(Video) Milo Yiannopoulos At A Bar With White Supremacists Doing Nazi Salute While He Sings For Them

Wow, what a bunch a doublethink. A black person can be racist, but black people can't be racist.

Wow, who knew that the freaking Oxford English dictionary lists, as the primary definition, "a definition no one uses". I would suggest that if you aren't using the correct definition, you should start. Because otherwise you are just being unclear. So, I must ask you, how are YOU defining liberal, and how are you distinguishing it from "the left", such that you don't think "the left" is a good enough description to use (as is commonly done)? True liberals are actually the BEST of the left.

 

So youre a liberal? And you think Republicans should stop hating liberals?

 

Hillary kisses Robert Byrd...the left stares blankly, unblinking and unable to speak, people raise their hands during music they awake a shout nazi! ....but only if its someone they dont like.
How stupid is the left? You decide.

 

What does "Nazi" mean here? Does of mean "Jew-hater"? I highly doubt that. I imagine his supporters here are fervent nationalists. Nothing wrong with that, though making toxic hand gestures doesn't help.

It's weird watching MY, a countryman of mine, singing US patriot songs. But it does beat the **** out of God Save the Queen.

 

Hillary is not a Leftist, shes a corporate centrist and theres no denying that. Remember when Bernie Sanders destroyed Hillary for being friends with the war criminal Henry Kissinger and taking advice from him as secretary of state? Real leftists, not centrist liberals, DO call Hillary/Obama and the other liberals out for this bullshit. Liberals wont call them out, I dont deny that, but im far from a liberal.

 

You are 100% correct. In theory.

The reality is, is that the fault goes back a few generations. Many parents have abdicated their responsibilities for their children. Parents allow their children's values to be developed by popular culture and the government's education system. We have to face this reality.

I dropped out of high-school in the middle 1970s. The main reason I had was stupid, I didn't see the point of it. My secondary reason, however, does apply to my prior post. I think it's only gotten worse since then. Our education system fails to teach students how to think. Instead, it teaches what to think.

 

Milo is a comedian that nobody (repeat NOBODY) takes seriously.

Who even cares about his "antics" anymore?

 

A classical liberal, yes.

Republicans should BE classical liberals.


And none of this addresses my post in any way. The fact is, I don't think you have an answer when I say that liberals are the best of the left. Who else is on the left? Socialists, Communists, progressives... Who on the left do YOU think is better than liberals?

 

Exactly. He's the John Stewart of the right.

 

Lol so do you hate liberals yes or no? Are you a liberal yes or no? According to you, liberal is a good word, so why not just say "Yes, im a liberal" why do you have to add "classical"? Isnt "liberal" by itself still a good word?

I dont consider liberals to be on the Left, they are centrists at best (and thats being very kind). They are right wing on economic issues, they still believe heavily in Capitalism and market solutions for problems, even for climate change their solutions are all market solutions such as "cap and trade", that is EXTREMELY far from the Socialist position of Nationalization. We dont want to put a little tax on coal, as liberals do, we want to crush it all together and replace it with green energy. Liberals want to slowly move to green energy by putting small taxes on polluting industries and giving small tax breaks to green energy industries, that is not nearly far enough for those of us on the Left. Remember during the Democrat Debates they asked all the candidates to raise their hand if they are not Capitalists? Not a single one raised their hand. They admit they are Capitalists and attack Bernie Sanders viciously for even daring to say hes not a Capitalist. Liberals would rather lose to another Capitalist like Bush than lose to someone who is even slightly Socialist like Bernie. Most Socialists dont even consider Bernie to be a Democratic Socialist, they say he is a Social Democrat, which is actually true if you look into it. Bernie never says the workers should own the means of production, he never even comes close, he just thinks we should have the bare necessities and Capitalism can do the rest. This is the position of Social Democrats, not Democratic Socialists. I still love Bernie and think his heart is in the right place, but even he doesnt go nearly far enough. Thats not just me saying that, ask anyone who identifies as an outright Socialist and they will tell you the same.

Here is Nancy Pelosi saying the Democrat Party is a Capitalist Party. And notice, the guy asking the question says hes "so excited to see Democrats move Left on social issues", but makes it very obvious he is not excited about where they have moved on economic issues, they are still in the center-right, center at best.



"Thank you for your question, but I have to say we're Capitalists, thats just the way it is." - Nancy Pelosi

I think literally everyone on the Left is better than liberals, lol. I honestly cant bare liberals, they are so mealy mouthed. The only time they say good things is to virtue signal, not because they actually want to do something about it. Communists are willing to fight and die for what they believe, we have proven that historically many times, liberals will only say whats popular at the moment to gain brownie points so they can sell more **** (i.e. Starbucks) and be even more egotistical. I agree with Malcolm X's view on liberals by and large.



"Being friendly, and being a friend, I think are two different things." - Malcolm X, in regards to liberals being "friendly" towards blacks.

People take Jon Stewart seriously, and people definitely take Milo seriously. Everyone knows hes half-trolling, but lets not play dumb and pretend he doesnt believe what hes saying or at least the people who listen to him believe what hes saying. When he makes fun of feminism and defends free speech, you think thats 100% a joke? You think he really doesnt hate feminism and really doesnt care for free speech? Dont pretend like you dont know, we all know he means it, or at the very least his supporters definitely do.

I say things in a half-trolling manner all the time but im also half-serious, for example, "Stalin did nothing wrong, Kulaks deserved it". People on the far-left say this partly trolling but also partly serious. We know its provocative, and thats exactly why we say it, but it doesnt mean we dont still believe it in a general sense.

 

No.

According to the dictionary definition I provided, yes.

I had to specify because you refused to just accept the dictionary definition.

OK, I see now where I was confused; I didn't realize that I was talking to an extremist whose perception is skewed so far to the radical left. I actually thought that your profile pic was meant to be ironic (like, look how far America has fallen, we're like the USSR now), but this is actually what you are advocating. So, armed with this new knowledge, I am now done talking to you, because we will never have enough of a common worldview to have a productive conversation, as is evidenced by the fact that we can't even agree on the definition of liberal, or whether liberals are on the left or not. Or, to be more blunt, as my favorite YouTuber, Sargon of Akkad, once said, "F*ck your opinions, mate; you're a communist!"

 

Classical liberal is a well known term despite your unvalidated cocky ignorance. Never let your ignorance get in the way of running your mouth

 

Youre missing the point, he is saying that "liberal" is a good word according to the dictionary definition, im not talking about "classical liberal" AT ALL, im talking solely about the word "liberal" by itself, if all that matters is the dictionary definition than why shy away from the word? You can be a liberal and a classical liberal at the same time, according to the dictionary definition of course.

 

My favorite YouTuber is TheFinnishBolshevik and just a couple months ago he debated Sargon of Akkad on a livestream for 4 hours straight, and TheFinnishBolshevik destroyed that capitalist pig Sargon. By the end of the debate the capitalist side admits communist world wide revolution is inevitable, im not even kidding see for yourself.

 

I am surprised at the effort the collective is investing in destroying Milo.

Milo

 

Identity politics is for votes only. They don't give a **** about the identity, if it won't vote for them

 

They seem overly bent on destroying him.

 

I normally wouldn't watch four hours of video just to see how it was being misrepresented, but you reeled me in with Sargon. So now that I've seen it, I can definitively state that FinnishCommiePig didn't destroy ****.

My first response to that is that inevitability is not an argument in favor. It is inevitable that we will all die; that doesn't mean that it is something that we should pursue.

But my main response is that "worldwide Communist revolution" isn't an accurate description of the thing that was said to be inevitable. When Bantu first said that, he described a future situation in which human labor had been rendered obsolete through automation. It's kinda hard to have a "workers revolution" when there are no workers. So he was obviously describing something else. He said something that stood out to me as a prime example of the type of thing which would enable this "revolution". He said everyone would have their own 3d printers as a means of production. Now let me add some context to that statement. There is a project underway to create a self-replicating 3d printer. reprap.org In order to accomplish total self-replication, we are talking about something that does much more than print little plastic trinkets. Such a machine is essentially a factory, capable of printing all manner of electronics (and innumerable other things, as you are printing metals at that point). This project has been described as a way to achieve Marxism sans the violent revolution. Everyone can have their own factory, without being a murdering thief who kills his boss so he can steal his factory as Marx intended. It strips the evil from Marx's evil plan. But notice that socialism doesn't create this post-scarcity Star Trek Utopia; it requires it to be pre-existing in order for "socialism" to be "inevitable".