So, are you arguing that Trump won for absolutely no reason? Seems like an unproductive perspective.

Absolutely. Look at your behaviour and spend a bit of time reflecting on it. You might see what I mean.

I'm not surprised. Your meltdown in this thread is kind of sad.

I just feel embarrassed for you at this point.

The fact that you're literally claiming that by holding an opinion that is different to yours is proof that I have 'an agenda', which may well be that I'm being employed by Real Time, Milo Yiannopoulous or Bill Maher is just insane.

No, what you're doing is proving why Trump won, and why liberalism is sadly in retreat as a viable, productive political force.

Oh for god's sake. Is that REALLY the direction you want to take this thread in? 'You disagree with me, so you must work for Real Time, Milo, or Bill Maher himself!'. Don't be such an absolute fucking fool.

He didn't 'give Milo a tongue bath'. That's such a strange reading of eight minutes, and really does seem to be based on the fact that he wasn't adversarial in a way that you feel is morally appropriate. He told him that he didn't agree with his politics, he shut him down when he attacked other guests, he let Larry…

Right, so your argument actually is 'fuck those kids'. You're not actually interested in the damage that political provocateurs can cause their targets. You're more interested in being a sanctimonious hypocrite.

But, what would that look like? What should Maher have done? Should he have run down a list of Milo's greatest hits, insisted that each one was incorrect, and demanded that Milo either explain himself or apologise?

Yeah, because FUCK those kids who then have to go to school having seen their parents being ridiculed by a millionaire filmmaker, right? Fuck those stupid security guards who were framed as being complicit in the abuses of GM! I bet they were 'just following orders' like ANOTHER famous group of white uniform-wearers!

Maher told him that he had significant disagreements with him across the board, told him to respect the people that he was being rude to on 'Overtime', while highlighting the free speech advocacy work that Maher has been famous for.

Sadly, this is very true.

The silly gun nuts featured in Bowling For Columbine weren't public figures. Neither were the secretaries and security guards featured in Roger & Me or Farenheit 9/11. Or the NRA guys, the anti-Marilyn Manson demonstrators, or the cop who tossed people's belongings out onto the street in Roger and Me. They weren't…

No. What Michael Moore does is create incredibly entertaining, very funny hit pieces on his political enemies, which absolutely enrage the silly Fox News conservatives that we love to hate, while conveniently forgetting that they are also people with families and children who suffer as a result.

Which is as ridiculous a position as refusing to interview Michael Moore or any other figurehead of a political wing.

So, is the AV Club's position that Bill Maher should have invited Milo Yiannopolous onto 'Real Time' for the sole purpose of berating him about his politics?

Be very, very careful with stuff like that. This is a zero sum game. I had a three day argument over Milo Yiannopoulous, because I professed that I had very serious problems with many aspects of his belief system, but that I wouldn't blindly accept that he 'advocated for ethnic cleansing' without a citation or quote.…

Why would I 'accept that I'm wrong' when you've utterly, utterly failed to provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary?

How would your college feel about you using uncited, unreferenced, potentially actionable claims in a paper? Do you think your college would buy your 'but EVERYBODY KNOWS it is true, so I shouldn't have to provide a source!' crap?