Milo Yiannopoulos

bonyn

Milo Yiannopoulos is considered by some to be anti-feminist, anti-muslim, anti-trans... but he's also gay so gets away with a lot.

Personally i'm a bit right-leaning. I find him hugely entertaining and fairly ballsy for being so unashamedly and refreshingly honest, even if he does resort to trolling.

Any other fans?

baby and crumble

I didn't know who you were talking about so I quickly read his Wiki page.

"In January 2016, Yiannopoulos co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant with Margaret MacLennan, “a scholarship exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates."

Sounds like the biggest tool going tbh.

reason vs religion

This is the guy who's candidly said he's ashamed of being gay.

baby and crumble wrote: »

I didn't know who you were talking about so I quickly read his Wiki page.

"In January 2016, Yiannopoulos co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant with Margaret MacLennan, “a scholarship exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates."

Sounds like the biggest tool going tbh.

There may be a case for scholarships for working class white boys if they are marginalised by efforts to fund students from minorities. But the justification they give just sounds so prejudiced.

baby and crumble

reason vs religion wrote: »

There may be a case for scholarships for working class white boys if they are marginalised by efforts to fund students from minorities. But the justification they give just sounds so prejudiced.

TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.

reason vs religion

baby and crumble wrote: »

TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.

I don't quite agree. Can hardly justify marginalising one group today based on the marginalisation that occurred because of that group's forefathers previously. Also don't think anyone claims that this marginalisation has occurred because of scholarship programmes that focus elsewhere. But it could be the case that it is being ignored in favour of other disadvantaged groups.

bonyn

I think the scolarship thing is a stunt to get people talking, and thinking. he fights emotion with facts.
Calling it the "privilege grant" is an indication of his wit and provocativeness ☺

Annasopra

Is he a troll or a fact fighter op? I don't think you can be both.

J_E

He's an annoying attention seeker - I'm generally not bothered to read or listen when his name comes up, to be honest. Nothing he has said is really anything but reactionary and usually harmful. Not really sure what else there is to say.

newacc2015

baby and crumble wrote: »

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.

So you therefore think it is totally fair that Universities in the US, will reject a white male with the same grades, class background as a black student but instead choose a black student for the simple reason he is black? US Universities positively discriminate against ethic minorities, but make no allowances for poor white people.

The reality is a lot of the "wage gap" is self made. Go to any University and see women who are studying something which traditionally leads lower paid jobs and they are mainly women. They choose that profession. A lot of women are ignoring STEM jobs. Are we going to blame society and the Government for not forcing women to do courses which lead to higher pay? ie a career in IT over social work

Im all for fair career progression, if someone earns it and works for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest punishing the 'white male' for the actions of generations beforehand and that we should level the playing field whatever that means. If women and other minorities want to be taken more seriously in the corporate world, they are going to have to take themselves seriously too. If women want to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, they need to take the education route to get to that. They cant expect to take a low paid career and moan that they arent earning as much as a male partner in a big four firm.

FortySeven

baby and crumble wrote: »

TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.

I've read some guff in my time but this really takes the biscuit.

Sonics2k

So, I am very much a feminist and always have been and will be.

In terms of Milo himself, I am often very conflicted when it comes to what he says as I quite often find myself in agreement with his view of "modern campus feminism", but not his overall view of actual feminism and feminists.

I like that he's calling bullshít on the idea that if you happen to be born white and straight, then you are by default racist and sexist. Hell, it actually happened to me only like 2 weeks ago where a woman I know in passing insisted I am sexist, racist and homophobic for the simple reason I happen to be straight and white.

I like that he's challenging the whole "University is safe space" thing, which is in my mind frankly daft. University is where we go to learn and be challenged on our histories, views and ethics. A good friend of mine working as an Assistant Lecturer at a University in the UK was really really shocked when he found out that people complained about aspects of the course because it made them feel uncomfortable, eg aspects of domestic violence and rape. You wouldn't mind, but this was a course on aspects of the darker side of History in Europe.

He even called out this trash NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’

I don't like that he's a smug faced, snarky Trump supporter who has said far too many positive things about the Catholic Church and their "wonderful" treatment of Gay Men throughout the 20th Century. What I really really dislike is his more recent views on the Trans community.

baby and crumble

newacc2015 wrote: »

So you therefore think it is totally fair that Universities in the US, will reject a white male with the same grades, class background as a black student but instead choose a black student for the simple reason he is black? US Universities positively discriminate against ethic minorities, but make no allowances for poor white people.

Of course I don't think that's fair. I'm simple saying that there's a systemic racism and sexism which has existed for many many years. Now that there are attempts (and nobody is perfect in these attempts, let me say) to address that somehow, it's a bad thing. Of course there should be equal access to education, jobs and pay to every single individual however I see no problem with assisting those who are systemically denied access to those things. It pisses men (and privileged women etc) off to point out that in general, white people have oppressed black people for millennia. it happened, lets just be honest here.

newacc2015 wrote: »

The reality is a lot of the "wage gap" is self made. Go to any University and see women who are studying something which traditionally leads lower paid jobs and they are mainly women. They choose that profession. A lot of women are ignoring STEM jobs. Are we going to blame society and the Government for not forcing women to do courses which lead to higher pay? ie a career in IT over social work.

How about we look at the fact that in many single sex schools, there simply is no access to certain science and IT course for female students. Why not ask why in boys schools, very few options are there to take Home Ec or music? I think we can certainly blame our school system for not encouraging students of any and all genders to think outside traditional lines for their career choices. I was lucky, I went to a mixed gender school so I was able to choose to study both woodwork and home ec. My partner, who is younger than me and did her leaving in 2002, had to go to a grinds school to do honours maths. She wanted to do architecture but her school, and the other schools in her area, wouldn't allow female students to take tech drawing. So you tell me, how is that her fault?

newacc2015 wrote: »

Im all for fair career progression, if someone earns it and works for it. But it is ridiculous to suggest punishing the 'white male' for the actions of generations beforehand and that we should level the playing field whatever that means. If women and other minorities want to be taken more seriously in the corporate world, they are going to have to take themselves seriously too. If women want to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, they need to take the education route to get to that. They cant expect to take a low paid career and moan that they arent earning as much as a male partner in a big four firm.

You don't seem to understand how oppression works. You can't just "work at it" and break through decades, if not centuries of SYSTEMIC, built-in oppression by getting a degree and a job. It doesn't work like that. How is someone from a black or hispanic community in the States, for example, whose local school is chronically underfunded meant to get the grades to get into University? How are they then meant to pay for that 4 year degree?

Likewise in Ireland, it's easy to see the effects of racism on the traveller community, for example. I'm not saying all travellers are innocent lambs, but I personally now a few who have brains to burn and want to succeed but they are discriminated against on a constant basis because of their status as a traveller, and because they come from a poorer background than most, they can't get the start they need. What is the problem with helping them to start? What's the problem with levelling the playing field?

Hey, I'll be honest here, I'm a middle class white woman who went to private school and then was able to get a decent job to put myself through college. I'm now in a great position, but I started from a very different point than someone who didn't have those advantages. I genuinely have zero issue with extra grant money going to underprivileged areas. Even if it meant I had to work twice as much as some of my funded peers in college, what odds? Why should I deny someone the same chances as I had, simply because of who I was born to? I'd happily pay higher taxes if it meant that the local school would take in all races, religions and creeds and treat them 100% equally in our education system.

FortySeven wrote: »

I've read some guff in my time but this really takes the biscuit.

That was a useful contribution to the debate.

silverharp

he has got balls, he is supposed to be leading an Pride parade through a Muslim ghetto in Sweden in a couple of weeks

JupiterKid

IMO anyone who supports Trump is a fool. And there are plenty of LGBT people who are fools.

Foolishness is not restricted to straight white men you know!

Lyaiera

Sonics2k wrote: »

I like that he's challenging the whole "University is safe space" thing, which is in my mind frankly daft. University is where we go to learn and be challenged on our histories, views and ethics. A good friend of mine working as an Assistant Lecturer at a University in the UK was really really shocked when he found out that people complained about aspects of the course because it made them feel uncomfortable, eg aspects of domestic violence and rape. You wouldn't mind, but this was a course on aspects of the darker side of History in Europe.

I've had direct experience of those types of topics in a course I was doing. One module was on aspects of criminology, particularly related to crimes against the person. The nature of the overall course meant it attracted people who had been victims of crime, rape victims, marital rape victims, people who had experience of child abuse (although not directly to them,) the effects of drug addiction on families, and homelessness.

The lecturer, a battle hardened woman who in her career had dealt with the most horrific things imaginable knew this was a difficult course with serious subject matter that could be very hard on people even if they had no direct experience, or even indirect experience of the topics that came up.

A lot of people present this as a binary option. A lecturer blasts in without a care in the world of the impact of what they're teaching on what may be a vulnerable person. Their attitude is suck it up, this is real, and you're here to learn. On the other side is the people who literally don't want to hear any of it, no matter how important it is to the matter at hand, and don't even want it taught. This is not the reality of the situation though, and it certainly isn't representative of how it was handled in my module.

The first thing the teacher did was outline the progression of the course. What we would be dealing with in what order. They then said if someone has an issue, or is very sensitive to what would be discussed in a particular class they were free to not turn up, or leave during the class if it started to effect them. There would be no questions or interrogations beyond, "Are you ok?" However this didn't mean you were exempt from learning about important topics, or that you could ignore them. It just meant you weren't expected to learn them in a class situation, surrounded by other people, some you may not know, and getting progressively worried and anxious about the situation. What it did mean was that if you didn't go to a particular class, or left a class due to the effects of it you were expected to learn the information and theory in another way. The lecturer would help, they'd give their slides and notes, they'd point out the readings, and if there was seriously difficulty with an issue they'd give a little time to the person individually, in a more relaxed setting. No-one was excused from learning, but if someone did have a serious issue they could learn in a way that was more comfortable to them, with help.

No-one abused this, no-one skipped every class. I don't even know if people had left or not turned up to classes because they had an issue with what was being taught, or if they were just sick, or dossing. No-one asked. People's privacy was respected. But everyone was expected to know the material, and complete the assignments, even if it was on an area they had personal trouble with.

When you present the two opposites of teaching, one with no regard to the students welfare, or the other of not teaching at all because of regards to a students emotional welfare (as opposed to their intellectual welfare) it leaves out other, non-ridiculous, non-hyperbolic strategies for dealing with subjects that are extremely difficult emotionally, but also extremely important.

Annasopra

Moved to humanities forum as it's a much broader discussion

kupus

FortySeven wrote: »

I've read some guff in my time but this really takes the biscuit.

I agree. It's ****e like this that has me close to closing my account and people are wondering why boards is falling off a cliff numbers wise.

Annasopra

kupus wrote: »

I agree. It's ****e like this that has me close to closing my account and people are wondering why boards is falling off a cliff numbers wise.

What's your argument then?

kupus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What's your argument then?

What's the point, you say right I say left.

baby and crumble

kupus wrote: »

I agree. It's ****e like this that has me close to closing my account and people are wondering why boards is falling off a cliff numbers wise.

Go on so, no-one's forcing you to be here. It's a discussion forum. As in, DIFFERING opinions. I've no problem debating people but you seem to.

Too Tough To Die

kupus wrote: »

I agree. It's ****e like this that has me close to closing my account and people are wondering why boards is falling off a cliff numbers wise.

Agreed, utterly stupid and unhelpful comment that amounted to little more than 'stop crying ye big babies'. Fantastic.

20Cent

There is a long interview of him by Joe Rogan on YouTube. He totally contradicts himself all the time. problem is he claims to be serious and likes to troll. I can't tell when he is doing either though.

baby and crumble

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Agreed, utterly stupid and unhelpful comment that amounted to little more than 'stop crying ye big babies'. Fantastic.

Really? What is your alternative then? How do you propose we combat structural racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia? What is the point of your comment?

Come on, guys. At least try and back up your opinions with facts or some sort of academic discourse. Don't moan at me because I have an opinion that I've formed through discussion, research and my own personal experiences and those of my friends.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

I would ask posters to move back on topic with reasoned arguments, please.

This is the Humanities forum and there is a standard of discussion.

Annasopra

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Agreed, utterly stupid and unhelpful comment that amounted to little more than 'stop crying ye big babies'. Fantastic.

Is that your argument?

RDM_83 again

baby and crumble wrote: »

TBH I find it amusing how after centuries of oppressing pretty much everyone, we have maybe 50 years of trying to equalise the playing field and the white dudes are freaking out. They are, in many ways, getting a taste of their own medicine and they HATE it.

What happens in these conversations is that we get a statements like above about "white men" crying about efforts at equality.
What this ignores is that if we consider the people that tend to listen to the Alt-Right or the New Reactionaries (is Milo Alt-Right- not actually sure what his views are on stuff apart from feminism and free speech), is that a comparison is made between either older white men and the general population or alternatively between younger white men and minorities, the comparison is not made between younger white men and their equivalent of the opposite gender.

Apart from sexual violence is there a serious measurable negative outcome that otherwise identical college educated under the age of 30-35 women experience worse than their male counterparts.
The list is easy for negative impacts on males.
Poorer education, Unemployment, Lower wages, higher accidental death, higher suicide, higher murder, higher assault, poorer view from general society (for uk anyway according to studies).

This idea that males are privileged doesn't apply in the modern world and those that have grown up in it. You shouldn't compare a young guy to a guy in his 50-60's because they have grown up under completely different conditions yet its always done because the idea of male privilege is so central to many of these ideologies and its an easy socially acceptable target.

Thats reason people like him are becoming more popular is because of this

Also the language used is indicative of the attitudes behind it: Getting a taste of their own medicine :mad: a lot of progressive/SJW attitudes aren't built on equalizing they are built on the idea of punishment of the sins of their forefathers in general (and on the personal level whatever person bullied them at some stage)

baby and crumble wrote: »

I do agree, that there are huge swathes of young, working class white men who are totally marginalised and under-educated, but I don't think that is the fault of scholarship programs. It's a systemic problem coming from decision made by successive governments around the world- usually because these young white men made the mistake of living in areas which became racially diverse, so they got caught in the crossfire that black and other minorities have been experiencing for centuries.

Why in a country like the UK are poor white males the worst educational performers then? if its due what you state they should be performing equally to other minorities they aren't though and their is a stark gender divide.
If your answer relates to a culture/attitude among young poorer white British males remember that this answer can also be brought to bear on criminality among Black Males and the "wage gap" among women.

About the man himself, not a huge fan of him at all, but he is quick witted and he is eloquent, and more importantly the people he tends to argue with I disagree with much more.

Socially he's an interesting item, here is a gay guy thats adored by those that are apparently reactionary phobic people, he also uses his sexual identity as an armor against those that tend to invalidate opinions/arguments by focusing on the identity of the person making the statement rather than the words themselves.
In short I think his existence is a good sign that people are more open minded than their opponents give them credit for.

20Cent

He's after getting permbanned from Twitter.

RDM_83 again

Posted that about Milo at exactly the wrong time does anybody actually have a neutral source on the twitter stuff? Cos with the quick look just getting guardian/buzzfeedy things or the_Donald spam, neither of which are good for the balanced view.
I'm curious in terms of what he has personally done apart from a catty insult and a bad review because should we judge individuals on the actions of their loosely associated co-travellers ? because if that's the case he is more of a victim having had his meetings disrupted and been physically threatened in person (by BLM activists) e.g if we're going to take this line of reasoning that there is responsibility for fellow travellers actions then while he definitely isn't a nice man he is less dangerous than his adversaries.

baby and crumble

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What happens in these conversations is that we get a statements like above about "white men" crying about efforts at equality.

To be fair, I made that comment when this thread was in LGBTQ, and whilst it's made slightly tongue-in-cheek, I do think there's an element of truth to it, or I wouldn't have said it.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What this ignores is that if we consider the people that tend to listen to the Alt-Right or the New Reactionaries (is Milo Alt-Right- not actually sure what his views are on stuff apart from feminism and free speech), is that a comparison is made between either older white men and the general population or alternatively between younger white men and minorities, the comparison is not made between younger white men and their equivalent of the opposite gender.

Fair enough point.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This idea that males are privileged doesn't apply in the modern world and those that have grown up in it. You shouldn't compare a young guy to a guy in his 50-60's because they have grown up under completely different conditions yet its always done because the idea of male privilege is so central to many of these ideologies and its an easy socially acceptable target.

I really have to challenge you on this. I agree that comparisons between older and younger generations aren't ideal, however there definitely is an element of younger white males (in my opinion) being frustrated by minorities and women having access to the opportunities their fathers and grandfathers had. I don't see another compelling reason for all the hate on equality programmes, who are not actually taking away anything from non-minority individuals, just who are improving equality of access to minorities. I certainly agree that giving a minority individual a job over a non minority candidate regardless of qualifications is wrong. But for many years, there was a systemic racism which disqualified millions of minorities, and women from even attempting to get the qualifications needed to compete with white men who had those opportunities. I certainty don't feel threatened by equality programmes or by a minority applicant for the same job as me. If I am the right person for the job, I'll get it. Now, obviously if someone with less ability or education was given the post simply because of the colour of their skin then that's wrong- regardless of which colour in this instance is seen as the "right" one. For years that "right" one was white. That's just as wrong.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Also the language used is indicative of the attitudes behind it: Getting a taste of their own medicine :mad: a lot of progressive/SJW attitudes aren't built on equalizing they are built on the idea of punishment of the sins of their forefathers in general (and on the personal level whatever person bullied them at some stage)

Again, I made those comments when this thread was in LGBTQ and that was certainty said tongue in cheek. I do stand by the sentiment though, which reflects back the attitude I mention above, the aggression and the confusion, frankly, that a lot of young white men have that their path in life is not as easy as it was for their father or whatever. Everyone wants to blame somebody. It's not right but it's human nature.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why in a country like the UK are poor white males the worst educational performers then? if its due what you state they should be performing equally to other minorities they aren't though and their is a stark gender divide.
If your answer relates to a culture/attitude among young poorer white British males remember that this answer can also be brought to bear on criminality among Black Males and the "wage gap" among women.

Again, I'm no expert but I'd hazard a guess that it's again something to do with the anger that white men are no longer "on top"- so why bother trying if all these nasty equality programmes are going to give the jobs to minorities? I can't back that up with research though.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Socially he's an interesting item, here is a gay guy thats adored by those that are apparently reactionary phobic people, he also uses his sexual identity as an armor against those that tend to invalidate opinions/arguments by focusing on the identity of the person making the statement rather than the words themselves.
.

I don't really care what his sexuality is. I suppose to me it is confusing that a gay man, who presumably should have some knowledge of the necessity of equality in all aspects of life, would harbour views which is against that. I also really dislike when anyone uses a "card"- as in "I can't be homophobic, I'm gay" or "I can't be racist, I'm Asian" or whatever it is. It's rubbish. I'm gay, and I'm certainly homophobic at times. I'm certainly sexist at times. I'm certainly racist at times. But I don't want inequality either.

bonyn

I know twitter is free to do as they like on their platform, but censorship because of differing views is appalling

baby and crumble

bonyn wrote: »

I know twitter is free to do as they like on their platform, but censorship because of differing views is appalling

I think there's "censorship of differing views" and specific, demeaning, racial and sexist abuse and harassment. I'm all for debate and differing views, but if you can't say it in real life without getting done for verbal abuse/ harassment then why is it ok online?

bonyn

baby and crumble wrote: »

I think there's "censorship of differing views" and specific, demeaning, racial and sexist abuse and harassment. I'm all for debate and differing views, but if you can't say it in real life without getting done for verbal abuse/ harassment then why is it ok online?

In the US you can say a lot without getting "done for" it, and that's where Milo currently is.

20Cent

Looking at the abuse sent to that actress from Ghostbusters is horrific.
The outpouring of complaints from Milo's followers is hilarious. Twitter is a private network they can do what they like its nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech. Surely libertarians of all people would know this.

baby and crumble

bonyn wrote: »

In the US you can say a lot without getting "done for" it, and that's where Milo currently is.

In the US you can also send your homosexual children to "straight camp" and allow them undergo electroshock therapy to "cure" them.

In the US you can rape a person and get away with a very light sentence (if you have the right parents).

In the US you can buy military grade weaponry as a civilian.

In the US they have the death penalty.

I wouldn't necessarily hold the US up as a paragon of care and human rights defenders.

CMOT

He got a lot of traction from supporting gamergate, and since not many people in the public eye were very supportive of that movement, he's gathered a lot of moderated/reddit-heads that are wilfully ignoring his blatant racism and pretending it's all just trolling.
He's got a couple of videos out where he really gets in the grills of people that deserve it just as much as him, but he always misses the opportunity for any real meaningful debate by falling back on the "I'm gay, your left wing, aren't you scared of me?" argument.
Certainly entertaining at times, but overall an absolute arsehole.

L1011

You'll get perma-banned from Twitter for trolling to that level, no matter what your political views are. And the man is a professional troll.

Using his sexuality as a defence mechanism is pathetic beyond belief, though. Its perfectly possible to be a dickhead while gay, he's not alone there.

Snickers Man

He's a feckin' Mick!

His father's name (and his at birth) was Hanrahan!!!!

Yiannopoulos was his granny's name.

Allegedly

Either way he's an effete, unintelligent, malicious, narcissistic troll on whom one should not expend too many brain cells for any length of time.

JackTaylorFan

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/milo-yiannopoulos-latest-news-paedophilia-breitbart-video-child-abuse-right-wing-sexual-relationship-a7589656.html

He's a demented little twat, punching-down, disseminating misinformation that puts vulnerable minorities in more danger of those dumb enough to listen to him, and oh yeah, occasionally seen advocating for child abuse.

Yeah, great choice of role models, OP.

JackTaylorFan

Thought this was funny though

https://www.indy100.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-new-york-city-bar-crowd-shouting-nazi-scum-video-alt-right-8318516

robp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/milo-yiannopoulos-latest-news-paedophilia-breitbart-video-child-abuse-right-wing-sexual-relationship-a7589656.html

He's a demented little twat, punching-down, disseminating misinformation that puts vulnerable minorities in more danger of those dumb enough to listen to him, and oh yeah, occasionally seen advocating for child abuse.

Yeah, great choice of role models, OP.

In danger lol :pac:
He is narcissistic, annoying and at times goes too far but he is also intelligent, eloquent and extremely compassionate.

robp

baby and crumble wrote: »

In the US you can also send your homosexual children to "straight camp" and allow them undergo electroshock therapy to "cure" them.

Not exactly available in hospitals tho, is it?

baby and crumble wrote: »

In the US you can rape a person and get away with a very light sentence (if you have the right parents).

Nope

baby and crumble wrote: »

In the US you can buy military grade weaponry as a civilian.

Actually no.

baby and crumble wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily hold the US up as a paragon of care and human rights defenders.

Association fallacy

Snickers Man

robp wrote: »

In danger lol :pac:
He is narcissistic, annoying and at times goes too far but he is also intelligent, eloquent and extremely compassionate.

Do you think he'd be taken seriously if he went by his birth name?

Miley Hanrahan :eek::eek:

Well Holy God!