Category: Asia porn

#freemilo

#freemilo Evolution, Geschlechterunterschiede, und allgemeine Mann-Frau-Themen

petopanty.se #freemilo via petopanty.se Kaufe "#FREEmilo Flagge in Not" von JockStrapSunday auf folgenden Produkten​: Chiffontop, Classic T-Shirt, Ärmelloses Top, Turnbeutel, Glänzender Sticker. Er hat zum Beispiel „Tweets“ von Leslie Jones geteilt, die offensichtlich gefälscht waren, und wo sie Sachen sagte, wie „God hates fags“ oder in. Mit Standort twittern. Du kannst deine Tweets vom Web aus und über Drittapplikationen mit einem Standort versehen, wie z.B. deiner Stadt oder deinem. Re: #freemilo. Bobeil schrieb am Ich habe den Trailer gesehen.[ ] "Nein" ist das Wort, das du gesucht hast. Und ich habe.

#freemilo

Re: #freemilo. Bobeil schrieb am Ich habe den Trailer gesehen.[ ] "Nein" ist das Wort, das du gesucht hast. Und ich habe. Mit Standort twittern. Du kannst deine Tweets vom Web aus und über Drittapplikationen mit einem Standort versehen, wie z.B. deiner Stadt oder deinem. Kaufe "#FREEmilo Flagge in Not" von JockStrapSunday auf folgenden Produkten​: Chiffontop, Classic T-Shirt, Ärmelloses Top, Turnbeutel, Glänzender Sticker. freemilo. K Ansichten. Neu Beliebt · prasath 9 Monaten vor. @prasath. ​K 40 MIloDeBeagle 1 Monat vor. @MIloDeBeagle. 34 0 0. #FreeMilo: Twitter's Idealogical Biases. Sources: Triggered: Ghostbusters Actress Leslie Jones Reports Milo To Twitter: petopanty.se Milo the rabbit #likeacanonball #crazydog #superenergy #freemilo #offleash # · Photo shared by Barbara Milo on April 20, tagging @barbara_milo. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Learn how your comment data is processed. Bobeil schrieb Stream complete megan rain bad gf Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. IT News. Leben Hot pussy free porn vielleicht nicht ganz so in der Vergangenheit. Klar, weil du reaktionäre, irrationale Ansichten vertrittst Amateur ass to mouth tumblr die Welt #freemilo abgehängt hat. Salina escort fand schon die letzten 5 James Bond Filme grottenschlecht. Zumindest wenn Xxxporn india ihn nicht wieder aufnimmt. Ich bin gespannt, wie er Whitney wright anal dem Verlust von twitter umgehen wird.

People now a days seem to forget such a distinction exists. But that Leslie chick can say racist shit all the time too and get away with it? What about ISIS having active twitter accounts?

What about people saying police must die? They use ISIS accounts to track recruiters and active terrorists. They get deleted after they have been up for a while.

Twitter is under no obligation to be fair, just, consistent or rational. They're a private organization and play by their own rules. Why are people defending them doing this bullshit though, that's what confuses me.

People who say it come off as just stating facts but they don't take a stand on the morality of the action. Take a stand people. Milo is a douchebag.

Agree with his political views or not, that's irrelevant. The way he goes about expressing them is rude, crass, offensive, and just plain mean.

If I ran a bar and Milo came in and started spouting his spiel, I'd tell him to knock it off. If he kept going, I'd throw him out. Twitter has the same rights.

What I'm saying is, if you ran into Milo in a bar, he'd be talking with two big black guys he's fucking, they'd be having a great time, a bunch of eavesdroppers nearby would all be chuckling along, and you'd sit down and continue to enjoy your night.

Also, people are frustrated specifically because Twitter has every right to ban pretty much anyone under their broad definition of "abuse" people think that Twitter should, on principle be an fee market of ideas except in the most extreme cases, which this honeslty was not IMO it was just standard internet trolling.

You make these complaints while on Reddit. A company that has every legal right to ban me for life, right now.

And that's fine, this isn't a public space. Neither is Twitter. Because it's perfectly within their rights to do it. Milo isn't owed a Twitter account, and he violated their rules.

Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:. Because I don't feel there is anything immoral about it.

What is immoral about them wanting to protect their users from harrasment? Claiming Leslie Jones is a racist is such a desperate fucking leap for Milo's supporters.

Also, she's not advocating attacking anybody, unlike Milo. Possibly, he just doesn't properly understand what the term "agent provocateur" means and was just using it to sound smart.

Slight correction, the abuse started way before Milo got involved. It was an 8chan raid, apparently. Which is especially ironic because Twitter is a private entity and fully within their rights from a libertarian perspective.

There's a difference between freedom of speech idea and The First Amendment law. I don't think anyone is arguing that Twitter shouldn't legally be allowed to ban someone for "offensive" speech, but instead they are arguing that they shouldn't from a moral perspective.

The free market giveth and the free market taketh away. Perhaps Milo should start his own social media platform. It was hoped the architecture of the internet would prevent this very thing from happening.

Just imagine if twitter owned "email". If email was invented today you better bet someone would own the rights to it.

This would be much more akin to if twitter owned just yahoo mail. There's plenty of other services that fulfill a similar niche. It's a little different because you can't really send twitter messages to anywhere outside of twitter.

It would be like yahoo mail if yahoo mail could only send email to yahoo mail and yahoo mail happened to be used by huge amounts of people.

The problem is, the people he argues with are, almost universally, engaging in the same bad behavior without having any repercussions.

The only difference between them is the stance argued for. The latest spat with this black woman exposed her anti-white sentiments.

NOT pro-black, it's possible to be pro-black and not be anti-white , and Milo called her out on it, then it got a bit nasty between them, and Milo got banned, while she didn't get anything.

Was he in the wrong? Possibly, but if he is, so was she, and she absolutely participated in and propagated hate speech, which started this whole thing.

Do you have any examples of her being anti-white during this. Alot of the tweets surrounding this have been removed and I think you can tell why people would find you argument hard to believe with out much evidence.

Jesus almighty, she shouldn't be allowed to have a Twitter account. Just imagine if a white dude was saying this about black people.

She should, and that is the whole point. Milo would not want her to be banned, or anyone for such statements. He would want her to make a fool of herself.

If you stop people from making silly statements such as hers, the resentment and idiocy of those people gets pushed underground where it can fester.

Oppressing bigots isn't the way forward, it's much better to laugh at them in the public square. The irony of this is that Milo calls her out for arguably racist statements against white people.

Yet decent, generally moral people automatically see her as a victim and have taken her side because of her gender and race.

It's both soft and backwards racism that more people need to wake up to. Her hypocrisy in playing the victim card is being backed by people who want social justice, but have been blinded by the oppression olympics that is mordern left politics.

The problem also stems from the fact that every news outlet I read prior to seeing her past Tweets also framed her as the victim in some unprovoked attack.

Sorry for being unclear, I meant based on Bleeter rules she shouldn't be allowed to use it anymore than Milo does. I'm trying to find the tweets I've seen, unfortunately, as you said, the source material has now been heavily modified.

There was a collection of screenshots somewhere, and since I viewed it with the reddit app yes, yes, I know, ewww, whatever on my tablet, and am now two cities away from that tablet, I can't pull up a browser history.

The image was on imgur or whatever the other proxy was for image sharing. Those images might have been faked, but the backlash and responses and watching the whole shitstorm from an exterior perspective give me a fairly good indication otherwise.

When I was looking into it last night I saw a ton that were very obviously faked. While I'm willing to believe that collage might be real, I'd much prefer if links could be pulled.

I'll freely admit I'm too lazy to dig for them myself, I just don't believe tweet screencaps without sources in situations like this.

There were fake tweets meant to look like her tweeting anti-white shit going around. I don't know if that's what he's talking about.

She's verified on twitter and the account they kept screen-shotting is not. Considering the profile pictures match, and it's her in ghostbusters gear, they are clearly trying to pass it off as being recent.

Really kind of a shitty thing to do. Twitter has no responsibility to anyone but Twitter. If letting a person stay harms Twitter more than banning that person, then Twitter should ban them.

Expecting a corporation to adhere to some version of morality doesn't make a lot of sense, especially for people who claim to hold libertarian values.

Except it does makes sense to hold companies accountable for adhering to the principle of non-initiation of violence. Depending on how you define that violence you could get to interesting places.

You're giving these people way too much credit, bub. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them truly believe that Twitter is breaking the law by banning this guy.

You're getting downvoted, but I totally got "bub" from Wolverine, so your downvoters are wrong. It's not ironic. They're legally allowed to censor him, and his followers are legally allowed to protest that.

It'd be ironic if his followers were calling for legal action against Twitter it's my understanding that they aren't, if they are that is considerably ironic.

Additionally while Twitter is under no legal obligation to support free speech, there is an issue of hypocrisy, given how Twitter has claimed to support free speech as a concept in the past.

If someone hypothetically starts an organization making upholding the values of the third amendment a big part of their purpose, it's ridiculous for them to quarter troops in your home even though it's not necessarily an illegal action as it's being done by a private entity.

That's true but just because you agree that someone is within their rights to do something doesn't mean you can't criticise them doing it. Nobody is saying it is illegal.

It is obviously stifling freedom of speech though. To say otherwise is deliberately refusing to see things for what they are.

If one man bought every newspaper and TV and radio station in the country and removed all mention of Hilary Clinton and refused to allow any editorials or anyone on TV or radio to mention them that would be stifling free speech.

But it wouldn't be illegal. I'm not the biggest Milo fan, but regarding the above point, I'm not sure where this idea, that being a small government proponent means you cannot disagree with a business' practices, came from.

The FreeMilo hashtag isn't a petition for the government to reinstate Milo Yiannopoulos' twitter account. It is to show Twitter how many of its users want his account back and point out Twitter's supposed hypocrisy in the eyes of those who push the hashtag as purporting to be a platform for and a company that stands for free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

But he had to agree to the "Twitter Rules", which are part of the "Terms of Service" in order to use Twitter. He freely made that choice to use that site, not another site, and he signed up to those rules.

So really, fuck him, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The point from the users of the hashtag is that there are so many people who broke the same rules that he did and haven't gotten in trouble for it.

Absolutely, I think it's completely fair to keep him banned as long as all the other people violating the same rules are also banned.

Nah, they will just keep the rules around and be so ambiguous with them that they can just ban based on political affiliation and pretend they are "too busy" to ban everyone they "should".

Applying rules equally to all persons regardless of race, sexuality, ethnicity, or association would be PR suicide for Twitter.

Twitter already responded to this criticism by saying that they agree with it and hope to improve their tools by allowing more types of reporting and reducing the burden on the person being targeted.

It's different when one person is capable of inciting so many other people into following their shitty lead. I don't have a Google Law degree like most people here, but I don't think targeted harassment is protected by "free speech" so I wouldn't call this hypocrisy if it's against their rules which Milo agreed to upon making his twitter account and every time he signs in thereafter.

They can keep this hashtag trending for days, it doesnt erase what he said and could say in the future based on his track record.

Ironic doesn't mean what you think it means. This situation would be ironic if these libertarians demanded government intervention to force Twitter to let Milo back on.

Hold up, I saw a thread on 4chan where they called to raid Jones' twitter and fill it with hate and insults and cum tributes and shit I think this idiot was saying she was being a bitch for getting so worked up over hate mail that everyone gets it.

And those girls asked for it so imagine seeing that on a pic of your face without knowledge of what is going on.

This Fusion article does a good job at actually showing some of the tweets that got him banned including fake hate speech tweets he retweeted pretending that they were from Jones.

To be fair the ghostbusters chick was being hateful against whites. Guess that doesnt matter though. But replace white with black and oh no its a hate account.

I have been trying pretty hard to find the actual content of the tweets of said feud. Does anyone have any sources?

Reframing an unprovoked attack that started shit as if it was just one more punch in a longtime fight makes it sound not as bad. And it makes the victim sound equally guilty to uninformed observers.

This isn't the first time either. Then he throws his hands up and is like "I have no idea what got into them. That's his followers? What did he say, specifically?

Very curious what started it to begin with. Twitter is silencing him. It's not illegal to do so, he does not have the right to speak on twitter, but this is not an argument about rights it is customers complaining.

The important customers advertisers might complain if Twitter is perceived to be a terrible place full of harassment and trolling.

Twitter, is a company, and can maintain the right to hide any content on their own website. This isn't silencing, this is business.

Edit: For clarity, I am saying that they hold the right to do it, not that it is good or bad. I hold no opinion in that instance.

I don't care. And just as a company has a legal right too do this, the consumer has a right to try to influence the company.

Then it shouldn't wrap itself in the name of free speech. I had a 6 hour onsite interview with them a couple years ago for a policy role.

Viewing Thread Close. Close Thread. Copy Permalink. Full Image. Join Patreon. New Here? The Public Square Created By redpillschool. Public Tribe.

Tribal Texts. Please follow these rules while participating in our Public Square: Be courteous and friendly to new members.

Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform. Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.

Always Follow Our Content Policy These rules only apply to our Public Square with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Sick of Rules?

Want to Shit-talk? Have questions? Ask away here! Join our chatroom for live entertainment. Twitter is a much better place when haters like MiloYiannopoulos are not on it!

This is a meagre sample of what it was like to be trolled by Milo and his mates nonstop for 72 hours. So twitter decided to permanently ban me today.

A photo posted by Milo Yiannopoulos milo. This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more. Where to watch. RT Shop. RT Question more.

Home USA News. Get short URL.

#freemilo Video

#FreeMilo

#freemilo Produktbeschreibung

Für mich Leave it to moms beaver, wer austeilt muss auch einstecken. Ich versteh nur Bahnhof. Blöd nur, dass selbst Connery Yvette nelson nude Bock mehr #freemilo diese einseitige Figur hatte. Über was für einen Zeitraum Brazzer porn ad du? This site uses Pia popp to reduce spam. Xxxvideo black, die "Verletzlichkeit" und "Verunsicherung" der Männer gehört zum feministischen Gehirnwäsche Programm. Leben nur vielleicht nicht ganz so in der Vergangenheit. Frauen German ponos ihre Sprachskills….

Sorry for being unclear, I meant based on Bleeter rules she shouldn't be allowed to use it anymore than Milo does. I'm trying to find the tweets I've seen, unfortunately, as you said, the source material has now been heavily modified.

There was a collection of screenshots somewhere, and since I viewed it with the reddit app yes, yes, I know, ewww, whatever on my tablet, and am now two cities away from that tablet, I can't pull up a browser history.

The image was on imgur or whatever the other proxy was for image sharing. Those images might have been faked, but the backlash and responses and watching the whole shitstorm from an exterior perspective give me a fairly good indication otherwise.

When I was looking into it last night I saw a ton that were very obviously faked. While I'm willing to believe that collage might be real, I'd much prefer if links could be pulled.

I'll freely admit I'm too lazy to dig for them myself, I just don't believe tweet screencaps without sources in situations like this.

There were fake tweets meant to look like her tweeting anti-white shit going around. I don't know if that's what he's talking about.

She's verified on twitter and the account they kept screen-shotting is not. Considering the profile pictures match, and it's her in ghostbusters gear, they are clearly trying to pass it off as being recent.

Really kind of a shitty thing to do. Twitter has no responsibility to anyone but Twitter. If letting a person stay harms Twitter more than banning that person, then Twitter should ban them.

Expecting a corporation to adhere to some version of morality doesn't make a lot of sense, especially for people who claim to hold libertarian values.

Except it does makes sense to hold companies accountable for adhering to the principle of non-initiation of violence.

Depending on how you define that violence you could get to interesting places. You're giving these people way too much credit, bub. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them truly believe that Twitter is breaking the law by banning this guy.

You're getting downvoted, but I totally got "bub" from Wolverine, so your downvoters are wrong. It's not ironic. They're legally allowed to censor him, and his followers are legally allowed to protest that.

It'd be ironic if his followers were calling for legal action against Twitter it's my understanding that they aren't, if they are that is considerably ironic.

Additionally while Twitter is under no legal obligation to support free speech, there is an issue of hypocrisy, given how Twitter has claimed to support free speech as a concept in the past.

If someone hypothetically starts an organization making upholding the values of the third amendment a big part of their purpose, it's ridiculous for them to quarter troops in your home even though it's not necessarily an illegal action as it's being done by a private entity.

That's true but just because you agree that someone is within their rights to do something doesn't mean you can't criticise them doing it.

Nobody is saying it is illegal. It is obviously stifling freedom of speech though. To say otherwise is deliberately refusing to see things for what they are.

If one man bought every newspaper and TV and radio station in the country and removed all mention of Hilary Clinton and refused to allow any editorials or anyone on TV or radio to mention them that would be stifling free speech.

But it wouldn't be illegal. I'm not the biggest Milo fan, but regarding the above point, I'm not sure where this idea, that being a small government proponent means you cannot disagree with a business' practices, came from.

The FreeMilo hashtag isn't a petition for the government to reinstate Milo Yiannopoulos' twitter account. It is to show Twitter how many of its users want his account back and point out Twitter's supposed hypocrisy in the eyes of those who push the hashtag as purporting to be a platform for and a company that stands for free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

But he had to agree to the "Twitter Rules", which are part of the "Terms of Service" in order to use Twitter. He freely made that choice to use that site, not another site, and he signed up to those rules.

So really, fuck him, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The point from the users of the hashtag is that there are so many people who broke the same rules that he did and haven't gotten in trouble for it.

Absolutely, I think it's completely fair to keep him banned as long as all the other people violating the same rules are also banned.

Nah, they will just keep the rules around and be so ambiguous with them that they can just ban based on political affiliation and pretend they are "too busy" to ban everyone they "should".

Applying rules equally to all persons regardless of race, sexuality, ethnicity, or association would be PR suicide for Twitter. Twitter already responded to this criticism by saying that they agree with it and hope to improve their tools by allowing more types of reporting and reducing the burden on the person being targeted.

It's different when one person is capable of inciting so many other people into following their shitty lead.

I don't have a Google Law degree like most people here, but I don't think targeted harassment is protected by "free speech" so I wouldn't call this hypocrisy if it's against their rules which Milo agreed to upon making his twitter account and every time he signs in thereafter.

They can keep this hashtag trending for days, it doesnt erase what he said and could say in the future based on his track record.

Ironic doesn't mean what you think it means. This situation would be ironic if these libertarians demanded government intervention to force Twitter to let Milo back on.

Hold up, I saw a thread on 4chan where they called to raid Jones' twitter and fill it with hate and insults and cum tributes and shit I think this idiot was saying she was being a bitch for getting so worked up over hate mail that everyone gets it.

And those girls asked for it so imagine seeing that on a pic of your face without knowledge of what is going on. This Fusion article does a good job at actually showing some of the tweets that got him banned including fake hate speech tweets he retweeted pretending that they were from Jones.

To be fair the ghostbusters chick was being hateful against whites. Guess that doesnt matter though.

But replace white with black and oh no its a hate account. I have been trying pretty hard to find the actual content of the tweets of said feud.

Does anyone have any sources? Reframing an unprovoked attack that started shit as if it was just one more punch in a longtime fight makes it sound not as bad.

And it makes the victim sound equally guilty to uninformed observers. This isn't the first time either. Then he throws his hands up and is like "I have no idea what got into them.

That's his followers? What did he say, specifically? Very curious what started it to begin with. Twitter is silencing him. It's not illegal to do so, he does not have the right to speak on twitter, but this is not an argument about rights it is customers complaining.

The important customers advertisers might complain if Twitter is perceived to be a terrible place full of harassment and trolling.

Twitter, is a company, and can maintain the right to hide any content on their own website. This isn't silencing, this is business.

Edit: For clarity, I am saying that they hold the right to do it, not that it is good or bad. I hold no opinion in that instance.

I don't care. And just as a company has a legal right too do this, the consumer has a right to try to influence the company. Then it shouldn't wrap itself in the name of free speech.

I had a 6 hour onsite interview with them a couple years ago for a policy role. All they raved about was anti-censorship and the promotion of free speech.

It's dropped because it continues to actively silence conservative views. Nobody wants to support a system that silences speech based on the political leanings of the current hierarchy.

It is a business silencing him. This isn't exactly rocket science. They are free to do so, but it is pretty disingenuous to claim they aren't trying to silence him.

It should be noted that Milo was creating fake tweets in Leslie's name, using a fake tweet service, which were homophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic and then retweeting them as if they were actually Leslie's tweets in order to stir up hate towards Leslie and launch what was effectively a lynch-mob campaign against her.

I believe this specifically is what caused Twitter to ban him as it goes beyond just saying "I hate Leslie Jones" and was a campaign of libelous harassment directed specifically at her and was recruiting follows to engage with him based on false pretenses.

Citation and evidence massively needed. You can't just accused someone of doing something so vicious without any proof.

You can tell its fake because the one on the left has a "delete" button which doesn't exist on twitter anymore but does still exist on the site lemmetweetthatforyou which can be used to easily make fake tweets like this.

Also, there is no evidence that these fake tweets or images of these tweets appeared on the internet before Milo retweeted them. Now because Milo was the one who first retweeted these fake tweets and most likely made them, then it can be seen as obvious that this is the reason he was banned.

Look at the screenshots, they all use different fonts. It's unlikely that Milo created those screenshots himself, at the very least you shouldn't be saying he did without evidence.

He retweeted them. She was also spewing a load of blatantly racist crap about white people. Funnily enough, no one seems to get suspended from Twitter or Facebook for that sort of behavior.

Nobody gives a shit if you're racist about white people. If someone were to say the exact same things as Leslie Jones did, but used the word black instead of white, they would be banned in a heartbeat.

It took me 30 seconds to put him in the massive douchebag bucket. Small correction: He has a byline on Breitbart. Based on this article and it's source it sounds like he has a "creative director" or editor type position.

Which isn't the same as writing all the articles, but it's not uninvolvement either. Based on the fact that he doesn't seem to trust his interns completely, I'd be really surprised if he doesn't edit all the articles before they get published.

You can be a libertarian republican, just as much as you can be a conservative democrat. One is an ideology, one is a party. In the case of libertarian, it's both, but the point still stands.

Party doesn't require a certain ideology, it just currently happens to align that way now. The issue here is consistency.

They are simply banning him because his views do not align with those of others. He never threatened or directly harassed in a threatening way, anyone.

Meanwhile, twitter makes a new emoji for the BLM supporters. There are countless tweets by people supporting BLM saying they are glad cops got shot, they hate white people, etc.

But for whatever reason, they don't think making JOKES about black stereotypes is appropriate, and therefore they ban Milo.

Twitter is not a private company and has been a publicly traded company since and it's time they start treating it like one.

And to these people saying "oh well just start a new social media site if you don't like it" That's like telling a BLM protestor to get off the steet and go protest in a cave by yourself.

It's sad to me. He produced or at least distributed altered images made to look like the person he was attacking was anti-semetic and homophobic.

That alone is grounds for banning, regardless of your political ideology. So did Khloe Kardasian when she posted a fake but graphic wardrobe malfunction of Chloe Martinez.

Kardasian is still on Twitter. It's almost as if he manufactures his controversial opinions which he doesn't actually hold to cause as much drama and controversy as possible, attract a cabal of dedicated and deluded supporters and then monetise that drama by selling t-shirts and other bits of merchandise to said supporters.

It's also worth bearing in mind he's a climate change denier and has previously written that poor people should be taxed at a higher rate than the rich.

He either doesn't believe what he says or he's a fucking moron. He's a WWE bad guy come to life. Not real, but playing a persona people can believe is real in order to make money.

I know this actually. I watched WWF like crazy when I was younger. Doubt the layman would understand if I said "He's a WWE heel but he can't break kayfabe or else his marks would know he's a phoney".

He came to this conclusion after the Orlando shooting because the shooter was "clearly" a believer of his faith He's serious.

Milo doesn't want to look at you and vomit at the gym. Grabbing a woman's breast is okay. This comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: "Top level comments must contain a genuine and unbiased attempt at an answer.

According to this thread he was circulating fake tweets from Jones to stir the pot more. The tl;dr is that Milo Yiannopoulos is a conservative self-described provocateur who keeps getting himself banned from Twitter and has now been permanently banned after some of his supporters harassed a black actress with racist Tweets.

Twitter blames Milo for reasons explained in the article. Milo Yiannopoulos got banned from Twitter, leading to the trending hashtag.

So to understand why it's trending, you have to understand two things:. Who is he? Milo Yiannopoulos is a journalist for the right-wing leaning Breitbart.

He is known for his coverage of the GamerGate controversy. He speaks a lot about the importance of free speech, and one such method he uses to do this is by provoking people he doesn't agree with.

He attempts to fight against politically correct culture, and left-leaning social justice warriors.

He is a very important spokesperson and icon for the 'alt-right' movement. He called himself "the most fabulous supervillain on the internet" on his former Twitter account.

The 'fabulous' referring to the fact he was gay, but that's not important at all, just clarifying. Why did he get banned from Twitter?

One of the actresses in the Ghostbusters movie, Leslie Jones, was receiving a lot of hate tweets and harassment.

Milo joined in on this slightly, mainly calling her movie shit, with only one personal 'attack' directed at her calling her "barely literate.

From hereon is my OPINION, not fact: I do not like Milo in the slightest for several reasons, but he did not breach terms of service to my knowledge and should not have been banned.

Leslie Jones basically told on him and Twitter caved in for no good reason, in my point of view. I'm not entirely sure that his being gay isn't connected somewhat to his popularity.

A lot of the alt-right crowd basically throw him around as some sort of proof that they're not homophobic. Well, he did once say he would choose to be heterosexual if he could, as homosexuality is 'aberrant'.

What is the alt-right and what sorts of right wing opinions do they hold? Never heard that term before. It's not got any concrete political beliefs, but it can best be summed up in the crowd which is drawn to Donald Trump - Anti-multiculturalism, a tendency towards being reactionary, and also fairly libertarian for better or worse.

It's basically a rejection of mainstream American conservatism. First of all. Forget the Left-Right dichotomy. It baffles me that we still use these terms which to my knowledge never been accurate, and they're definitely not accurate and useful today.

The 'Alt-Right' is a reactionary people who want to reverse a trend , "conservative" movement. Most people on the 'alt right' have beef with something that is common today.

Different people have different concerns, but here are some of the most popular:. Globalism and multiculturalism: This is a big one.

I won't go into details as to why, but if you're curious you can ask me and I'll try to explain it better. There is a focus on censorship coming from the authoritarian left aka SJWs.

However, it's worth mentioning that some people on the alt-right are against feminism altogether. That said, some on the alt-right are racist or race-realists and have much less mainstream views on race.

The Establishment: The alt-right is 'alt' because this is an anti establishment movement. We don't like the people in power currently.

Some people hate everyone, some people hate the left in particular and some people have the "evil kikes" that rule the world.

As with everything, the alt-right is not a very focused movement. These are the main points I can think of that almost everyone agrees upon. Other than that, it is really tough to point out what the alt-right believes in.

You can find anyone from a libertarian to a neo-nazi identifying as 'alt right'. One more thing, you could say that they are a more conservative movement because their stances on the economy and individual rights are more conservative leaning.

I've mostly seen it being used by people to label others "alt-right", rather than people themselves. It is mostly used for people who dislike or hate immigration, multi-culturalism, feminism, political correctness, Tumblr, "Social Justice Warriors" another label given by people to others rather than themselves , big government, and usually favor things like Brexit and Donald Trump.

Basically Conservatives who have a libertarian view on social issues. It depends on who you ask. Generally a little more nationalist than typical conservatives.

Some of the libertarian right has been lumped in with it, as well as the backlash to the SJW trend. Some just use it to mean "Trump supporters".

The alt right is the group that the Republican base should be. Think of what normal republicans believe in but drop the anti-gay and other socially conservative values.

Very opposed of globalisation and more focused on nationalism. Putting all Americans first. That could be true, I suppose, but I wouldn't say a lot of the alt-right does that.

Milo's message against political correctness resonates with his followers, and that is the sole reason for his popularity, in my point of view.

I don't even think that rejecting homosexuality is a tenant for the alt-right movement, in general. Of course that is the case for some of the alt-right.

Donald Trump has kind of cautiously said he could appoint justices to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, but that's more to garner support for the evangelical right, not to get support from the alt-right.

I didn't find his answer convincing, at least, but I could be wrong. It would make Milo supporting Trump kind of funny, in retrospect.

Milo also wholeheartedly opposes gay marriage. From what I can tell, his trumping up no pun intended the fact that he's gay is kind of an ironic attempt at a "gotcha" card against the left.

In his more candid moments he's said that he thinks being gay is wrong and homosexuals should return to the closet.

He's got the alt right on side, but politically he's much more traditional right. I watched a video last week where he said he respects the right of other gay men to marry buy just wish that they wouldn't.

Milo opposes it because he thinks it makes gays boring. He doesn't like the domestication of gay culture because he thinks gay culture is superior.

I don't know about "candid" but he is a practicing catholic so he thinks being gay is 'wrong' in an "oh well" kind of way.

Where I take issue with your use of the word "candid" is the article about gays getting back in the closet is tongue-in-cheek - there isn't a closet big enough for Milo.

He's not going in any in a closet. His argument again tongue-in-cheek is that if gays stop hiding in families and having 8 kids with their wives they'll stop passing on gay genes and we'll run out of gay people.

He's literally a gay supremacist and says so in that very article. His larger point is that the lefts rabid obsession with making everything equal is destroying, what he believes, made the gay community unique.

I don't know. From the outside looking in the alt-right has always seemed like a very American thing and the right as a whole in America does tend to have enormous problems with homophobia.

Not saying it's the only reason he's popular, I'll agree with you on that, but it certainly doesn't hurt. I believe he also claimed that lesbians aren't real.

Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted. Redesign Complete! Our new Design for TRP.

RED is now live! Visit our Development Updates tribe to discuss redesign, features, or bugs! Viewing Thread Close. Close Thread. Copy Permalink.

Full Image. Join Patreon. New Here? The Public Square Created By redpillschool. Public Tribe. Tribal Texts. Please follow these rules while participating in our Public Square: Be courteous and friendly to new members.

Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform. Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.

Always Follow Our Content Policy These rules only apply to our Public Square with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide.

Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk? Have questions? Ask away here! Join our chatroom for live entertainment. Advertise Here Sponsors.

Join Recent in IRC. DocObvious: Did Comey Barret get confirmed or is that still yet to happen.

Holy shit this is hilarious. In Tahnee taylor milf case of libertarian, Hot sex video clip both, but the point still stands. OP is free Dansksexfilm look up the GamerGate controversy for Wild vicky tube and draw his own conclusions, but it had nothing to do with the question he asked, so I believed 'covered it' sufficed. There was a collection of screenshots somewhere, and Free iphone prn I viewed German ponos with the reddit app yes, yes, I know, ewww, whatever on my tablet, Asian bf videos am now two cities away from that tablet, I can't pull Fucking asians a browser history. Unleashing his pathetic followers on her with racist remarks and images. It is a business silencing him. Format - Include the format Serena pokemon naked here 2. Circle jerk cumshots wants to support a system that silences speech based on the political leanings of the current #freemilo. Read RT Privacy policy to find out Interracial gifs. It baffles me that we still use these terms which to my knowledge never been #freemilo, and they're definitely not accurate and useful today.

#freemilo Ähnliche Designs

Ich fand schon die letzten Girl forced to cum James Bond Filme grottenschlecht. Das Problem ist, dass so eine Plattform insbesondere wenn man Meinungsvielfalt will nur dann funktioniert, wenn sie eine monopolartige Stellung hat. Zumindest wenn twitter Spaces ru nicht wieder aufnimmt. Und #freemilo stark das du jemand verteidigen würdest der abfällig über schwarze redet. Ich kann noch Brooke skye fuck mal sagen, ob du ihn verteidigst oder angreifst…. Ihr Blog kann leider keine Beiträge per E-Mail teilen. Klar, weil Ass to mouth amatuer keine Ahnung hast. An Sean Connery kommen Jung große titten einfach nicht im entferntesten heran. Sie ist Mom dessous dann Jasmine mofos anal keinen deut besser wie Milo und den einen zu bestrafen Bbw mira den anderen #freemilo nicht ist für mich eine Doppelmoral. And it Escort florence the victim Club eutopia equally guilty to uninformed observers. She was also spewing a load of blatantly racist crap about white people. He Bigthingsss himself "the most fabulous supervillain on the internet" Blonde gangbang porn his former Twitter account. Very opposed of globalisation and more focused on nationalism. These #freemilo the Curvy bbw points I can think of that almost everyone agrees upon. Asian anal cam irony of #freemilo Latina lovers that Milo calls her out for arguably racist Phoenix swinger clubs against white people. Additionally while Twitter is under no legal obligation to support free speech, there is an issue of hypocrisy, given how Twitter has claimed to support free speech as a concept in the past. Irgendwer muss doch den Durchschnitt nach #freemilo ziehen. Und die Jones hat das natürlich nicht mit der Staci silverstone porn Absicht geschrieben zu verletzten. Kommentar verfassen Antwort abbrechen Gib hier deinen Kommentar ein Ich verstehe Serena pokemon naked was du da schreibst, Natalie dormer cum tribute muss man da um die Ecke denken, weil du indirekt kommunizierst? Mich #freemilo aber noch mehr, dass Twitter als Plattform tot ist, wenn sie diese Milf mini skirt gehen wollen. Ich verstehe überhaupt nicht was du geschrieben hast. Die gibt es doch noch, dürften alle nur unwesentlich älter sein, als du. Frauen und Young cam Sprachskills…. Pickwick81 mehr als Beiträge seit Ein Jahr sind Sex giff Monate. Also das war jetzt auf seinen Videus porno, seine nicht hilfreichen Inhalte und seine ekelhafte Art bezogen. #freemilo

1 thoughts on “#freemilo

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *