Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Make sure this is well cited

Opinion is fine, but any claim needs backing. Fortunately, Milo's trail is exceedingly well documented. The Wikipedia article is solid, and the Tori Amos plagiarism is a well-documented lulz and a half - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Who or what is this "Otis"

no depicted on the photo?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems an obscure reference to The Adventures of Milo and Otis. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Added link to Wikipedia article, cause there are bound to be more people, who don't understand this cultural reference.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to look it up as well... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, can that go? So, so obscure as to be meaningless.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It was laboured and inane and not worth the explanation. Zapped - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's cool. I added originally, but yep, really only relevant to people of a specific demographic.Petey Plane (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Slutwalk protest

I'm still new here but would Milo's slutwalk protest and subsequent whining about how being asked to leave was actually journalistic oppression out be something that fits RW? If nothing else it'd provide an excuse to post that picture of him looking smug and lonely at his 2-person protest. Seriously (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you any links to sources about to what happened? Gooniepunk (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

He showed up at an Amber Rose slutwalk with Lauren Southern and they held up signs protesting it. After being asked to leave he ran a bunch of stories acting like he was either an oppressed journalist denied the right to coverage (as opposed to a counterprotester without a permit), or a rebel badboy that makes feminists quake in terror when he arrives. There was a lot of (self)coverage of it and it was all pretty cringey.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/03/breitbart-editor-ejected-from-amber-rose-slut-walk-by-police/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/04/feminists-call-the-cops-when-i-show-up-heres-why/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/video-milo-gets-kicked-out-of-a-slut-walk-warning-graphic-content/ http://www.therebel.media/laurensouthern https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdBkPFoOwQ

There're some coverage of it from his detractors, of course, but personally I find his self-promotion of the incident to be a lot funnier than the incident itself. Seriously (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DO IT! Add it, it sounds on-topic and funny as hell; certainly worthy of our SPOV. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, please go ahead. Milo is just perfect RW material. The man is a parody of himself.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Article's Wordiness and edits

I apologize for excessive wordiness and non-stop syntax edits of this page, but i want to be sure it gives this turd his fair shake, if either he or his supporters happen to fall upon it. Just my attempt to make page reflect the subject's own insincerity and general dickishness (and my general autistic nature of over analyzing stuff).Petey Plane (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It could actually do with more content. And I am not sure about moving that 2nd paragraph to the lede? The lede now relatively long.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Petey, don't worry. You've put in some good content and I can copy-edit for flow and excess verbiage. Let me think about that intro. It may be the 2nd paragraph should move. Bit to where? It'll shape up, tho.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will definately be adding content soon, just been busy with the holidays.Petey Plane (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle

Will be starting a new section soon that focuses on the most prevalent reoccurring theme in Milo's blog posts: his rank hypocrisy. Adding a few sources here, as i find them, until there are enough to form into a coherent narrative. Feel free to add.

• In which Milo accuses Neil deGrasse Tyson of being a publicity whore who is unqualified to cover topics pertaining to science.
  • http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/
• In which Milo accuses progressives of defending pedophiles, despite the fact that he acknowledges utilizing 8chan (a known enabler of pedophiles) as a primary source of information, and 8chan being pro-Gamergate stronghold.
  • http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/
• In which Milo excoriates an anti-GG activist for having a twitter conversation with Joshua Goldberg (a gamergater, white nationalist and accused domestic terrorist, who was the primary source for Milo's attacks on Shaun King's racial identity) during which Goldberg was misrepresenting himself as a feminist. Joshua Goldberg was not, however, misrepresenting his identity during his conversations with Milo.
  • http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/brianna-wu-chatted-to-terrorist-troll-joshua-goldberg-after-he-outed-her-as-transgender/

Petey Plane (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I started a rebuttal of the Neil deGrasse Tyson piece here: User:Carpetsmoker/Milo's hitpiece on Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

This "gem" is probably also worth reading, if you're not yet convinced that Milo is an asshat. He basically claims that he got kicked out of university for doing jack shit and just partying and says that's okay because he's talented and good looking enough anyway (but attacks Tyson for not being a model student). Of course, the page is peppered with images of himself. It ends with "I've always been modest". It's all rather hilarious (unintentionally, though) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter references

Be sure to archives or image captures of every one of these. His Twitter was blocked again just a short while ago - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Transphobia

A Reddit commenter notes that this could do with discussion, somehow:

His transphobia. He's really really really really really vicious about deadnaming and outing trans people.

But when you mention this it's tricky because you run the risk of outing and deadnaming his targets in your cited sources.

Is there any reasonable way to handle this without perpetuating the outing? - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As an aside: i've noticed that Breitbart.com appears to have instituted a style guide in which trans women are only referred to by their birth names. So that's delightful.Petey Plane (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We could vaguely mention it without directing anyone to any individual cases. It's a very hard topic to talk about, but if people are looking for deadnames, they won't be looking for them in RationalWiki, so I think it's a topic we can acknowledge, perhaps without directly mentioning any specific incidents. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Vaguely mentioning" things without proof is not really acceptable. Especially not in the case of accusations (against Milo). He's a buffoon supreme, but that doesn't mean we can turn this into a ED-style article where we claim all sorts of shit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it really turning something into an "ED-style" article about him when we're not linking something to protect people as opposed to doing it to smear them? Seems more than a bit hyperbolic here. The lack of a cite or direct mentions in an article doesn't mean something is merely a "claim" (are you disputing Milo's transphobia with the "claim all sorts of shit" line?) In fact, a lot of reputable organizations "protect the names of the innocent", as it were, and we would be doing something similar here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 12:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Using non-verifiable and/or anonymous sources is highly controversial in any reputable journalistic establishment, and used only with various protocols/safeguards and typically only when the matter is of importance (i.e. when the risk is considered to outweigh the benefits).

"when we're not linking something to protect people as opposed to doing it to smear them?" -> It's non-verifiable. So no one can check which of the two it is. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's well enough known & sourced that he outed Brianna Wu for that to be mentioned. Doxxing, smearing, digging up dirt on opponents or threatening to are his MO so I think it's best discussed in this context since it's by no means something he only does to trans people. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot "...while always maintaining plausible deniability." His stuff needs to be well sourced. I agree with not doing any kind of doxing on his page, but i don't think sources should be excluded if they do have that information. They should be labeled as such and the reader can decide for themselves.Petey Plane (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that RW doesn't want to spread "doxing" info. There's something to be said for that, and there are a few ways to handle this:

• Decide this info isn't important enough and forget about it (there's enough bullshit on Milo as such).
• Ask the people involved for permission—they don't necessarily have to object to it being included here (I wouldn't).
• Come up with some protocol to share sources with only limited people (i.e. this could for example be done with a sysop-only or moderator-only readable RationalWiki/Hidden sources page).

Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree with the first 2 points made by CS. Not sure how the third would work in practice. Would that mean a ref with viewing privileges attached to it?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure; it's just an idea. I'm unsure if it's a good idea myself :-) But you could just add a section with the page name to RationalWiki/Hidden sources, and then use something like "Milo doxed Donald Duck in 2009<ref>Source hidden from public view protect the privacy of those involved; [[RationalWiki/Hidden sources#Milo_Yiannopoulos|editors can check it here]]</ref>" Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We agree for the most part, Weaseloid, but one thing; Brianna Wu isn't trans (or at least, hasn't confirmed herself as trans, and will not do so). Gamergate just thinks being trans is an insult so they say she is as a way to mock her, and nothing they've found is reliable. So saying she was "outed" by Milo is dubious-- however, this is indeed a well documented example of his transphobia, because they are really pushing the idea that someone they hate is trans because of how much they hate trans people, as opposed to any actually solid evidence. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker, enabling the spreading of deadnames and the disgustingly malicious smear campaigns attached to them is a serious thing. However, there must be a middle ground reached here, because that is, as Weaseloid so rightly put it, Milo's M.O. We need to find a way to broach these kinds of people without enabling their bullshit. It's a sensitive subject that needs to be approached with reasoned dosages of empathy as opposed solely to simplistic cold, distant reasoning. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a blog about Milo from December 2014 confirming that he revealed Zoe Quinn's legal name (without stating what it is) & that he outed Brianna Wu as transgender (without confirming whether this was accurate). Since then, he has published his "exposé" of Wu in Breitbart, which we shouldn't link to as it contains a lot of creepy detail, but there may be other blogs about it which we could link to without revealing anything. Re his general doxxing shenanigans (not trans-specific), see his last few comments in this Twitter spat where he explicitly threatens to leak a bunch of emails & other "testimony" about Randi Lee Harper & boasts of having done the same to Shanley Kane. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalists rely on anonymous sources when a source could suffer serious retaliation for speaking. Whistleblowers and the like. They also do not publish the names of minors or adult rape victims. As for linking to the outing of trans people, I'm torn. If the outing has done its damage and now "everybody" knows, then we should err on the side of documentation. But, if it would contribute to the doxing, no. iN that case, as respected journalist do, they rest on their reputation for knowing what they are doing when they use anonymous sources legitimately (which is not usual; they are used far too often and allow govt officials to leak pro-govt stuff they want made public without any accountability)---Mona- (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not merely doxxing here, so much as it is doxxing combined with a smear campaign designed to utilize that doxxing in a threatening and vile manner, whether the contents of the doxx are accurate or not. In this case, the outing of trans individuals is means to an end, and that's part of what makes it such a difficult subject to broach. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Milo's actual Twittter infraction?

David Gerard says (and it's not hard to believe) that Milo's Twitter account has frequently been locked for harassing individuals. My only question is what was the exact reason for the removal of the verified badge? Some people I respect are questioning that the removal appears to be based merely on the noxious content of general tweets directed at no one specifically. But I can't find any info on what the triggering tweets were. This CNNMoney piece is ambiguous.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I'm wondering what caused Twitter to act, too. Especially when the user has been like this for years-- It's not like anything he's done recently has been especially awful compared to what's come before-- it's a constant, with him. Maybe he just crossed an awfulness threshold as to where Twitter, even with it's lax administration, decided to slap him on the wrist. I just wonder why it wasn't an automatic suspension instead of taking away an ultimately meaningless blue checkmark. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 19:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that it's going to be something along the lines of inciting his followers to harass people who have blocked him specifically. That seems to go in line with him MO of maintaining deniability. I don't use twitter so a lot of this as a little fuzzy to me. It pains me to say it, but Milo does have a point in that twitter should provide a more concrete explanation as to why he was unverified. I do find it funny that he is essentially forced to use the platform to feed his ego, despite his belief that twitter is central to the progressive left's cabal to destroy conservatives. Petey Plane (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

But he's been doing that for ages. What caused twitter to act now is my question, because this has been his level of awfulness for a long time. Twitter is notoriously bad at handling abusive users. I wonder if they changed an internal policy. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 19:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

as an aside, once again Breitbart Milo Tech is proving to be a safe haven for ethical, non-partisan video game journalism, and not just a tool for Milo to inflate his ego. OH wait. about 15 stories in a row (dominating the entire vertical) are currently dedicated to the story.Petey Plane (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It matters very much why Twitter did this. If it was for targeted abuse or harassment, I'm down with that. If, however, it was for generally noxious tweets directed at no specific person, I am not down with that at all. Twitter is privately owned, but performs an incredibly important, basically public function. Getting locked out of Twitter severely reduces one's ability to participate in global political debate. There should have to be legit reasons of abusive behavior against individuals to lose that ability, for the sake of everyone. Otherwise, the next we'll see is, e.g., all support for BDS "is antisemitic" and so is "inflammatory" criticism of Israel. Mere viewpoint, no matter how noxious and/or strongly stated, should not be grounds for banning people from Twitter. So, I really think Twitter has an obligation to spit out the actual reason -- the specific Milo tweets -- that caused this action.---Mona- (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Twitter does not owe you a platform, especially if you violate it's TOS. And as it stands, loosing the blue checkmark means nothing. Milo can still post. He can still harass and brigade those who disagree with him. He can still threaten and menace. Twitter has made an empty gesture. I don't understand how that constitutes a slippery slope at all. A platform with no moderation may as well not be a platform at all, because without moderation, people like Milo will show up and make others afraid to speak out. And that's what we see happening all the time on Twitter. In this case, it is the users that threaten other people's free speech, and the platform is letting that happen. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between, on the one hand, banning or suspending users for harassment and abuse directed at individuals, and on the other, disallowing general tweets expressing a noxious (as determined by enough people complaining?) viewpoint. I support moderating the former, but utterly oppose the latter. For reasons stated.---Mona- (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a case can be made for Milo simply "expressing a noxious viewpoint". The situation goes far beyond that, and has for a long time. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can't know whether this was for harassment/abuse of an indidual(s) unless Twitter tells us. For many reasons they should do so. Among other things, users need to know what Twitter considers to be abuse/harassment, if that is what this was. And they should also know, if adverse action is taken purely based on noxious (in the eyes of some) viewpoint. Because if it's the latter, all kindsa folk are going to lobby to ban those who promote what they deem "noxious viewpoint X."---Mona- (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're working on a lot of ifs to assume the sky is falling, here. The fact of the matter is: We don't know, and we can't call Milo's actions simply "expressing noxious viewpoints", where they go far and beyond that, into really dangerous territory. Imo, the only fault on twitter's part is not acting sooner, and not acting on a wide variety of other cases like this. Both that, and the fact that this is ultimately an empty, meaningless gesture. We are not talking about a banning here-- we're talking about the removal of a blue checkmark. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced quoting random actual-information-free news articles (if a Buzzfeed op-ed can be called that) is useful or informative. They are speculating just like us - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with David's extremely intelligent observation. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've cited that CNN article Mona added before (which is at least real media detailing the lack of actual information) - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care. I'm just compulsive about sourcing, and there's not much "out there." Freethoughts blog is used a lot at RW so I fogured that'd be acceptable. But it's not a big deal.---Mona- (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

RW is happy with blogs for sources (and Capturebot4 will archive the very worst of sources for us), I just couldn't see what it added other than uninformed speculation (which is all anyone has 'cos twitter aren't dumb enough to talk) - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

David, if this isn't too personal, what is your Intelligent Quotient? You seem to have beyond average intelligence. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I can no longer drink my age in pints, though I had a good go when I got married last year - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sound's wonderful mate. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, the tweet that appears to be at the root of all this is from the following exchange (i don't use twitter, so sorry if i'm not getting all this right ): "“Milo could you tell your creepy weirdo misogynist followers to maybe take a shower and get a life instead of harass me online?” to which he replied “You deserve to be harassed you social justice loser.” Petey Plane (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/678620045388488704 Petey Plane (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good candidate, but what makes you think it is the actual straw that broke Twitter's back?---Mona- (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh right, sources. That appears to be at least what this Salon.com (i know, i know) article is assuming, http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/this_isnt_about_free_speech_internet_supervillain_isnt_being_censored_by_twitters_lightweight_rebuke/ Petey Plane (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Arstechnica has a write up about recent rule changes at Twitter. From that article: "Twitter clarified that it would include "indirect threats" under its definition of "hateful conduct." It would also censor people who "incited" harassment, for example by urging their followers to send harassing messages to another user." That clause may be one of the primary motivators behind decertifying Milo. http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/how-twitter-quietly-banned-hate-speech-last-year/ Petey Plane (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

These new Twitter standards are very bad in most respects. They just suspended a progressive activist who went by @swarthyvillain.---Mona- (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's actually about ethics in blockchain journalism

Milo has taken up Bitcoin. This is gonna be epic - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. This could indeed be comedy of the very highest order.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"The media hates Bitcoin, and constantly pronounces its death, for the same reason it hates comments sections and free speech on the internet." Yeah... that's it... Petey Plane (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The more I see of his capering, the clearer it becomes that he doesn't believe anything he writes. He just grinds out whatever he thinks will pander to the biggest bunch of outrage junkies and create the illusion of him being a successful journalist. Let's face it, his journalism career ended in failure years ago. Now all he does is performance art designed to aggregate whatever shitheels on the internet are too dumb to tell when they're being played. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he more or less admitted to that at some point. It was essentially that he acknowledges playing a character.Petey Plane (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not far off: "Ruined by human nature" is probably a fair assessment of both comment sections and bitcoin. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ain't 4chan...

...the sewer of the net? 8chan are the sewers of the sewers, cause they tolerate shit even 4chan doesn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What a pointless comment. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, 8chan is the place, where those even too fucked up for 4chan gather.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The page already says essentially that. what's your point? Petey Plane (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard be trolling

Milo Yiannopoulos isn't far right, but right wing. Gerard seems to slander virtually anyone who isn't left wing, as "far right". This site is losing any credibility it once had. Goosebumps (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Who the heck are you? You have only edited 3 pages!!! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, i think I'm the one who originally called Breitbart.com far-right, not Milo (you should really read better), and I stand by that. Petey Plane (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, per Petey Plane. There's nothing remotely centrist about a outspokenly misogynistic brietbart editor. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anybody in the manosphere is far-right by default. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 17:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Trump should be president is far-right. Legomania105 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Lack of Journalistic Ethics From Milo

That whole Shaun King thing is absolutely disgusting yellow journalism. Hell, he built his whole career on yellow journalism. Who broadly accuses a man for being white with no evidence? Who forces a man to tell his whole back story just to make you shut up? Who tells a man to give DNA evidence to prove he's black, after he's done all of that? No journalistic ethics from this man. And let's not forget about Gamergate. 'Revealing' Quinn's name and outing Wu as a transgender women without any factual evidence? Encouraging harassment of these women? Fuck this man. Legomania105 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(((echo)))

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4ppnfd/milo_the_trumplerinas_cult_leader_goes_full_nazi/ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wowzers, a gay Greek Jew goes into bed with actual Internet-Nazis. This is so fucked up, I wouldn't believe it if he didn't try to go to bed with them before.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 15:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't take this anymore!

Dave Rubin on Twitter has been supporting the #FreeMilo hashtag, saying that Milo has been persecuted for his political views. If Milo was banned for his political views I'd support it. But I've got no sympathy for him, this isn't a matter of free speech, this is a matter of him harassing and bullying people, for that he should be banned. Reg321 (talk) 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't wait for Milo to demand an actual violation of the 1st Amendment (i.e. trying to legally force Twitter to reinstate him) to rectify his own perceived (and very very stupid) rights violations. Petey Plane (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! By the way, there is no free speech issue at hand here. This is a private company's decision that it does not want public figures using its services as a platform for bullying. Good on Twitter. Milo and his cult of followers can take their grievances elsewhere. I recommend Turkey.Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, but what do you expect from someone whose fan-base exclusively consists of racist/sexist trolls? Milo may not actually be the sharpest tack in the box. Petey Plane (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Freedom isn't free. You can not say anything you want, Milo should be jailed for saying things I don't like. ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.64.112.139 / talk / contribs}

This is actually the best news I've had all day. I know, I should get out more. But browsing the WWW and seeing articles and tweets ladened with victim complex, excuses and justifications just makes me "lol". It's not like he'd been thrown in jail. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That being said though, I support him having a platform to discuss his ideas, no matter how repugnant they may be. Therefore like I said before, if he actually was being kicked off for his personal views, I would support him being reinstated. Still, he shouldn't be above the rules everyone has to follow. Depriving him of a platform is no excuse if he has actually violated terms of service. Reg321 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of other social media platforms beside twitter. Petey Plane (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There's also his fucking section in Breitbart - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

^This and he will probably still get his articles advertised and shared on Twitter by his audience. Regardless, Reg, I share your concern but I will wait for Twitter's response on the matter.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

People are allowed to share his shitty, ill informed articles. He's not allowed to use twitter as a platform to target people for harassment. These are not contradictory ideas. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's all a pretty funny actually, because he has repeatedly dared Twitter to permaban him and make him a martyr, but he knows that without social media, no one gives 2 shits about him. His narcissism and intellectual bankruptcy has once again overruled any actual principals he feigns to believe in, hence his (and by extension Breitbart's) current hissyfit over the whole situation. He is a garbage person and his slide into irrelevancy will be fun to watch. Petey Plane (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind on the Twitter ban

Milo's followers should be banned, not him. All he did was criticise Leslie Jones tweet, calling out her victim complex. This got Milo's followers to start harassing her, but Milo himself did not encourage the abuse or engage in it. As much as I revile Milo, and I cannot emphasise this enough, I don't agree with banning people for undeserving reasons, and I certainly do not agree with this article misrepresenting the situation.

Kyle Kulinski explains it better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-RhNIPKacc

Reg321 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You do know Kyle has flipped his position on Milo's ban, while himself postulating a self-contradictory position on free speech. Voila: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjUfJj2id3ELevi Ackerman (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think people should be punished for their followers action.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 08:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a comment specific to Yiannopoulos, but in common law, if you incite someone to commit a criminal act, then you have also committed a crime. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that but I don't think that Milo incited anyone to harass her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He has made a career out of using his mass of acolytes to harass. The world is a tinier bit of a better place with Milo sans-Twitter.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This may actually be something of a do-over for a previously overturned ban in which he told a victim of the harassment by his followers that she (paraphrased) deserved to be harassed. He surely knows the kind of behavior his followers engage in, and with prior knowledge like that, that tweet could easily be interpreted as incitement. He has never discouraged his followers from engaging in harassment, and has played apologist for it on multiple occasions. I agree that it is a grey area whether he should have been perma-banned, i also believe that Twitter is under no obligation to give cause for any bannings. The only obligation that they have is to their shareholders, and as a business decision, removing an element that discourages others from engaging in the platform appears sound. Petey Plane (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to force Twitter to give a platform to anyone and Milo has used his followers to harass people before so it doesn't hurt Twitter. The only reason I was hoping Twitter would address this was so they could clear up how this gray area that could lead to a perma-ban.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He is fully responsible for his follower's action. He was aware of it, and he went out of his way to make sure it was known that he approved of it. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Did he actually went and said something to the effect of "Yes, go and send X, Y or Z nasty messages until s/he kills her/himself" or similar?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"calling out her victim complex." Yeah, whats wrong with you leslie, reacting publicly to public humiliation! This is why ghostbusters is going to destroy the west.... Sandflapjack (talk)

BTW, the Ghostbusters 2016 was a box office bomb: According to Wikipedia, it cost 144 million USD but was able to earn just 75.4 million USD at the box office.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not even out internationally yet. Vulpius (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(EC) That's actually pretty alright, and it's earning back more than the original estimate. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Milo should not have been banned from Twitter in my opinion. Unless he said "Hey everyone! Go kill X! Do it! Do it!", then he shouldn't have been banned. Applesauce (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

... You do know how he got his start, right? This isn't the first or second or even tenth time he's specifically targeted someone, they get swamped with harassment, and he goes "Oh, I'm so harmless". This is just the first time he targeted someone famous enough to get real attention. this basically being his MO. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand full well that he's a lying attention whore who feigns having views he doesn't have just to stir shit and gain more of a following for himself so he can make more Money, but I don't think that means banning him. Applesauce (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I still think it was a correct and pragmatic business decision by Twitter (completely divorced from my utter disdain for him as a person), but it will definitely be interesting to watch this play out. Petey Plane (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have preferred that they would have banned him on one of his earlier, more obvious harassment actions. Twitter has generally been laissez-faire about their harassment policy with very few people getting punished so this may lead towards a more proactive service.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The big problem with kicking Milo's arse off Twitter is that they didn't do it because they give a shit about harassment, they did it because this time it was targeted at a celebrity. There's no evidence this will make Twitter the least bit better - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 15:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

David is absolutely right. There are one set of rules for famous people and another for the "dregs" of society. This notwithstanding, can't we all just take pleasure in the fact that a massive douchebag finally got his comeuppance? Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to feel schadenfreude about Milo being banned from Twitter AND criticize Twitter's banning policies.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 16:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And I have every intention of continuing! Particularly given the sage advice of Milo 2012 - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

His religion...

Is it really that important we mention he's a "'Jewish' Roman Catholic"? Or is the irony too obvious to point out? ^{— Unsigned, by: Evolution and Metamorphosis / talk / contribs}

Yeah, he's one of those ones; the same people who claim Islamophobia isn't racism (which in some cases, it isn't), but are comfortable treating Judaism as some kind of "race" or "ethnicity", even though they do not practice the religion or believe in it. Milo calling himself a Jew is like Sam Harris calling himself a Jew...oh wait! Selective Judaism, I call it. They dismiss all the rules and teachings of Judaism EXCEPT matrilineality. Them: "Even though I'm an Atheist, my mother was a Jew, therefore I am a Jew". Me: "Why?". Them: "Because the Mishnah says so". Me: "But I thought you were an Atheist?" --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the irony? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Jew is an ethnic category just like "Irish" is. Or will bar all Bostonians who cannot correctly pronounce the original Irish title of the Prime Minister of Ireland from St. Patrick's Day celebrations, because they don't "practice Irishness"? Worzelpete (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, Judaism is both a nation and a religion. So an atheist Jew isn't a contradiction. CorruptUser (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Bravo for @Levi Ackerman for his reasoning on this absurdity behind identity and names - I assume I have got it right - so, I must elaborate by taking on another glaring example of identity (names) misuse - Bosnian Muslims: this name "Muslims" with capital "M" was imposed on them by Yugoslav communists after the WWII but only after 1974. Between 1918 and 1974 they and Bosnia as a country were first under the rule of extremely nationalistic Serbian monarchy at the helm of so-called "First Yugoslavia", and since WWII under communists, and were not allowed any ethnic or national name - they were allowed to call themselves "muslims" with small "m", or Serbs, or Croats, and since 1974 "Muslims" with capital "M". Reason behind this was Bosnian disputed history and territory (disputed only by Serbian and Croatian nationalism), and of course their religion of Islam. Soon as they freed themselves from Serbian or Croatian nationalism, or communist ideological regime, Bosnian Muslims ditched this name, invented and imposed on them by nationalist of other ethnic groups, for their historic one - Bosniaks (or Bosnians).
Absurdity of this invention was all too obvious: in communist (socialist) Yugoslavia (but also before the and during the WWII) these people were persuaded to leave their religion for atheism, fortunately in most cases by means of school, social and political system and not straightforward violence. Result was: masses of "muslims", later "Muslims", who were first partisan fighters and communists atheists in resistance movement fighting Nazism and fascism, then officials of extremely secular atheist communist/socialist regime (if interested search for Raif Dizdarević for nice example) - just imagine, Muslim politician Muhamed (Bosnian for Mohamed) as an atheist communist secretary of something in secular atheist communist regime !
These people ditched this absurd conflation of their religion with their ethnic and national identity for good in 1992.
However, this example of people refusing to conflate their religion of Islam with their ethnic or national name can't in any way reverse rational behind equation of Islamophobia and racism - Islamophobia is racism, as it is the case with anti-Semitism.
Identity being entirely abstract category, one can take "Muslim" and "Jew" as both religion and ethnic/national identity, while other may not recognize it as such - both of them are correct.
Most of Jews take name "Jew" as their identity name, most Muslims refuse it for some other name (Bosnian, Albanian, Turk, Palestinian, etc.).
But it's important to note that there are some (and I know few, some even personally) who say they are Jews only by their ancestry - as atheists almost certainly must be from family whose members were at some point adherents of some religion, or even mix marriage, like in Yugoslavia and particularly Bosnia - while now, being atheists themselves, they only identify with their nation of origin and refuse "Jew" as identity name. I prefer their reasoning in this issue.
At the end this means this cretin can call himself Jew, Greek-Jew, Greek-British-Catholic-Jew, Greek god, whatever.--౪ Santa ౪^{ʘ ʘ ʘ 99°} 20:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted with "Where is the beef?" on Milo's "Sugar Daddies" bragging

Well, the "beef" can be found in the fact that he is a prostitute both for money and fame, and one so fucking perverted and narcissistic, especially when it comes to his conviction that he is so fucking hot and desirable, as Adonis (personification for Greek's goddess sexual lust and desire) himself, that he will gladly reveal how random visitors in hotel bar are so enchanted by his appearance that they are willing to pay him 20K dollars for two nights of sex !
He is bragging that he is actually elite prostitute, because he obviously believe that this is something to brag about after all. Imagine, some random rich dude is willing to pay him 20 thousand for night or two of sex - how great and beautiful and irresistible he must be !?

My edit: Sugar Daddies (subtitle to His own sexuality) In an interview for Bloomberg he admitted receiving large sums of money for having sex with people hitting on him in the hotel bars, basically admitting he's not shy when it comes to elite prostitution either. He claims that he "hangs around a lot of rich people, some of whom were his sugar daddies". He goes to described some of his payed "adventures" to his interviewer and explains how when he was last time in Los Angeles, for example, "a white man at the Sunset Tower bar approached him and gave him $10,000 after having sex with him twice and another $10,000 the following night".

Passage from interview at Bloomberg: "He says he also hangs around a lot of rich people, some of whom were his sugar daddies. Last time he was in Los Angeles, he says, a white man at the Sunset Tower bar hit on him and gave him $10,000 after having sex with him twice and another $10,000 the following night."

If this delusion of grandeur and self-importance isn't descriptive of his personality, character and sexuality then his narrative of being victim of sexual predation in his adolesence isn't either.--౪ Santa ౪^{ʘ ʘ ʘ 99°} 23:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoah, easy now — we don't need to immerse ourself in graphical explorations of his sex life, as long as said sex life takes place between consenting adults (in contrast to, say, the interview portion). He's an adult homosexual. He bangs adult men. He lets adult men bang him. What's the problem? We're not the Drudge Report. For all the things that can (and should) be said by us about this shady character in an unequivocally damning tone, the fact that the man is gay and has a sex life is probably the last of those things. Having a sugar daddy doesn't mean you lack all self-respect or human dignity, you know. If anything, a much more relevant angle would be mentioning the fact that he drones on and on about his sexual extravagance to Bloomberg — something that may well fit his general M.O. of ceaseless attention whoring. But we're not actually going to cross-examine what he does with his anus. We're not the Daily Heil. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me for disparaging him for being gay and having sex life? I am really a bit perplexed.--౪ Santa ౪^{ʘ ʘ ʘ 99°} 04:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he is disparaging you for that, rather your points about his sex life kind of exist in a vacuum. I think if you focus on how his supposed sexual libertinism meshes with his advocacy for conservative policy, and the hypocrisy that may entail, your addition will fit better into the page. Petey Plane (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying Reverend Black Percy disparaging me, I said he rather thinks that it's me who disparaging Milo for being gay and having sex life - point of edit I tried to make was that Milo is actually brags how some random guys are so enchanted by his beauty and general attractiveness that random guys are more then willing to pay him 20K for two nights of sex. Maybe my English is really bad (isn't my first lang.), so I'm doing bad job explaining entire point? I couldn't care less if he is a gay, or if was raped by his father, or if he's having sex with his pet-fish, or being eunuch inventing and selling his fantasies as cheap porn stories - my edit was about narcissism so prevalent in his character, about delusional and self-centered personality: he brags because he want you and me to know that he's worth at least 10, 20 thousand a night, that he's simply irresistible - and by the way, this is no small part of his money-making, he calls it "sugar daddy" I call it elite prostitution - but, no way he's worth just a hundred bucks, not even just thousand, .... see the point?! If you want to spend a night with Adonis, well, you have to pay him ludicrous amount of money. All this is about his disjoint personality and character, and not about, in the words of Reverend Black Percy, "what he does with his anus" in his spare time.--౪ Santa ౪^{ʘ ʘ ʘ 99°} 17:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

Pippa (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What Pythagoras did for math, Milo does for prolling. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never cared for Milo Yiannopoulos, partly because I think he's a misogynist and a theocrat and largely because a lot of the things he says seem to condone child-abuse but don't pretend you actually care about that. You just hate him because he's politically incorrect and makes fun of the American liberal elite along with their cripple-brained foot soldiers. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Slightly off topic

This is slightly off topic, but can somebody explain how "professional victim" is a snarl word when applied to feminists and SJWs, but a totally valid criticism when applied to people like Milo? DeusKek1987 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bit like how "identity politics" is a snarl word when directed at feminists and SJWs, but a totally valid discourse when utilized by white supremacists, racialists and other identitarians to invent divisions between imagined groups? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting VERY off topic since Milo is neither a white supremacist, nor a radicalist. By the way, when you try to change the subject like that to avoid hard questions it undermines rational discourse. :) DeusKek1987 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I was changing the topic. I think that what we're both driving at here is the existence of something called hypocrisy. Certainly a feature of the human experience, no? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Childhood leukemia is also a feature of the human experience, but it's one we try to avoid when possible. So if one were inclined to remedy these hypocrisies we've brought up, where would you recommend one start? --DeusKek1987 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that delightful non-answer. Cheers mate. --DeusKek1987 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

??? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested funny names

So Dick Coughlan, the genius that he is put out an anti-Milo video here. But during the video he came up with a fun nickname. Milo Yankinoffkidsalot. Think we should have this as a joke strikethrough like some of our other articles? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, and no. Also, the others should probably be removed, they encourage the desperately unfunny to think they're amusing - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding descriptors

Because I have hit a snag with previous edits on articles of proven scumbags, I'll ask before making the actual edit. In the lede, can I add that he is a noted misogynist, pedophilia apologist (probably even a pedophile), racist, science-denialist, conservative, and Catholic? All of those things have been proven, so adding them should be a no-brainer, but again, some people on here would rather idly stand by than calling out evil when they see it. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Edit: I forgot rape apologist. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to write some lawsuit-bait that's 3edgy5us poltroons, you could always start your own blog and do it there - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it why we have categories? Again, show, don't tell. It's more productive to describe his actions and let the reader come to her own conclusions than labeling people right off the bat. It's not "mincing words because feelings might be hurt", it's not being "soft" on known evil doughnut cavities, it's a known tried and true writing technique. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)