it because "oh well the Right didn't have a problem with similar comments made about gays, blacks and women...*now* there's a line?".

Takei's public engagement is very different, and the substance of Takei's comments also were a bit different, perhaps splitting hairs, but his was "teenager with older teenager" compared with Milo's "I was a total predator at that age and it's totally normal for 30 year old dudes to be into minors half their age and lets get in a priest joke while we're at it". That's going to generate different reactions. That said, there's definitely some faux outrage and hypocrisy in the coverage on both sides, though highly amusing with this character.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



There is plenty of selective outrage from both sides of the aisle when it comes to Milo the Troll.


Milo gets cooked over some of his comments on age of consent and for making off color, smartass remarks about being molested by a priest. Now Bill Mahr (who claimed credit for "taking down" Milo) is now getting some of the same crap.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bill-maher-under-fire-for-1998-comments-condoning-sex-between-35-year-old-woman-12-year-old-boy/ar-AAngRG2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



However, George Takei gets a pass for some of the same crap as spouted by Milo in that old interview:



https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/




I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

while perhaps fair on the double standard to some extent, and I'm not going to get into the right/wrong/appropriate/inappropriate of their comments, Takei is an actor, Milo held a senior position at a major news organization and made a career of saying disturbing stuff all along.

The big thing is more that Milo finally went somewhere the Right just couldn't handle and got hoist by his own petard, and the Left is now needling it because "oh well the Right didn't have a problem with similar comments made about gays, blacks and women...*now* there's a line?".

Takei's public engagement is very different, and the substance of Takei's comments also were a bit different, perhaps splitting hairs, but his was "teenager with older teenager" compared with Milo's "I was a total predator at that age and it's totally normal for 30 year old dudes to be into minors half their age and lets get in a priest joke while we're at it". That's going to generate different reactions. That said, there's definitely some faux outrage and hypocrisy in the coverage on both sides, though highly amusing with this character.

And you can bet Milo will find some way to profit from it, despite his public apology and losing his book deal.


There is no such thing as "bad publicity", as they used to say in show business.

Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert is refusing to hold town halls with angry citizens until things calm down, citing the attack on Gabby Giffords.

Giffords's response: grow some balls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/republican-lawmaker-who-wont-hold-a-town-hall-invokes-gabby-giffords-shooting-she-responds-have-some-courage/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_townhall-giffords-1030pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.406c15f2a6e1

We'll see, there's always someone out there willing to pay for someone to make an donkey-cave of themselves, and someone willing to take the money to do it, but I'm hoping this is a start on a road to irrelevance, if for no other reason than a decrease in general partisan agitation on both sides. I don't think his schtick has been healthy for US politics, despite it's ostensibly free-speech basis, it just brought out too much of the ugly on all sides.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert is refusing to hold town halls with angry citizens until things calm down, citing the attack on Gabby Giffords.

Giffords's response: grow some balls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/republican-lawmaker-who-wont-hold-a-town-hall-invokes-gabby-giffords-shooting-she-responds-have-some-courage/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_townhall-giffords-1030pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.406c15f2a6e1

Oh that is so fething rich.

Lefties interrupting your little get together with their loud opinions = mass shooting I'm so scared.

That's so god damn funny The party of second amendment rights everyone!

 Vaktathi wrote:
We'll see, there's always someone out there willing to pay for someone to make an donkey-cave of themselves, and someone willing to take the money to do it, but I'm hoping this is a start on a road to irrelevance, if for no other reason than a decrease in general partisan agitation on both sides. I don't think his schtick has been healthy for US politics, despite it's ostensibly free-speech basis, it just brought out too much of the ugly on all sides.

A lot of this reminds me of something that really bothered me when I heard it. Ted Cruz in Iowa talking about "New York values" and implying it as a bad thing. That somehow the people of New York should be looked down upon by people from Iowa. I get it, we don't really share a lot of values anymore in this country, we all agree on basic concepts, but the means and ways of it, that we disagree quite hostile. But that it was so normal and not eye brow raising at all anymore shows we are going to have issues. The problem is all sides know it, but no one is willing to unclench the fist first.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We'll see, there's always someone out there willing to pay for someone to make an donkey-cave of themselves, and someone willing to take the money to do it, but I'm hoping this is a start on a road to irrelevance, if for no other reason than a decrease in general partisan agitation on both sides. I don't think his schtick has been healthy for US politics, despite it's ostensibly free-speech basis, it just brought out too much of the ugly on all sides.

Indeed. I,myself, tend to let my agitation slip out on occasion. And I have (probably unfairly) ripped into posters on here over politics. But that comes more from being a grouchy old bastard with little patience anymore, and a giant cynic. I'm trying to do better and re-learn to quit being a sour grape.



But to be fair, I hate over 80% of the politicos in the party on my voter registration card. So, I am fair in my gak slinging.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
For what it is worth, there is a difference between using a flag as a beach towel, cutting one up to make a shirt, wiping your face with one, or using one as a door mat and having items with flag type print/colors/patterns on them.

Not according to the Flag Code.

Really?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title4/html/USCODE-2011-title4-chap1.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code


I'm having trouble finding the part making it wrong to have flag type print/colors/patterns on stuff.

I can see where you're not supposed to use it for advertising. I can see where you should not print a flag onto temporary use things like napkins though that would not preclude the use of red white and blue stars and stripes (or flag type patterns) on them. Same for clothing. Says you cannot use a flag as clothing, but I'm having trouble finding the part saying flag type patterns and prints on clothing is wrong.

I would post the flag code, but since you already didn't read into when you posted it I think you won't read it that time either.

 CptJake wrote:
When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

Right, feth it, this nonsense has to end. In the US any speech deemed obscene is not protected speech (which produces a horrible grey zone between constitutionally protected porn and not protected obscene porn). Further, any speech to another person in a public place that is deemed offensive to another person is not protected. Freedom of speech in the US has repeatedly failed to overturn laws banning nudity in private clubs. The US has given the courts free reign to enforce non-disclosure agreements, believing people to have signed away their free speech rights by contract. The US has wide ranging exceptions to free speech when the speech is deemed potentially harmful to children. The US has contrived a legal argument in which publicly viewed TV and radio can be censured freely, because they are public.

This doesn't mean the US doesn't have free speech. It has strong free speech protections in most ways. But this fething nonsense where Americans pick out one instance of a free speech restriction in another country and then jingoistically assert the other country is so much less free than themselves is inane bs. It stops any kind of sensible conversation on what the real and necessary limits to free speech might be, and how all countries, including your own, navigate those limits.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Now that I think about it, Takei's "cult" following among Trekkies (who are terrifying when riled up ) and uber-nerds is probably why nobody made issue out of his comments, despite getting attention on Twatter and Farcebook with his criticisms of Trump.

Or because Takei actually has said and done some legitimate things and that makes it easier to ignore the cringe-worthy bits of awkward, while Milo is nothing but offensive trolling. Is it really a surprise that, when someone makes their living off seeing how close they can push the boundaries of tolerance and good taste, people don't have much patience left when they cross that line one time too many.