Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching

[tosh]

How did I know you were the one who made this thread when I saw the thread title?

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Dynam0

Finally an Arch Ego-boosting thread that appears to be working! Congrats

that explains things a little

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Dynam0

Arch Ego-boosting thread

speaking of which I met milo IRL

I got his number actually but I never text him; no reason to

I think the two of us together in a single room would explode the universe from combined beauty and egos

really just beauty on its own but the two together is like inventing fusion reactors and then replicators at the same time

[Rojaf]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

terrorist watch list idea is only good if it involves the FBI discretion category I mentioned earlier

otherwise, way too broad since even US senators have been included on the list

yeah most of the kinks have already been worked out, not all obviously.

as long as gunshow loopholes are closed and the required background checks give the FBI enough time to intervene i think that's fine.

same page.

and honestly even for people that dont want to carry firearms themselves i think firearm education is valuable. knowing how guns work can help you time a response even when you're not armed.

[xVaLoRx]

thank u for sharing a0 i fucking love milo hes so sexy

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by xVaLoRx

thank u for sharing a0 i fucking love milo hes so sexy

**trigger warning**

[xVaLoRx]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

EDIT: He's at it again with the anti-Muslim speech. Look at the people committing mass shootings and tell me what most of them have in common: mental instability, troubled childhoods, hate speech, etc.

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

hate speech

lol

[Arch0wl]

btw if it isn't clear in the photo above I'm trying to 'manspread' as obnoxiously as possible to increase the amount of things to object to

[xVaLoRx]

i want to run my fingers through his bleached hair mmmmm

[adlp]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

btw if it isn't clear in the photo above I'm trying to 'manspread' as obnoxiously as possible to increase the amount of things to object to

lmfao love it

[MarioNintendo]

i dont get it is this a USA only thing

[tosh]

Originally Posted by MarioNintendo

i dont get it is this a USA only thing

Milo is a poster child for the Republican party because he's a gay Brit who denounces many things that can be construed as liberal in the US political spectrum. Oh, and he's also the tech editor for Breitbart.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by tosh

Milo is a poster child for the Republican party because he's a gay Brit who denounces many things that can be construed as liberal in the US political spectrum. Oh, and he's also the tech editor for Breitbart.

this is pretty accurate and probably about as neutral as you can get without being dry, so, gj

[tosh]

I wanted to be snarkier with that description since there are many things I don't agree with Milo on, but I decided not to.

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

do you know what normal means

yes, I know what normal means, and yes, you can argue that normal is whatever a culture defines it as, but this kind of "normal" childhood can create an environment which lends itself to creating adults who are not "normal," which I believe is a part of your argument.

No, not every child becomes a suicide bomber. But the childhoods of these people are likely to be similar to other childhoods, at a rate at which it is not a stretch to say that the environment in which the child is raised is a factor.

[thesunfan]

like, cannibalism was "normal" in New Guinea until the last 100 years or so, at least as defined by the culture.

pretty much anything can be "normal" in a culture. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have consequence.

I feel like a bigger prick each time I put normal in quotes so I'm gonna stop.

Pic with Milo is great and I'm a bit jealous of you.

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

distinction between critical thinking and chit chat is a total farce made by 17 year old mods who needed the category to mitigate conflict between 15 year olds in pre-AP classes

as educated adults, there isn't any real difference

further, I am not asking people to think 'critically'. I am asking people to think period. critically would imply the replies so far evidence some baseline amount of thought and I'm still looking for that.

the thing is, you didn't ask anyone to do anything in your OP
My remark was sarcastic if you couldn't tell, because there was no information on how you wanted people to respond.
You just posted a youtube link.


rather than wait for someone to reply and then attack them, saying they didn't show a high enough level of competence when you gave no instruction to do so in the first place,
maybe placing your intentions or prerequisites for conversation before hand would help prevent such a thing from even happening
it's kinda like putting your medium rare 24oz steak on the floor, then getting mad when the neighbor's dog eats it, and puts it down with your last beer. That fxcking asshole dog...
you think he gonna buy you another pack?
nah, cause no one told him
no one told the neighbor either
now your friend Bill is stuck goin back to the 7-eleven to grab another pack and you're here yelling at a dog who did not know you didn't want him to eat that steak.

just put a sign up that says
"don't eat my steak on the floor"
whether the dog can read it or not is irrelevant, as you now have informed the public that you do not want that kinda of behavior.
it's up to the owner to teach the dog not to do that now.

i say just be glad it didn't shitpost in your yard

[Arch0wl]

well, yes, that's true, so let me clarify:

the first set of replies here appeal to certain epistemic standards about what is true/not true about this speech. so, I'm engaging them on those terms.

anyway, meta-argumentation / explaining why I'm responding a certain way is about the most annoying category of reply to make, so this is my last word on that. you may have the last word if you wish.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by thesunfan

No, not every child becomes a suicide bomber. But the childhoods of these people are likely to be similar to other childhoods, at a rate at which it is not a stretch to say that the environment in which the child is raised is a factor.

at this point, though, you are arguing not that 'troubled' childhoods are the source of this but that childhood characteristics may play a role here. that's trivially true but it's not the source of the argument.

"troubled childhood" is a special kind of useless explanation because at best it says things that are obvious, and at worst it explains things in terms of a just-so narrative that actually obscures better understanding. it's way too vague to be useful (what is "troubled" anyway? is this dude listening to the muslim linkin park? what exactly in the childhood?), it's probably redundant (since you'd just look at the events themselves as single causes otherwise), it's pop psych ("look at childhood to explain habits" has been source of bullshit armchair psych since freud hit the mainstream), and it's ... too easily the kind of thing people tell themselves to go "mmmmmmm yeah mmmmmm" in some sort of nodding, yes-I-understand way when you've never really thought about it at all -- it hits that "oh yes, I know these words, this is a pattern I recognize, therefore it makes sense" area of the human brain and because it's familiar it's sufficient to minimize social discord.

as an explanatory factor, it sucks and does not help to better understand the origins of behavior.

religious doctrine, though, is 100% a confirmed source of shit like this. it's not even a question of whether it does, but to what degree.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

at this point, though, you are arguing not that 'troubled' childhoods are the source of this but that childhood characteristics may play a role here. that's trivially true but it's not the source of the argument.

"troubled childhood" is a special kind of useless explanation because at best it says things that are obvious, and at worst it explains things in terms of a just-so narrative that actually obscures better understanding. it's way too vague to be useful (what is "troubled" anyway? is this dude listening to the muslim linkin park? what exactly in the childhood?), it's probably redundant (since you'd just look at the events themselves as single causes otherwise), it's pop psych ("look at childhood to explain habits" has been source of bullshit armchair psych since freud hit the mainstream), and it's ... too easily the kind of thing people tell themselves to go "mmmmmmm yeah mmmmmm" in some sort of nodding, yes-I-understand way when you've never really thought about it at all -- it hits that "oh yes, I know these words, this is a pattern I recognize, therefore it makes sense" area of the human brain and because it's familiar it's sufficient to minimize social discord.

as an explanatory factor, it sucks and does not help to better understand the origins of behavior.

to be fair we're not trying to understand the origins of behavior here

looking at the past doesn't have explanatory power but it can be evaluated and have some effect on background checks or w/e

you can't measure "traumatic childhood" or whatever but you sure as fuck can get testimony on (maybe even measure?) "anger" or past violence ----- just look at security clearances, this isn't a new idea

edit: i mean hell you can even look at trajectories for all I care

I refuse to believe that past habits cannot be used in evaluating a person for these reasons

Childhood? maybe too far back, but last ten years?

edit edit: we're arguing slightly different points here but w/e

I don't see how amending the background check process would hurt

concealed carry for example might be able to reduce the damage of gun violence but it still would be nice to reduce the actual incidents in the first place