The reason that he's banned from being interviewed on CNN, from what I can gather, is not beacause he is a gay person that isn't a democrat (as he and his allies claim), but because he has nothing meaningful to say but spewing toxic nonsense At least the KKK and Syrian presidents had something meaningful to be interviewed about. Their perspectives are interesting, regardless of how you may feel about them Milo criticizes CNN as "the citadel of fake news", but gets butthurt when they ban him from being interviewed? What kind of twisted logic is that? Also, why are you calling out CNN when Twitter permanently banned him back in July? Clearly there is something wrong with him and not these social outlets. At the end of the day, CNN can decide who they want to ban from interviewing. It's their news source, and I don't blame them for wanting to keep the news civil.
If you don't think Milo doesn't have anything to say then you aren't really listening to him. Twitter banned him because he said something relatively mean to another person (in what was clearly a joke), and then that person was attacked by trolls. You can compare his account to at least half of the SJW crowd and he will come off as a saint by comparison. At the end of the day, CNN can do whatever the hell it wants, it's their company. But they take highly biased and political stances, and barring Milo is only political. It has nothing to do with news. And the argument "They are trying to keep their news civil" falls flat when you look at all the articles and hit-pieces they write on the guy, but then refuse to have him on. All you are saying is "All these people are treating him badly, so he must be bad" when he hasn't actually done anything worth the label, which is exactly why I think Milo is a topic to bring up.
Except they did Edit: Of course there was more to the story than that, here is a relevant article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-banned-from-twitter/?utm_term=.e7f6847d9fa7 Again, nobody is saying he is a saint, but he was banned for basically being unrepentant about the trolling Leslie received. I'm not going to go through and search up all his tweets from the time (though I'll try and find a more encapsulating article) but he didn't really say anything all that bad Further Edit: One of the reasons it is so hard to find these tweets in an article citing how bad Milo was, is because nothing he said, they could point to and say "This is horrible, of course he should be banned". It was all just unapologetic stuff
If anybody can actually find me something bad Milo said on twitter, I'd appreciate it. Admittedly I'm not searching that hard, but this is about the worst I could find
He continuously harassed Leslie after she made it clear he should stop, made him aware she was getting massive hate because of him, and after he circulated a fake tweet that made her seem like the hateful person Milo is From what I can tell, there are other tweets of him being bigotted, racist, and transphobic, tho obviously we can't look back on them because he is permabanned Twitter, like us, have rules against harassment. This was one of those cases that went too far, and he experienced the ramifications
He's crass and rude for one thing. For another, the entire cast of Ghostbusters had been complaining for weeks about the failure of the movie. And the internet does what the internet does. Leslie was just a little more pronounced than the rest.
Missed this reply before, so I am late, but: Except there isn't any evidence, which is why I don't believe for a moment he ever said anything bigoted, racist, or transphobic. He has irked every major left-wing media outlet, and many smaller ones. Hundreds of thousands of people scrutinized him before this ban. Yet there is only a small handful of tweets that could even be marginally applied to Milo being a 'hateful person', and the majority are politically-charged jokes. Equal parts inflammatory and discussion-starting. This is the internet. What happens, without fail, any time popular shows distress over something? The trolls come, and the larger the reaction they get, the more that come, and the harder they hit. When it comes down to it, you have a bunch of people doing exactly what you are doing: Claiming Milo is this hateful, evil person and citing a bunch of other people saying Milo is a hateful, evil person. Look at any article written about him, then actually go and listen to his speeches, or read the articles he has wrote. You'll find what people say about him and what he actually does to be incredibly different things.
For someone who said earlier in the thread that Milo is a cunt, you sure are defending his actions pretty hard
Honestly, I love the guy. His tactics work and he knows what he's talking about. I don't agree with him on everything, but I share his views on feminism for sure. He uses the cruel words and arguments of his opponents against them, but adds logic to the equation. He's an individual who encourages opposition, and when his enemies face him, no mercy is shown.
Ben Shapiro is a wonderful man as well. He dislikes Milo and doesn't use extremely aggressive tactics. Shapiro uses logic, sources, and context to prove his points. Ben encourages opposition and hears out his opponents. He then proceeds to deconstruct their arguments in an interesting manner. I agree with Shapiro on many things and I have yet to find a reason to stop.
What is your opinion on him? Personally to me unlike Milo, the likes of Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are huge role models to me and are the reason I want to pursue political science, I like Milo but the way he goes about things obviously aren’t as professional. But Ben Shapiro and his debate skills are like the face of conservative america at this point.