Australia Bans Milo...For This Analysis Of The Christchurch Shooting.....

His context was clearly this attack, was it not?

 

I've watched some of his speeches. He's both. He's a disgusting little Brit.

 

His "summary?"

 

The context, that I'm referring to, is his complete statement. If you read the full text, that excerpt looks pretty innocuous.

 

Agreed, but sadly the snowflakes in the Australian government chose moral and intellectual cowardice and laziness, instead.

Since Milo's opinion is likely shared by a significant number of Aussies, sweeping it under the rug instead of confronting it out in the open is the worst possible option, regardless of how good it makes some people feel.

 

I guess it depends on one's personal set of definitions.

I don't see it.

 

Actually, Milo is married to a black guy, so if he's a racist, he's doing a pretty terrible job of being one!

 

"Known method?"

 

His stated "belief" is that this shooting was caused by leftist coddling of Muslims. Ridiculous, and he doesn't actually believe it. He knows exactly what caused this shooting, insane foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing internet commentary.

 

No.....his line that got him banned.


Attacks like this happen because the establishment panders to and mollycoddles extremist Leftism and barbaric, alien religious cultures......snip~


They don't like it to be known that they mollycoddle.

For myself, I would first have to see what Molly looks like and what she coddles.

 

Butt fungus?

 

Questionable use of a comma. Summary execution.

 

And my racist grandparents have 3/4 Mexican great grandchildren that they love and adore. And if you don't believe they're racists, boy do I have some stories to tell you.

Look, I come from Southern white Americans. I understand our place in history and where we come from. I don't hate or even dislike my grandparents (who I love and respect) or other racists that I work with on a daily basis. They're products of a culture, and they're not as inquisitive as I am, most people aren't.

But Milo isn't one of us. He's a cynical Brit who saw a niche he could carve out and makes a living lib-triggering. He doesn't believe what he says, and he doesn't care what the consequences are. He's every boomer stereotype about Millennials, obsessed with individual "relevance" above all else.

 

What makes it "ridiculous"?

If a leadership defends behaviors which are detrimental to that society, solely to promote "tolerance" and "diversity", is that not coddling?

 

They think that by oppressing conservatives they will prevent extremism, when this will just force them onto 4chan and tor and be the real catalyst for extremism.

The shooter knew this, that's why he did it. He doesnt care either way about the 50 dead, he wants to create a positive feedback loop and this can only happen with the complicity of braindead journos and pollies.

I cannot believe how well they are falling in line with his plan. It astounds me.

 

You think that my objection revolves around the definition of "coddling?" C'mon, man. My objection revolves around the idea that the murder of 49 Muslims was a result of leftists being too nice to Muslims. Meanwhile, the internet is filled with anti-Islamic propaganda which claims that Muslims can bring nothing but death and destruction to the West, and the more we allow to live in our countries the more death and destruction there will be.

It's a blatant lie.

On the day after the shooting my coworkers were watching the stream of this racist murdering 49 Muslims and saying that he "should have killed more."

 

Ah, yes--he doesn't have a happy six years ahead. He deserves it.

 

Sorry for being unclear.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I thought that leaders were being too nice to Muslims.

I'll try again:

Leaders are actively supporting and defending behaviors that are destructive to societies.

 

I see. So, I'm going to try and formulate your beliefs in a manner that we can both agree on: The growth of Muslims populations in the West will result in behaviors destructive to Western norms and culture. Some Westerners recognize this fact, and become radicalized. Some number of these radicalized Westerners will take violent action in an attempt to protect Western civilization.

 

The gay englishman was called a racist by someone here. I never heard of a racist, a gay person, who preferred sucking the object of his racism. I heard him admit a few years ago his boyfriend was black. I guess the modern dems cannot help but to knee jerk into racism and play that card, even when the guy in question loved black men, in his mouth.


I guess you don't have to promote violence, the kind we saw in NZ, all you have to do is to give an opinion of what is driving, one factor, this killing, in order for australia to ban you from visiting.

It looks like to me, that what the radical muslims are guilty of, the murdering of innocent people, is also seen on the other side as well. No one should be surprised, given how common such things are historically.

Evil knows no color, nor religion, nor particular political ideology. It is as at home in all of these groups. Yet some want to pretend as if only this group, or that group are the evil ones. ha ha And therein is the absurdity and stupidity.

 

Not "will result", but has resulted. Otherwise, I agree.

What is your opinion of separate school buses for Muslims? What is your opinion of separate schools buses for Muslim boys and Muslim girls?

There is no reporting on that, but it is happening. Why do Muslims in America have their own, separate rules?

 

Yup, and it's enough to make you wonder if they've even read that lunatic's manifesto.

Having read it myself, I think he's going to gain the most traction not here in the United States, where our Constitution protects our freedom of speech and right to bear arms, but in Western countries and Australia where you have laws suppressing those rights. Naturally, that suppression is going to breed frustration and resentment, so the efforts to suppress hate and violence are going to wind up producing the hate and violence they were designed to prevent, and that hate and violence is going to be directed not only at the immigrants Brenton Tarrant targeted, but the native elites that Anders Breivik targeted.

Furthermore, while I might understand the desire on some people's parts not to speak Tarrant's name or show his face, I think, once again, it will wind up invoking the law of unintended consequences. Far from "giving him nothing", to paraphrase the PM of New Zealand, the authorities are giving him special treatment and with that special treatment he is going to become even more sensational and appealing to all the wrong people.

You're absolutely right - the brain dead elites in the media and government are falling right in with his plan, and it's the very rigidity of those ideologues that makes them so predictable and so unable to respond to situations like this.

 

Okay, so your belief is that these Muslims, by existing here, are endangering the survival or form of our culture? If I'm mischaracterizing your beliefs, let me know. So, ultimately, by allowing Muslims to enter "our countries" (we'll deal with the actual demographics later,) leftists are fomenting right-wing violence, violence that is on some level justified?

I don't know, there's a lot of context that needs filling in. If it's for Muslim charter schools, that sure makes sense.

The same thing I think about gendered bathrooms, I guess. A cultural artifact.

I'm a right-wing American, if you think you're going to appeal to Imperial Progressive cultural sentiments to get me to disparage Islamic culture, you're wrong.

Every religious group in America plays by the same "rules" of cultural deviation. The same laws that apply to Evangelicals apply to Muslims.

 

"Okay, so your belief is that these Muslims, by existing here, are endangering the survival or form of our culture?"

I am certainly not skilled at communication. I am unable to identify where in my posts I might have encouraged an understanding of my comments that is so far off the mark.

"I'm a right-wing American, if you think you're going to appeal to Imperial Progressive cultural sentiments to get me to disparage Islamic culture, you're wrong."

How about we just talk to each other, rather than making wild-assed guesses about each other?

"Every religious group in America plays by the same "rules" of cultural deviation. The same laws that apply to Evangelicals apply to Muslims."

I disagree, hence my agreement with Milo.

 

If you agreed that more immigration brings only more death and destruction, is that not because Muslims living here have that effect?

Okay, I'll answer more plainly: I don't really care about separate buses for Muslim school children based on gender, anymore than I care about Mormon polygamy or Evangelical homeschooling. They're very low on my list of topics I care about.

And maybe you're right. Maybe you can prove to me that Evangelicals and Muslims are treated differently by our legal system. I don't think you can, but I'll concede the possibility. It would still be patently absurd to believe that this fact shares even of a fraction of the blame for the Christchurch attack.