Milo Yiannopoulos

  • Thread starter Thread starter CapitalistCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CapitalistCatholic

Guest
What is your opinion of Milo? In case you don’t know him, he’s a Gay Conservative Catholic debater/activist.
 
I don’t approve of his lifestyle, but I certainly enjoy his talks. He has a way of cutting through all the nonsense of the Left and doing it in a very funny way. His main thing is just attacking hypocrisy and defending reality, and while I don’t agree with him on 100% of what he says, there’s very little he says that wasn’t an accepted truth just a few years ago. The fact that he’s so controversial today just shows off how absurd the world has gotten.
 
He’s just another attention-seeker. I think his 15 minutes are mostly up. He doesn’t make me all outraged or anything though.

I did want to read his book, partly because I did not approve of the actions of his publisher (fortunately, self-publishing is making large publishers irrelevant if not actually obsolete, yay) but haven’t gotten around to it yet.
 
He is very interesting. I’m not sure how I feel about him. He is gay and is sexually active I think but then he quotes Aquinas and Chesterton. I like how bold he is in his ideas (not his homosexuality ideas though). I just wish he would stick with the Church on homosexuality even if he agrees with the Church on everything else. Maybe he’s like Augustine.

Lord make me pure. But not yet.
 
Is it rude to use a whip of cords to drive people out of a building like they are sheep and oxen? I’m not saying Milo is Jesus, but there’s a time and place for polite discourse, and a time and place for harsher words and actions. Milo uses shock factor to call attention to various social evils, because very often polite discourse does not get the message through. Heck, there have been Popes releasing encyclicals against the sorts of things Milo talks about, since at least the 1800s. How many people have read them and understood them? Not many, apparently, because moral relativism is more popular today than maybe ever before. So, Milo is giving it another try, with humor, with harsh language, and hopefully more people will listen.

His audience is mostly college kids and other young people, so I give him a lot of credit for knowing his audience and actually caring about them. They are the future.
 
Last edited:
These days, it is easier to get people’s attention by aiming low, appealing to people’s baser (as opposed to nobler) nature. Yiannopoulos understands that and works it. Jesus showed us a better way, your apparent connection of Rude Boys to the Cleansing of the Temple notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
RandomAlias said:
These days, it is easier to get people’s attention by aiming low, appealing to people’s baser (as opposed to nobler) nature.
Click to expand...
please explain? he uses humor and is anti-pc to teach conservative ideas. what do you object to in his presentations.

the right dislikes him because he is gay and popular and the left dislikes him because he is conservative and non-conforming.

ignore the showmanship and listen to his message, he backs it up with data. he is spot-on on islam and feminism
 
Entwhistler said:
He is gay and is sexually active I think but then he quotes Aquinas and Chesterton. I like how bold he is in his ideas (not his homosexuality ideas though). I just wish he would stick with the Church on homosexuality even if he agrees with the Church on everything else.
Click to expand...
Why is there this notion that people who agree with the Church are also people who follow the Church? In my experience, lots of people who follow the Church do not agree with the Church, and lots of people who agree with the Church do not follow the Church. They don’t always do it as shamelessly as Milo, though. Shamelessness is his schtick.
 
From what I’ve heard, it’s not very good.
He likes flirting with alt-right positions.
Some take anti-political correctness to mean to be as rude and offensive as possible and he’s one of them.

I find it sad that political commentary requires shock jock techniques. Peter Hitchens, who I would argue is a much better voice for conservatism, his style of debating doesn’t require shock jock techniques and he isn’t interested in building a fandom is quite effective. Quite ordinary, not interested in being an entertainer. Too bad he never got the same amount of attention as his late brother Christopher did in the US. The reason I believe is because he was against the Iraq War, not completely on board with free markets for everything and not being coarse got him ignored by the US conservative media. Their loss.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top