Why College Campuses Need Milo Yiannopoulos | We The Internet TV

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Far-right figures often invoke the banner of “free speech” to defend their right to spread noxious or even outright racist views. But, even if they’re operating from cynical or toxic motives, can these provocateurs still serve an educational purpose on college campuses? Should they still be welcomed to speak? We the Internet TV’s Rob Montz says “yes” and explains why in this clip from a recent screening of “Silence U Pt. 3: Can the University of Chicago Solve the Campus Free Speech Crisis.”

Silence U Part 3: Can the University of Chicago solve the campus free speech crisis? — www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFShZMJhdOA&t=3s

Full Silence U Series — www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5uaVFfX3AQ&list=PLNfeyqXaRNahf5nYgyBPZkZUqF_B2kk1x

Follow us on social media for more videos, memes and other political comedy that makes fun of everyone!

Facebook: www.facebook.com/WeTheInternetTV
Twitter: www.twitter.com/WeTheInternetTV
Instagram: www.instagram.com/WeTheInternetTV

DP and Editor: Sean Moody

Executive Producers: Maurice Black, Lou Perez, Erin O’Connor, & Rob Pfaltzgraff
Creative Director: Erin O’Connor
Head Writer: Lou Perez
Creative Producer: Lana Link


JorgeFabrizio says:

You cracked Milo in less than minute. The only thing required to beat him is facts and logic which is something I recall him saying on multiple occasions. Of course, my theory is that he's the ultimate stealth insurgent rebelling against the intellectual disarmament of the public. When he's consistently beaten in debates, his mission will be complete.

Richard Gnann says:

more from this dude, his videos are always really good.

El Mostrito says:

This gay guy is at least halfwoke

McVespa says:

I think this channel has been buried in some way by the algorithms. Content of the channel is too good to have so few viewers.

Assassin Cactus says:

If you go to college and do not expect to have your ideas and beliefs challenged you are by definition insane.

JimFC Gregg says:

If anyone could have answered Milo with reason and logic, they would have. That's why they HAD to raise mobs to keep him and other right-wing figures (NOT far-right) from speaking.

The right allegedly uses freedom of speech for abhorrent views. The left uses it for other abhorrent views, such as Communism.

"You believe in freedom of speech for communists because what they say is true. You do not believe in freedom of speech for fascists because what they say is a lie."
–John Howard Lawson, American playwright, screenwriter, and Communist, speaking to the rest of the Hollywood Ten during their preparation for testimony, in answer to a hypothetical prosecution ploy, "Do you believe in free speech for fascists?" From Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten by Edward Dmytryk (1996, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL).

Ben Sukromny says:

John Stuart Mill 101

jgunner280 says:

I know this wasn't much of the point, but I can't help but feel like the right and alt-right terms here are so misused. Is Milo even working for the actual alt-right? Like the real ethnostate alt-right, or does he still use the weird version that has since been crudely relabled "alt-lite"? (and if its the alt-lite, what's wrong with that?) He's physically attracted to black guys, so the idea of a pro-ethnostate Milo sounds odd. I honestly haven't kept up much with him, but he was at one point misusing the term to mean literally an alternative right or conservative back during the election period. I doubt he's serious a part of the actually crazy side, and is instead just crazy in his own way.

Whatever the case is, free speech is in fact being taken up by the right (and centrists) for the exact reasons you suggest its not. I'm not entirely sure if your clip is just sloppy, or you genuinely decided the right wing is just evil or liars, but assuming the worst… you're really off the point. The alt-right does in fact also fake the desire to use it (with Spencer admitting he doesn't actually support it, but uses it), still the fact is much of the general right is in fact engaging with them on a logical level to debunk them and protect the speech. You don't need to go much further than right here on the internet to see it. In fact, entire areas of the spectrums are named after the parts of the right that are friends to free speech and haters of the radical left: Constitutionalists, moderates, libertarians, and perhaps a few more I'm forgetting. Even Neocons, despite how much things they've fucked this country up, still stand for freedom of speech and oppose certain issues of the left. Its just that gasp there's also a manipulative radical side similar to the crazy bits of the left.

Agni Murthy says:

There's meaningful discussion between people who disagree, and then there are trolls like Milo whose entire political identity lies around "triggering the SJW cuck libtard snowflakes for Daddy Trump!!!!"

I don't think "outrage commentators" like him have anything meaningful to contribute to political discourse.

Kevin Calhoun says:

I'd agree with Rob wholeheartedly, but, anything center, and right-of-center is clasified as far right these days. There are several young, conservative speakers visiting campuses that aren't flamboyant shock merchants, like Milo. Ben Shapiro is absolutely challenging the left, through conversation, logic and evidence. Steven Crowder is also, although he incorporates a comedy routine with his discussions.

Glen Hickson says:

you are so nieve

Tuduk Coba says:

If you support free speech you have to support Milo. Because Milo tells the truth.

Carlo Ricci says:

The thing is, let me make my mind about it. You can "feel" that what Milo says is noxious or racist, and you would be right to protect me if I was a toddler, but I'm a man. I can think for myself, why do you think you are so superior as to think for me?

MCCrleone354 says:

The left does not use logic. Proof of this. Tell them that there are only two genders.

A.J. Hodges says:

While I disagree with his characterization/generalization of the right (as I consider myself a conservative) I agree that opposing viewpoints must be allowed to be expressed. You don't have to go and listen, I often ignore speakers I believe I will disagree with, but denying them the opportunity to speak denies others the opportunity to learn.

I have heard the analogy made that ideas are like food at a potluck and that if someone wants to put feces on the table you refuse to permit it. The problem is who gets to decide what ideas are terds? If literally everyone besides the terd bringer calls it a terd and agrees it should not be permitted then maybe the crowd could have right of denial. But if just one person, other than the terd bringer, denies it's a terd and wants to consider it then we should not refuse admittance. That's why we have the first amendment. There are bad ideas but no one possesses the infinite wisdom necessary to be trusted with authority to decide which ideas have the right to be expressed.

Tha Pume says:

God i hate this pseudo intellectuals.

RWBimbie says:

1978 SCotUS ruled Liberals are unconstitutional when they deny FreeSpeech claiming "You lose you rights if you are a nazi".
2010 SCotUS ruled Liberals are unconstitutional when they deny FreeSpeech claiming "Hate Speech is not Free Speech".
2016 SCotUS ruled Liberals are unconstitutional when they deny FreeSpeech claiming "I have a right to not be offended".
3 strikes, and the Left is STILL trying to deny others the right to speak opposition to the Left opinions & views.

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: