Milo Yiannopoulos. Love him or hate him?

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

Someone misusing facts to make an argument is the worst kind of debater as they can sound plausible by creating their own basis for argument, and logical debate goes out of the window.

Sorry, don't agree with this.
It's fairly easy to disprove someone's argument who does this, by countering them with other facts or questioning their conclusions etc.
The worst kind of debater is someone who states their stance with no evidence to back it up, then tries to shut down debate by playing the various PC, homophobic cards etc, by attacking the other person or introduces vague concepts as a defence, like instituationilised racism, rape culture, patriarchy etc

Why should we give this man the benefit of the doubt?

Why shouldn't we?
I think anyone expressing an opinion, should initially be able to put their view forward without people interjecting their own bias on them, otherwise your playing the man rather than the ball from the offset.

You seem to be suggesting that Milo doesn't do all of the things you criticise his opponents of doing. When the facts don't support him, he resorts to personal attacks against the people he's debating. He regularly attacks the person and not the argument. And he freely admits that he's a troll. That he's someone who is not attempting to honestly debate his position. Therefore he will outright lie. He will refer to statistics that don't exist. And when he's called out on it and proven to be wrong, he'll resort to personal attacks. It's a complete waste of time debating someone like that.

Can you give me an example of this? Most of his stuff i've seen revolved mostly around gamergate, plus some talking head stuff on News channels, plus a few vid clips from his tour where the attacks were intially directed at him and he responded.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Sorry, don't agree with this.
It's fairly easy to disprove someone's argument who does this, by countering them with other facts or questioning their conclusions etc.
The worst kind of debater is someone who states their stance with no evidence to back it up, then tries to shut down debate by playing the various PC, homophobic cards etc, by attacking the other person or introduces vague concepts as a defence, like instituationilised racism, rape culture, patriarchy etc

I tend not to consider that a debate.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Sorry, don't agree with this.
It's fairly easy to disprove someone's argument who does this, by countering them with other facts or questioning their conclusions etc.
The worst kind of debater is someone who states their stance with no evidence to back it up, then tries to shut down debate by playing the various PC, homophobic cards etc, by attacking the other person or introduces vague concepts as a defence, like instituationilised racism, rape culture, patriarchy etc

Why shouldn't we?
I think anyone expressing an opinion, should initially be able to put their view forward without people interjecting their own bias on them, otherwise your playing the man rather than the ball from the offset.

Can you give me an example of this? Most of his stuff i've seen revolved mostly around gamergate, plus some talking head stuff on News channels, plus a few vid clips from his tour where the attacks were intially directed at him and he responded.

I mentioned an example earlier in the thread, with his lies about transgender people.

Of course anyone expressing an opinion should be able to put that view forward, but once they have proven themselves to be a troll (and admitted as such themselves), why should we continue to listen to them? Do you think troll shouldn't be banned from the forum to give them the benefit of the doubt, even after they have a long record or trolling and have admitted that that is their intention? If you want to invite him to your event, go ahead, but I don't see why anyone would. As a comedy act, perhaps, but not as a debater of serious issues.

Having said that, I agree that nobody should be shut down from speaking to an event they've been invited to, and the trend of trying to get speakers you disagree with banned is worrying. But so is the trend of getting someone whose only qualification to speak on a issue is that they're willing to say something controversial about it.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I mentioned an example earlier in the thread, with his lies about transgender people.

Of course anyone expressing an opinion should be able to put that view forward, but once they have proven themselves to be a troll (and admitted as such themselves), why should we continue to listen to them? Do you think troll shouldn't be banned from the forum to give them the benefit of the doubt, even after they have a long record or trolling and have admitted that that is their intention? If you want to invite him to your event, go ahead, but I don't see why anyone would. As a comedy act, perhaps, but not as a debater of serious issues.

Having said that, I agree that nobody should be shut down from speaking to an event they've been invited to, and the trend of trying to get speakers you disagree with banned is worrying. But so is the trend of getting someone whose only qualification to speak on a issue is that they're willing to say something controversial about it.

So i don't have to do a load of research i'll accept your point he maybe lied about the statistics regarding 'that transgender people are disproportionately involved in sex crimes' but after watching the Bill Maher clip i don't agree his argument was that 'transgender men wanted to use the women's bathroom in order to assault women' like you previously posted
Looking at his Breitbart article, my view is that his main point was transgender bathroom policies are bad, based on they could allow sexual predators (not transgender men) easier access to these areas. To me he's basically saying these policies can enable any bloke to 'gender identify' himself as a woman, don a frock and then waltz into a female bathroom or changing room unhindered (and he gives examples of this having happened).

With regards to him being a troll, that depends upon your view of what a troll is i.e.
'Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation'.

Some trolls attempt to disrupt discussion by purposefully taking it off-topic, whilst others post inflammatory remarks to illicit emotional responses etc.
Also he describes himself as a 'virtuous troll' which unless you know what he means by that, it could be a totally different connotation from your typical classic 'troll'.

 

[stony]

He's Jade Goody with an education, but still ultimately a fame hungry media whore. The cleverest thing he ever did was realise there was an opening for a gay Katie Hopkins.
I hope he gets arse ebola.

 

[billymumphrey]

So i don't have to do a load of research i'll accept your point he maybe lied about the statistics regarding 'that transgender people are disproportionately involved in sex crimes' but after watching the Bill Maher clip i don't agree his argument was that 'transgender men wanted to use the women's bathroom in order to assault women' like you previously posted
Looking at his Breitbart article, my view is that his main point was transgender bathroom policies are bad, based on they could allow sexual predators (not transgender men) easier access to these areas. To me he's basically saying these policies can enable any bloke to 'gender identify' himself as a woman, don a frock and then waltz into a female bathroom or changing room unhindered (and he gives examples of this having happened).

With regards to him being a troll, that depends upon your view of what a troll is i.e.
'Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation'.

Some trolls attempt to disrupt discussion by purposefully taking it off-topic, whilst others post inflammatory remarks to illicit emotional responses etc.
Also he describes himself as a 'virtuous troll' which unless you know what he means by that, it could be a totally different connotation from your typical classic 'troll'.

Your analysis is quite easy to diffuse.

On the one hand he argues that a transgender bathroom may facilitate someone being a sexual predator, on the other, he advocates that pedophilia isn't bad, which the law clearly states is predatory behaviour.

There are a number of logical fallacies being thrown about in this discussion.

Firstly some seem to be justifying his actions (being selective, inflammatory, provocative, a troll) because "the left shut down all debate". This is clearly a strawman assertion. Pure and simple.

Also, others have asserted that because the 'left refuse to bother to have facts to back up their opinion they are wrong' despite ignoring the fact that some of the 'facts' Milo asserts are taken out of context or lies, is an example of argumentum ex silentio.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

So i don't have to do a load of research i'll accept your point he maybe lied about the statistics regarding 'that transgender people are disproportionately involved in sex crimes' but after watching the Bill Maher clip i don't agree his argument was that 'transgender men wanted to use the women's bathroom in order to assault women' like you previously posted
Looking at his Breitbart article, my view is that his main point was transgender bathroom policies are bad, based on they could allow sexual predators (not transgender men) easier access to these areas. To me he's basically saying these policies can enable any bloke to 'gender identify' himself as a woman, don a frock and then waltz into a female bathroom or changing room unhindered (and he gives examples of this having happened).

With regards to him being a troll, that depends upon your view of what a troll is i.e.
'Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation'.

Some trolls attempt to disrupt discussion by purposefully taking it off-topic, whilst others post inflammatory remarks to illicit emotional responses etc.
Also he describes himself as a 'virtuous troll' which unless you know what he means by that, it could be a totally different connotation from your typical classic 'troll'.

His goal is to wind people up and provoke a reaction. He's said so on numerous occasions. Anyway, feel free to watch him on stuff, but I feel like I've seen enough of him by now to know he's full of shit.

 

[che_don_john]

He's kind of like a young Christopher Hitchens.

Wash your mouth out!

Hitchens had charm, wit and was frighteningly intelligent. He was a brilliant writer and an even better polemicist. Milo has none of those qualities; he just has a plum voice which Americans always seem to fall for. We often hear him described as a provocateur, but he isn't. Provocateur's provoke everyone and everything on all sides - as Matt Stone and Trey Parker do brilliantly, for example. Milo is merely an attention seeker who'd rather be loathed and known than not known at all (much in the Piers Morgan mould).

I was recently reminded that I had met him once, about 8-10 years ago. My best mate was and still is involved in tech start-ups, which is where Milo began his career as a 'writer'; he was at some conference after-party where I had gone to meet my mate to drink the free booze and eat the free buffet. From what I can remember of him, he appeared to pretend to be drunk or coked-up; one minute he was leaning against someone, eyes rolling back and slightly slurring his speech (generally being 'outrageous'), and then you would see him in a corridor or at the back of the room furiously typing on his phone and looking perfectly sober. He even called my mate a "pretty boy" in front of some serious tech investors! He clearly had a desperate need for attention and to make any kind of impression.

My mate knew him a little bit and seemed to think that he lacked real friends and had a very bad relationship with his parents, which I think would explain a lot about the public figure we all see today.

But I don't blame him, really; I blame the idiots who give him the platform. I'm not bothered about his views or political leanings (there are plenty of people I disagree with but still enjoy listening to them); it's how he goes about airing them that I find objectionable (i.e. making up fake tweets to discredit that Ghostbusters actress, and then the other day claiming that he was being brought down by people who were 'twisting' his words!).

 

[blueonblue]

On the one hand he argues that a transgender bathroom may facilitate someone being a sexual predator, on the other, he advocates that pedophilia isn't bad, which the law clearly states is predatory behaviour.

Now you know that statement is a lie so the rest of your guff is taken in the same vain, if he is such a plumb then letting his speak would expose whatever he says to scrutiny, something the left can never do because it lifts the lid on the utter shite they have been spouting for years.

 

[billymumphrey]

Now you know that statement is a lie so the rest of your guff is taken in the same vain, if he is such a plumb then letting his speak would expose whatever he says to scrutiny, something the left can never do because it lifts the lid on the utter shite they have been spouting for years.

How is it a lie? He was condemning what he felt was 'arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent'. His own words.

And can you not see the contradiction in your own post? You claim the left 'never' leave themselves open to scrutiny, because it lifts the lid on the 'utter shite they have been spouting' - if they 'never' give you the opportunity to scrutinise them, how can you conclude what they say is 'utter shite'?