The thing about rightness is that it's not a currency. You can do wrong, and you can try and make up for it by doing right, and you may succeed. But you can't do right and treat that rightness like a good credit rating for when you feel like doing wrong.

Which of course destroys any notion that his "free speech" is under threat from any specific media platform turning him away.

Maybe, but there is some good news on that: since some of its leading lights have been getting media exposure, Breitbart has been haemorrhaging advertisers.

Maher really is representative of the kind of liberalism that people rightly despise - the left-libertarian idea that it would be great if the world was a better place and that we need to leave the right-wing alone so that they can get on with achieving it for us. Like a dumber version of Richard Dawkins, he seems to…

"This is an extremely dangerous line of thinking. It imposes a belief that the audience is not operating on your level, and is incapable of making the same judgements as you are."

Exactly. If you attempt to reason with them, you are effectively saying that there's a way for a person to be rationally anti-Semitic. Maybe you'd be saying "well, this guy hates Jews, but that's because a Jew killed his parents - we need to find that out before we judge him"… but that's endorsing the irrationality.…

"Further, way to miss the satire on sensational headlines that can be spun anyway that fits your needs."

"I don't find Yiannapolous as being the equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."

And c) they're not even ideas that he's really willing to defend himself.

"But he isn't free to any platform,"

The mistake you've made there is in thinking that there is ANY response to Milo which doesn't "play right into their hands". Anyone who has ever dealt with any political zealot will know that absolutely every response to them (including no response) will be couched in claims that it proves that they won. The idea…

Well yes, if I was being more thorough I would see that he comes off like every provincial twink who has mistaken the attention he gets from creepy old guys for positive feedback for his pseudo-outRAGEous personality. When he gets near thirty, some subconscious part of him realises the truth and starts dressing far…

No, it's gay slang.

Bill Maher isn't gay, he just has a gay face.

It's not remotely disturbing. It's more disturbing that self-proclaimed liberals have bought into this ludicrous absolutist notion that if we don't give a privileged platform to literal Nazis, we are the REAL Nazis.

"By treating him as though he's some kind of communicable virus which people are powerless to resist upon media contact, you have empowered him beyond his potential or skill as an orator."

Basically, there are people who only believe in the reciprocity and the social contract in as far as it allows them to bamboozle the stupider kind of liberal into tolerating their toxic presence.

Trumpjoke.gif

Everything that people claim is a terrible consequence of the Internet's existence is something that can happen - and usually has happened - before, with inferior technology. The Internet is empowering of ordinary people - that's why we're supposed to hate it and think that it was better when everything was on paper.

"Old Media absolutely does despise New Media and internet content. I don't think I've ever read any reporting on internet media and personalities that wasn't dripping with disdain, and reeking of "Kids these days" or "Can you believe what they do on the internet?"."