Who's going to see Milo on campus Wednesday?

I'm guessing this little snowflake and the rest of the "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and the Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary, BAMN" wouldn't miss it for the world!
http://statenews.com/article/2016/12/milo-letter-from-students-and-student-groups
Pretty sure the only violence at Milo events has been initiated by the fascist protestors trying to silence him and hopefully State doesn't follow that trend. If you don't like him don't go, what's the big deal? I think we need a graduate level class on 'Sticks and stones will break your bones but words can never hurt you"

I.B. Fine wrote:I'm guessing this little snowflake and the rest of the "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and the Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary, BAMN" wouldn't miss it for the world!
http://statenews.com/article/2016/12/milo-letter-from-students-and-student-groups
Pretty sure the only violence at Milo events has been initiated by the fascist protestors trying to silence him and hopefully State doesn't follow that trend. If you don't like him don't go, what's the big deal? I think we need a graduate level class on 'Sticks and stones will break your bones but words can never hurt you"

A graduate level class? It should probably happen at freshmen orientation.

never heard of it.

I just hope the fragile little Trump supporters don't get too upset when they hear of someone participating in free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJX4beXKwpg
skip the first 10:00

So I'll ask the question on everyone's mind... I wonder what hotel (and what floor) he's staying at?

Who?

The Dangerous Faggot, WBH.

Watched in live in YouTube. Was great. No incident. Love Milo.

I thought you guys hated the gays.

Never heard of him. Pass.

steveschneider wrote:Never heard of him. Pass.

People with different ideas are scary, arent they?

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Never heard of him. Pass.

People with different ideas are scary, arent they?

I don't think anyone knows who this dude is, so... 

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

People with different ideas are scary, arent they?

I don't think anyone knows who this dude is, so... 

BMW pulled their sponsorship from Breitbart. Looks like the Neo-Nazis lost the support of the Germans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/08/breitbart-looks-to-france-and-germany-another-alt-right-victory-steve-bannon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I know who he is and I think he is a moron. But glad it did not get shutdown. His right to be a moron should be protected.

Turtleneck wrote:I know who he is and I think he is a moron. But glad it did not get shutdown. His right to be a moron should be protected.

What makes you think he's a moron? I've never really seen him speak just wondering why.

Milo is hilarious.

Is this guy a part of Breitbart that fake news site for neo-nazis?

Meh, I'll pass.

steveschneider wrote:BMW pulled their sponsorship from Breitbart. Looks like the Neo-Nazis lost the support of the Germans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/08/breitbart-looks-to-france-and-germany-another-alt-right-victory-steve-bannon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The boycott, prompted by a social media campaign titled KeinGeldFürRechts or No Money for the Right

Well at least their honest about their desire to silence different ideas.

steveschneider wrote:Is this guy a part of Breitbart that fake news site for neo-nazis?

Meh, I'll pass.

Why don't you see for yourself instead of taking the word of people with obvious agendas?

Breitbart is a conservative news and opinion site. Fake news was Brian Williams on NBC getting shit canned for reporting...fake news.

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Is this guy a part of Breitbart that fake news site for neo-nazis?

Meh, I'll pass.

Why don't you see for yourself instead of taking the word of people with obvious agendas?

Breitbart is a conservative news and opinion site. Fake news was Brian Williams on NBC getting shit canned for reporting...fake news.

Breitbart is fake news and a platform for the alt right. I'm sure you are a fan of that site though.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:BMW pulled their sponsorship from Breitbart. Looks like the Neo-Nazis lost the support of the Germans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/08/breitbart-looks-to-france-and-germany-another-alt-right-victory-steve-bannon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The boycott, prompted by a social media campaign titled KeinGeldFürRechts or No Money for the Right

Well at least their honest about their desire to silence different ideas.

You think Breitbart is legitimate news? You think it's free of racism and anti-semitism? By right they are referring to hard-right rivals, that should be clear to anyone that read the article.

steveschneider wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Why don't you see for yourself instead of taking the word of people with obvious agendas?

Breitbart is a conservative news and opinion site. Fake news was Brian Williams on NBC getting shit canned for reporting...fake news.

Breitbart is fake news and a platform for the alt right. I'm sure you are a fan of that site though.

They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

Another great place to get your news is Info Wars. Exceptional reporting done on that site as well.

Milo is great. He crush s social justice warriors and is a satire schtick against the pc culture, hence his tour name. Drink beer from a straw during his speech lol.

Buts he's also very smart. Focus was on stopping Islam.

But of course if you love to live in a liberal echo chamber you'd probably not like Breitbart. They are like the MSNBC of the right.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Breitbart is fake news and a platform for the alt right. I'm sure you are a fan of that site though.

They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

What the liberals dont understand is that fake political news was created by the hands up dont shoot false narrative, that was constantly pushed by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.

THAT is fake news.  Completely pushing a 100%, made up, fake event for political purposes.

Show me where every single conservative media outlet and every single conservative on tv has maliciously pushed a blatant lie like that.

As far as Breitbart, yeah I already said its like the MSNBC site for the right. If you arent of those political views, you wouldnt go to that site for news.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Breitbart is fake news and a platform for the alt right. I'm sure you are a fan of that site though.

They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

This is the thing, you guys go off about how the NYT is a fake news site but you defend Breitbart a proven fake news site. It's ugly record of racism is well documented in the best American news papers and its stories are constantly debunked in the Washington Post and NYT.

The NYT has the best journalists, and is one of the best news papers on the planet. How you can even sit here and say it's not a good news paper is absurd.

The_Dude wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

What the liberals dont understand is that fake political news was created by the hands up dont shoot false narrative, that was constantly pushed by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.

THAT is fake news.  Completely pushing a 100%, made up, fake event for political purposes.

Show me where every single conservative media outlet and every single conservative on tv has maliciously pushed a blatant lie like that.

As far as Breitbart, yeah I already said its like the MSNBC site for the right. If you arent of those political views, you wouldnt go to that site for news.

You are pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories. You should read more of the New York Times, Washington Post and WSJ.

steveschneider wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

This is the thing, you guys go off about how the NYT is a fake news site but you defend Breitbart a proven fake news site. It's ugly record of racism is well documented in the best American news papers and its stories are constantly debunked in the Washington Post and NYT.

The NYT has the best journalists, and is one of the best news papers on the planet. How you can even sit here and say it's not a good news paper is absurd.

This is another shining example why Trump won.

Turtleneck wrote:Another great place to get your news is Info Wars. Exceptional reporting done on that site as well.

Alex Jones makes me want to eat shards of glass that have been sitting in a pile of dog shit for three months.

steveschneider wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
They don't hide their point of  view, but fake? you mean like Dan Rather, Brian Williams, the New York Times, The Washington Post? I don't think they're quite that bad, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I've only been checking them out for a few weeks, but I have seen no sign of antisemitism, racism or other isms, wait, no they are certainly pro capitalism, but I bet you heard they are vile hate mongers from someplace like the NYT. Again, please show me how I'm wrong.

This is the thing, you guys go off about how the NYT is a fake news site but you defend Breitbart a proven fake news site.  It's ugly record of racism is well documented in the best American news papers and its stories are constantly debunked in the Washington Post and NYT.

The NYT has the best journalists, and is one of the best news papers on the planet. How you can even sit here and say it's not a good news paper is absurd.

I'm begging for specific examples of this.
I am unaware of any truly unbiased news sources today, all have a point of view. I prefer to hear things from  different angles and decide myself, so usually look to more than one source. The NYT & WP are practically identical twins when it comes to bias, the Times even admitted they were biased in their election coverage, which was blatantly obvious to any fair observer.
I admit, I find Milo entertaining in the way he attacks the dividers among us. At MSU the other night he did at one point paraphrase MLK about judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, religion, sexual preference, etc. We seem to hung up today with the labels first and foremost and the message a distant second, eff that.
I would hope you at least listen a little before dismissing him out of hand.

The NYT is as politically biased and you will find. I think they said they've only endorsed one Republican in the last 80 years. They even endorsed Dukakis.

Its been proven through Wikileaks that NYT editors and journalists colluded with the DNC and Hilary to fix stories.

Of course if you just want a liberal echo chamber, the Time is your paper. Most people on the coasts are intolerant of other viewpoints and do choose to do so.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

This is the thing, you guys go off about how the NYT is a fake news site but you defend Breitbart a proven fake news site.  It's ugly record of racism is well documented in the best American news papers and its stories are constantly debunked in the Washington Post and NYT.

The NYT has the best journalists, and is one of the best news papers on the planet. How you can even sit here and say it's not a good news paper is absurd.

I'm begging for specific examples of this.
I am unaware of any truly unbiased news sources today, all have a point of view. I prefer to hear things from  different angles and decide myself, so usually look to more than one source. The NYT & WP are practically identical twins when it comes to bias, the Times even admitted they were biased in their election coverage, which was blatantly obvious to any fair observer.
I admit, I find Milo entertaining in the way he attacks the dividers among us. At MSU the other night he did at one point paraphrase MLK about judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, religion, sexual preference, etc. We seem to hung up today with the labels first and foremost and the message a distant second, eff that.
I would hope you at least listen a little before dismissing him out of hand.

There's countless examples, but PBS just debunked a Breitbart article on the number of counties Hillary Clinton won in the election. Breitbarts numbers weren't even close but their story was shared over and over on social media.

Then there was the smear tactics they do. One shining example was Shaun King the other year. They ran a big smear piece claiming he was actually white, which is completely false.

Once you start getting in that world you are not far off from the crap that Alex Jones spews and or the Sandy Hook Hoaxers or the Ping Pong Comet Pizza conspiracy.

Fake news is damaging to this country and is very dangerous. Credible news sources is the best defense against it. People discredit legit news agencies like WSJ, NYT or Was Pos are just repeating the same old attack they've heard all over the internet.  They repeat this like a mantra, and they cherry pick the mistakes these organizations make to support their bias against them.

You'll find credible information in those papers and they feature leading writers from the right and left.  To say it's biased is just undermining the hard work our best journalists put forth.

The_Dude wrote:The NYT is as politically biased and you will find. I think they said they've only endorsed one Republican in the last 80 years. They even endorsed Dukakis.

Its been proven through Wikileaks that NYT editors and journalists colluded with the DNC and Hilary to fix stories.

Of course if you just want a liberal echo chamber, the Time is your paper. Most people on the coasts are intolerant of other viewpoints and do choose to do so.

show us the wikileak that proves this? You keep saying this. You should be embarrassed for spreading this conspiracy.

Also, fuck wikileaks they are just russian propaganda.

steveschneider wrote:BMW pulled their sponsorship from Breitbart. Looks like the Neo-Nazis lost the support of the Germans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/08/breitbart-looks-to-france-and-germany-another-alt-right-victory-steve-bannon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

looks like all of the knuckle-draggin' bumpkin deplorables will have to #BoycottBMW now..

first they had to give up the theater with Hamilton.. now they have to give up their fine German automobiles.

steveschneider wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

I'm begging for specific examples of this.
I am unaware of any truly unbiased news sources today, all have a point of view. I prefer to hear things from  different angles and decide myself, so usually look to more than one source. The NYT & WP are practically identical twins when it comes to bias, the Times even admitted they were biased in their election coverage, which was blatantly obvious to any fair observer.
I admit, I find Milo entertaining in the way he attacks the dividers among us. At MSU the other night he did at one point paraphrase MLK about judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, religion, sexual preference, etc. We seem to hung up today with the labels first and foremost and the message a distant second, eff that.
I would hope you at least listen a little before dismissing him out of hand.

There's countless examples, but PBS just debunked a Breitbart article on the number of counties Hillary Clinton won in the election. Breitbarts numbers weren't even close but their story was shared over and over on social media.

Then there was the smear tactics they do. One shining example was Shaun King the other year. They ran a big smear piece claiming he was actually white, which is completely false.

Once you start getting in that world you are not far off from the crap that Alex Jones spews and or the Sandy Hook Hoaxers or the Ping Pong Comet Pizza conspiracy.

Fake news is damaging to this country and is very dangerous. Credible news sources is the best defense against it. People discredit legit news agencies like WSJ, NYT or Was Pos are just repeating the same old attack they've heard all over the internet.  They repeat this like a mantra, and they cherry pick the mistakes these organizations make to support their bias against them.

You'll find credible information in those papers and they feature leading writers from the right and left.  To say it's biased is just undermining the hard work our best journalists put forth.

I am not familiar with your examples, I will look into it, thanks.
To say that the NYT is not biased, however, is willful ignorance, both in the point of view of their stories and even the stories they choose to feature vs those they ignore, just about all sources do this to some extent, the NYT, because of it's reputation as a leader, has been egregious. Even historically, the NYT swooned over Stalin while he murdered millions and later, with weak reporting, is to some degree responsible for Castro winning the revolution in Cuba. Most recently they have admitted being in bed with Hillary.
I wouldn't lump the WSJ in the same boat, I think it is one of the best sources.
Being biased isn't necessarily a problem, just be honest about it.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

There's countless examples, but PBS just debunked a Breitbart article on the number of counties Hillary Clinton won in the election. Breitbarts numbers weren't even close but their story was shared over and over on social media.

Then there was the smear tactics they do. One shining example was Shaun King the other year. They ran a big smear piece claiming he was actually white, which is completely false.

Once you start getting in that world you are not far off from the crap that Alex Jones spews and or the Sandy Hook Hoaxers or the Ping Pong Comet Pizza conspiracy.

Fake news is damaging to this country and is very dangerous. Credible news sources is the best defense against it. People discredit legit news agencies like WSJ, NYT or Was Pos are just repeating the same old attack they've heard all over the internet.  They repeat this like a mantra, and they cherry pick the mistakes these organizations make to support their bias against them.

You'll find credible information in those papers and they feature leading writers from the right and left.  To say it's biased is just undermining the hard work our best journalists put forth.

I am not familiar with your examples, I will look into it, thanks.
To say that the NYT is not biased, however, is willful ignorance, both in the point of view of their stories and even the stories they choose to feature vs those they ignore, just about all sources do this to some extent, the NYT, because of it's reputation as a leader, has been egregious. Even historically, the NYT swooned over Stalin while he murdered millions and later, with weak reporting, is to some degree responsible for Castro winning the revolution in Cuba. Most recently they have admitted being in bed with Hillary.
I wouldn't lump the WSJ in the same boat, I think it is one of the best sources.
Being biased isn't necessarily a problem, just be honest about it.

The NYT isn't perfect but it's one of the best we got.

Sure Walter Duranty was awful but that was over 80 years ago.

Have you looked into the NYT efforts to investigate his reporting?

The NYT has a long track record of great reporting and integrity but it's not perfect. It's like a gold glove winner in baseball. You can point to a game or two where that player had an off game, committed an error or missed a crucial play but to say his defense is terrible because of those few mistakes made over the course of the season is laughable.

steveschneider wrote:

The NYT isn't perfect but it's one of the best we got.

Sure Walter Duranty was awful but that was over 80 years ago.

Have you looked into the NYT efforts to investigate his reporting?

The NYT has a long track record of great reporting and integrity but it's not perfect. It's like a gold glove winner in baseball. You can point to a game or two where that player had an off game, committed an error or missed a crucial play but to say his defense is terrible because of those few mistakes made over the course of the season is laughable.

I'd maybe compare it more to watching a once great Willie Mays, well past his prime, falling over while swinging at home plate.

Thanks for bringing Duranty to my attention, it makes me like the NYT more. It demonstrates the integrity they have over getting their information right and to get their reporting accurate. All institutions have their flaws and their bad employees. Getting the news right especially in regards to our enemies is CRUCIAL. Looks like the NYT is able to examine this failure and learn from it.

I side with Prof. Mark Von Hagen's findings. Will look further into this. It's a fascinating historical event, again thanks for pointing this out.

---

In 2003, following an international campaign by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry and the New York Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty's work as a whole. Von Hagen found Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away."[27] The Times sent von Hagen's report to the Pulitzer Board and left it to the Board to take whatever action they considered appropriate.[28] In a letter accompanying the report, New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. called Duranty's work "slovenly" and said it "should have been recognized for what it was by his editors and by his Pulitzer judges seven decades ago."

Ultimately, Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzer Prize board, declined to revoke the award. In a press release of 21 November 2003, he stated that with regard to the 13 articles by Duranty from 1931 submitted for the award "there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case."[29]

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The NYT isn't perfect but it's one of the best we got.  

Sure Walter Duranty was awful but that was over  80 years ago.

Have you looked into the NYT efforts to investigate his reporting?

The NYT has a long track record of great reporting and integrity but it's not perfect. It's like a gold glove winner in baseball.  You can point to a game or two where that player had an off game, committed an  error or missed a crucial play but to say his defense is terrible because of those few mistakes made over the course of the season is laughable.

I'd maybe compare it more to watching a once great Willie Mays, well past his prime, falling over while swinging at home plate.

kind of works. No one would look at the sunset of Willie Mays career and say he was an awful baseball player.  The good far out weighed the bad. He is a HOF and oneof the greatest living ballplayers. Anyone that just harped on his flaws would look foolish.