Milo Yiannopoulos = transphobic, homophobic pig!

[Saint Frankenstein]

So Milo was on Bill Maher's show (I never liked Maher in the first place, so I'm not surprised that his stupid self basically had a backslapping good time with Milo) and spread a bunch of hate and nonsense about trans people and gays.

He went out of his way to misgender a trans woman who apparently spoke up at one of his meetings, slandered her by saying she is a "sexual predator" for wanting to use the appropriate restroom and locker room of her gender and then claimed that trans people are "disproportionately" involved in sexual assaults, apparently as the perp. That's a bunch of lies. Trans people are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the other way around. I've not seen one study saying that we (trans people) are more likely to commit sexual assault. Sorry, but I have no desire to sexually assault other men in the restroom or a locker room, same as the trans women I know don't wish to sexually assault other women and girls in the ladies room! Get over yourselves!

He also repeats the lie that being trans is a mental disorder. No, it isn't. The dysphoria over the mismatch between the mind, the body and the social reality are what is treated - not the identity. You can't change someone's gender identity. The only known treatment for it that works is to help and allow the person to live as the gender they identity as.

Then he goes on to claim that gay men are mentally ill. He obviously views himself as "disordered" for (allegedly) being gay, himself. He has a history of making self-hating homophobic comments, as can be seen here: Milo Yiannopoulos - RationalWiki

F for Milo when it comes to facts, science and common sense!

Warning for some language:

Honestly, I lean strongly toward Milo simply being a character, a sort of gay-face minstrelsy. I think he is just playing a character, like Larry the Cable Guy. I see no evidence of him actually being what he says he is (a gay queen with a racist fetish for black men, has a black boyfriend and is a Jewish convert to Catholicism). He is basically something for the bros to laugh it and confirms their worst fears and stereotypes about gay men. (Effeminate, promiscuous, self-hating and race-mixing (for the racists)).

If he is for real, then he is a very, very sad and pathetic person. He would be a person who was most likely bullied a lot in youth and has become the bully himself in adulthood. He would also be a pathological narcissist and masochist. He would need psychiatric help, honestly. Regardless, he is a detestable person and shame on Maher for normalizing his crap.

 

[suncowiam]

So Milo was on Bill Maher's show (I never liked Maher in the first place, so I'm not surprised that his stupid self basically had a backslapping good time with Milo) and spread a bunch of hate and nonsense about trans people and gays.

He went out of his way to misgender a trans woman who apparently spoke up at one of his meetings, slandered her by saying she is a "sexual predator" for wanting to use the appropriate restroom and locker room of her gender and then claimed that trans people are "disproportionately" involved in sexual assaults, apparently as the perp. That's a bunch of lies. Trans people are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the other way around. I've not seen one study saying that we (trans people) are more likely to commit sexual assault. Sorry, but I have no desire to sexually assault other men in the restroom or a locker room, same as the trans women I know don't wish to sexually assault other women and girls in the ladies room! Get over yourselves!

He also repeats the lie that being trans is a mental disorder. No, it isn't. The dysphoria over the mismatch between the mind, the body and the social reality are what is treated - not the identity. You can't change someone's gender identity. The only known treatment for it that works is to help and allow the person to live as the gender they identity as.

Then he goes on to claim that gay men are mentally ill. He obviously views himself as "disordered" for (allegedly) being gay, himself. He has a history of making self-hating homophobic comments, as can be seen here: Milo Yiannopoulos - RationalWiki

F for Milo when it comes to facts, science and common sense!

Warning for some language:

Honestly, I lean strongly toward Milo simply being a character, a sort of gay-face minstrelsy. I think he is just playing a character, like Larry the Cable Guy. I see no evidence of him actually being what he says he is (a gay queen with a racist fetish for black men, has a black boyfriend and is a Jewish convert to Catholicism). He is basically something for the bros to laugh it and confirms their worst fears and stereotypes about gay men. (Effeminate, promiscuous, self-hating and race-mixing (for the racists)).

If he is for real, then he is a very, very sad and pathetic person. He would be a person who was most likely bullied a lot in youth and has become the bully himself in adulthood. He would also be a pathological narcissist and masochist. He would need psychiatric help, honestly. Regardless, he is a detestable person and shame on Maher for normalizing his crap.

I just saw it before this thread.

That dude is a walking oxymoron or maybe just a moron.

 

[lovesong]

He's just one big goofball, don't take anything he says to heart, he's almost certainly so overdramatic just to entertain. He just did a bad, and he'll probably get some **** for it. He should know better than to get involved in a setting like that, he hates everyone for sport, and getting into a debate with a bunch of serious people with real statistics is not the best move for a guy who plays the ***hole to get some giggles from other ***holes.

 

[suncowiam]

So Milo was on Bill Maher's show (I never liked Maher in the first place, so I'm not surprised that his stupid self basically had a backslapping good time with Milo) and spread a bunch of hate and nonsense about trans people and gays.

He went out of his way to misgender a trans woman who apparently spoke up at one of his meetings, slandered her by saying she is a "sexual predator" for wanting to use the appropriate restroom and locker room of her gender and then claimed that trans people are "disproportionately" involved in sexual assaults, apparently as the perp. That's a bunch of lies. Trans people are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the other way around. I've not seen one study saying that we (trans people) are more likely to commit sexual assault. Sorry, but I have no desire to sexually assault other men in the restroom or a locker room, same as the trans women I know don't wish to sexually assault other women and girls in the ladies room! Get over yourselves!

He also repeats the lie that being trans is a mental disorder. No, it isn't. The dysphoria over the mismatch between the mind, the body and the social reality are what is treated - not the identity. You can't change someone's gender identity. The only known treatment for it that works is to help and allow the person to live as the gender they identity as.

Then he goes on to claim that gay men are mentally ill. He obviously views himself as "disordered" for (allegedly) being gay, himself. He has a history of making self-hating homophobic comments, as can be seen here: Milo Yiannopoulos - RationalWiki

F for Milo when it comes to facts, science and common sense!

Warning for some language:

Honestly, I lean strongly toward Milo simply being a character, a sort of gay-face minstrelsy. I think he is just playing a character, like Larry the Cable Guy. I see no evidence of him actually being what he says he is (a gay queen with a racist fetish for black men, has a black boyfriend and is a Jewish convert to Catholicism). He is basically something for the bros to laugh it and confirms their worst fears and stereotypes about gay men. (Effeminate, promiscuous, self-hating and race-mixing (for the racists)).

If he is for real, then he is a very, very sad and pathetic person. He would be a person who was most likely bullied a lot in youth and has become the bully himself in adulthood. He would also be a pathological narcissist and masochist. He would need psychiatric help, honestly. Regardless, he is a detestable person and shame on Maher for normalizing his crap.

Oh, also Maher and Milo made good points about free speech. Maher was not normalizing it. He clearly was against many of Milo's beliefs as were most of his panelists. I'm glad I got to see Milo debate as opposed to only give speech. Frankly, he lost a lot of ground against Maher and the panel. It showed how hypocritical and extreme his views were.

 

[suncowiam]

He's just one big goofball, don't take anything he says to heart, he's almost certainly so overdramatic just to entertain. He just did a bad, and he'll probably get some **** for it. He should know better than to get involved in a setting like that, he hates everyone for sport, and getting into a debate with a bunch of serious people with real statistics is not the best move for a guy who plays the ***hole to get some giggles from other ***holes.

You think he's a comedian? Why do you think he chose to do that show and to speak at Berkeley. Both clearly are to discuss ethical and moral issues. At what point then do we start believing what he says?

 

[lovesong]

You think he's a comedian? Why do you think he chose to do that show and to speak at Berkeley. Both clearly are to discuss ethical and moral issues. At what point then do we start believing what he says?

Oh I absolutely think he's a comedian. He presents some overdramatic positions to make a point about free speech and censorship, and the comedy comes in when he adds his own flair or personality (the witty ***hole-ry, blunt attitude, and all the mentions of his love for black men in bed). His method works, whether we like it or not he succeeded in getting his point out there. As far as believing him goes, I suppose we do that at whatever point we agree with him already. His opinions aren't what he's pushing though, he's pushing back against censorship by saying the most out there things he can, I don't even think he believes half of it. Do I agree with the positions he takes? No. Do I get a kick out of the jokes though? He came to my college and I swear that's the hardest I laughed all year. Like I said before, don't take him to heart, he just ****ed up by going on a show like that, and that was his mistake. He'll get a slap on the wrist for it and we'll move on. He should have known better than to leave the comedian ring.

 

[suncowiam]

Oh I absolutely think he's a comedian. He presents some overdramatic positions to make a point about free speech and censorship, and the comedy comes in when he adds his own flair or personality (the witty ***hole-ry, blunt attitude, and all the mentions of his love for black men in bed). His method works, whether we like it or not he succeeded in getting his point out there. As far as believing him goes, I suppose we do that at whatever point we agree with him already. His opinions aren't what he's pushing though, he's pushing back against censorship by saying the most out there things he can, I don't even think he believes half of it. Do I agree with the positions he takes? No. Do I get a kick out of the jokes though? He came to my college and I swear that's the hardest I laughed all year. Like I said before, don't take him to heart, he just ****ed up by going on a show like that, and that was his mistake. He'll get a slap on the wrist for it and we'll move on. He should have known better than to leave the comedian ring.

You make it seem like he's young and naive. Let's forgive his mistakes.

He's a writer and an editor. He may use jokes in his speech but that doesn't make him a comedian. He knows his target audience more than you think.

He attacked homosexuals and transexuals on the show. That was all a big joke to you? What was so funny about calling all homosexuals lazy and transexuals mentally ill? Seriously, explain that to me because I didn't find humor in it.

 

[Mindmaster]

If he is for real, then he is a very, very sad and pathetic person. He would be a person who was most likely bullied a lot in youth and has become the bully himself in adulthood. He would also be a pathological narcissist and masochist. He would need psychiatric help, honestly. Regardless, he is a detestable person and shame on Maher for normalizing his crap.

Who cares?

I mean, in reality I find it completely humorous that the new face of neo-conservatism is Milo. In the game, it also amuses me that the left went off the deep end and keeps going deeper where the right is leaning center. The alt-right is more right of center these days, not really right. The old school conservative entrenchment is largely dead, as exemplified by Trump winning the nomination, and the Presidency. Trump is basically a right-leaning libertarian, not a classical conservative.

Anyway, Maher has always been the type to invite challenging guests to speak with him even if nothing but to present the width and breadth of the viewpoints on a matter. Nothing about giving Milo the opportunity to speak really surprises me, but it does that the left feels he needs to be censored. Milo is gay, and nearly everything else he's stated. The alt-right has had problems with him due to some of the neo-nazi groups being involved in the crazier parts of politics, but whatever. You can't be a neo-nazi, and be hated by the neo-nazis... lol.. He's faking it, but the transgenders aren't? The irony... I think I accept Milo is gay, but in the end it makes no matter. He presents interesting points, challenges the common conventions, and largely holds the feet to the fire when certain people say something completely idiotic.

I mean no disrespect by it, but gender identity dysphoria aka trans-genderism, is classified as a mental disorder up to DSM V. It is well known that academics, versus real practicing doctors (which are largely conservative), are bleeding heart liberal leftists and just because they rewrote DSM V to say "it's OK" doesn't mean that the rest of the world decided it was. Most doctors are not in agreement with DSM V at this time, and many aren't using it yet to guide their practice because it is not based on "evidence based medicine" and thus it is largely being ignored. (see Arguing Over DSM-5: The British Psychological Society Has Serious Concerns About the Manual for some issues...) Literally, the group writing the DSM V "waved the magic wand" and decided to go from treating GID like a disease to accepting it. It's completely illogical, and this isn't the only illness they screwed with (of note, autism, Asperger's, and even bipolar were given "revamps" making it harder for people to get treatment under these definitions). I feel it is a disease if it is negatively affecting your life -- if you are more depressed, or otherwise unhappy it is one. If you lose opportunities, or cannot function normally, it is one, etc.. Unable to keep familial relations, or form strong bonds, etc.. That's exactly the definition of a mental illness -- inability to function normally. That obviously won't apply to everyone who experiences dysphoria, but it can.

My opinion is that I am live and let live that's to say it doesn't affect me in any sort of way so I don't care _at all_ what people want to call themselves. (My concerns end with whether it costs me tax money, and that's about it...) That doesn't mean I accept what they say, or will modify my behavior by that but it really is harmless. I see it as dangerous as cross-dressing or some racy sexual fetish and not something that bothers other people. No one really cares what junk you have downstairs except the partners that you share your life with.
.

 

[lovesong]

You make it seem like he's young and naive. Let's forgive his mistakes.

He's a writer and an editor. He may use jokes in his speech but that doesn't make him a comedian. He knows his target audience more than you think.

He attacked homosexuals and transexuals on the show. That was all a big joke to you? What was so funny about calling all homosexuals lazy and transexuals mentally ill? Seriously, explain that to me because I didn't find humor in it.

Him as a whole, I already said he ****ed up on that show. Overall he's just a clever guy who tries to make a point with some blunt, mean humor. And yes I admit that it's mean humor, it isn't for everyone, I just happen to get a kick out of his rambunctious personality.

 

[suncowiam]

Who cares?

I mean, in reality I find it completely humorous that the new face of neo-conservatism is Milo. In the game, it also amuses me that the left went off the deep end and keeps going deeper where the right is leaning center. The alt-right is more right of center these days, not really right. The old school conservative entrenchment is largely dead, as exemplified by Trump winning the nomination, and the Presidency. Trump is basically a right-leaning libertarian, not a classical conservative.

Anyway, Maher has always been the type to invite challenging guests to speak with him even if nothing but to present the width and breadth of the viewpoints on a matter. Nothing about giving Milo the opportunity to speak really surprises me, but it does that the left feels he needs to be censored. Milo is gay, and nearly everything else he's stated. The alt-right has had problems with him due to some of the neo-nazi groups being involved in the crazier parts of politics, but whatever. You can't be a neo-nazi, and be hated by the neo-nazis... lol

I mean no disrespect by it, but gender identity dysphoria aka trans-genderism, is classified as a mental disorder up to DSM V. It is well known that academics, versus real practicing doctors (which are largely conservative), are bleeding heart liberal leftists and just because they rewrote DSM V to say "it's OK" doesn't mean that the rest of the world decided it was. Most doctors are not in agreement with DSM V at this time, and many aren't using it yet to guide their practice because it is not based on "evidence based medicine" and thus it is largely being ignored. (see Arguing Over DSM-5: The British Psychological Society Has Serious Concerns About the Manual for some issues...) Literally, the group writing the DSM V "waved the magic wand" and decided to go from treating GID like a disease to accepting it. It's completely illogical, and this isn't the only illness they screwed with (of note, autism, Asperger's, and even bipolar were given "revamps" making it harder for people to get treatment under these definitions). I feel it is a disease if it is negatively affecting your life -- if you are more depressed, or otherwise unhappy it is one. If you lose opportunities, or cannot function normally, it is one, etc.. Unable to keep familial relations, or form strong bonds, etc.. That's exactly the definition of a mental illness -- inability to function normally. That obviously won't apply to everyone who experiences dysphoria, but it can.

My opinion is that I am live and let live that's to say it doesn't affect me in any sort of way so I don't care _at all_ what people want to call themselves. (My concerns end with whether it costs me tax money, and that's about it...) That doesn't mean I accept what they say, or will modify my behavior by that but it really is harmless. I see it as dangerous as cross-dressing or some racy sexual fetish and not something that bothers other people. No one really cares what junk you have downstairs except the partners that you share your life with.
.

So the best you can say is you don't know giving the conflicting data. Isn't really what the data suggests? How can anyone, even Milo suggest a standpoint on it without it simply being subjective. You're choosing which studies and professionals to trust in.

I will agree with you that if a person is happy with their lives then so what. Not my place to judge if it's not hurting anyone else.

 

[Mindmaster]

So the best you can say is you don't know giving the conflicting data. Isn't really what the data suggests? How can anyone, even Milo suggest a standpoint on it without it simply being subjective. You're choosing which studies and professionals to trust in.

I will agree with you that if a person is happy with their lives then so what. Not my place to judge if it's not hurting anyone else.

We're allowed to be subjective to some extent, I mean... That is the nature of humanity -- preferences are everything. But, Milo's disagreement is largely along the lines that mine are -- lack of evidence based medicine to support the shift in treatment. There are no studies, for example, which support treating it "another way" is more helpful. That's usually what caused reclassification in earlier editions of the DSM. Basically, the new DSM is subjective and catering to liberal biases rather than being completely based on research or trials. That's a legitimate sticking point for Milo, me, or anyone else. I'm not saying it's something that can be cured or whatever either, but we should be prudent in every case to make sure that something is not being overlooked.

Generally, however, science is simple -- if there is no data to support a notion then there is simply no opinion other than the models one chooses to test. It seems at this point the DSM V is about the model of treating GID like it is OK without evidence to do so. We should always be wary of separating this model from the matter. That model has no basis in reality, but is shaping the treatment and maybe it isn't good. I'm not like many others that have a beef with the science of this and dispute GID exists, that's a bit much. Historically, it has been known for a long time -- but, to say that suddenly there is nothing wrong? I think GID is a complicated matter and people facing that issue have a lot of emotional trouble that they need help with. I even think their families need consulting in the same manner, it is a tough situation. To say that is OK and doesn't require treatment is somewhat crazy. People facing that should even being evaluated for other mental disorders that are masquerading as this... There are many reasons why people reject their identities, and those should be found... with diligence... not just accepted... If all other things are evaluated and deemed OK then maybe it is just a case of GID with the regular emotional baggage of that, not something harmful. Right now, doctors are being encouraged to look the other way... I see that as problematic...

 

[suncowiam]

Him as a whole, I already said he ****ed up on that show. Overall he's just a clever guy who tries to make a point with some blunt, mean humor. And yes I admit that it's mean humor, it isn't for everyone, I just happen to get a kick out of his rambunctious personality.

You do understand that I'm not attacking his humor or his personality but what he is actually saying?

 

[suncowiam]

We're allowed to be subjective to some extent, I mean... That is the nature of humanity -- preferences are everything. But, Milo's disagreement is largely along the lines that mine are -- lack of evidence based medicine to support the shift in treatment. There are no studies, for example, which support treating it "another way" is more helpful. That's usually what caused reclassification in earlier editions of the DSM. Basically, the new DSM is subjective and catering to liberal biases rather than being completely based on research or trials. That's a legitimate sticking point for Milo, me, or anyone else. I'm not saying it's something that can be cured or whatever either, but we should be prudent in every case to make sure that something is not being overlooked.

Generally, however, science is simple -- if there is no data to support a notion then there is simply no opinion other than the models one chooses to test. It seems at this point the DSM V is about the model of treating GID like it is OK without evidence to do so. We should always be wary of separating this model from the matter. That model has no basis in reality, but is shaping the treatment and maybe it isn't good. I'm not like many others that have a beef with the science of this and dispute GID exists, that's a bit much. Historically, it has been known for a long time -- but, to say that suddenly there is nothing wrong? Well, that's a bit much... I think GID is a complicated matter and people facing that issue have a lot of emotional trouble that they need help with. I even think their families need consulting in the same manner, it is a tough situation. To say that is OK and doesn't require treatment is somewhat crazy.

I don't know is my best answer. But like how homosexuality was modeled I'm going to leave much head room before I conclude it.

All I care about is for these individuals to be happy and healthy. If they can be while still being a transexual then I'm cool with that. I don't know any but I don't get a sense that they're all depressed, especially if they have a support group and environment.

 

[lovesong]

You do understand that I'm not attacking his humor or his personality but what he is actually saying?

Fair enough. The two do go hand in hand but if you want to just solely look at his content that's fine. It is mean, undoubtedly, and I don't agree with them, I just love his style enough to overlook it. There is a problem when he takes that content out of his ring of comedy and tries to put it into situations like this debate. Trying to seriously back those kinds of claims makes him look like an idiot. His content is played well enough as comedy but as soon as he tries to take it seriously we end up with a bit of a problem, which is why I think him doing that debate was such a mistake.

 

[YmirGF]

Fair enough. The two do go hand in hand but if you want to just solely look at his content that's fine. It is mean, undoubtedly, and I don't agree with them, I just love his style enough to overlook it. There is a problem when he takes that content out of his ring of comedy and tries to put it into situations like this debate. Trying to seriously back those kinds of claims makes him look like an idiot. His content is played well enough as comedy but as soon as he tries to take it seriously we end up with a bit of a problem, which is why I think him doing that debate was such a mistake.

Yep, I loved the interview part with Maher. Maher is a wonderful guy and not afraid to tell his liberal/left cohorts when they are sniffing glue. No doubt that is why there is some push back against him. It wasn't what amused me about where they disagreed, but where they were in complete agreement. Calling Milo a young gay Christopher Hitchens was a huge compliment however you look at it. The panel part didn't go so well because they thought he would take them seriously. Granted, the one panel member who repeated told him to go **** himself certainly was displaying a pretty stellar intellect... <Yawn>

Can't wait for his invitation to the White House.

As an afterthought: It is my feeling that those who take themselves far too seriously might be easily offended by Milo. He's a rude clown. Get over it.

 

[Laika]

So Milo was on Bill Maher's show (I never liked Maher in the first place, so I'm not surprised that his stupid self basically had a backslapping good time with Milo) and spread a bunch of hate and nonsense about trans people and gays.

He went out of his way to misgender a trans woman who apparently spoke up at one of his meetings, slandered her by saying she is a "sexual predator" for wanting to use the appropriate restroom and locker room of her gender and then claimed that trans people are "disproportionately" involved in sexual assaults, apparently as the perp. That's a bunch of lies. Trans people are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the other way around. I've not seen one study saying that we (trans people) are more likely to commit sexual assault. Sorry, but I have no desire to sexually assault other men in the restroom or a locker room, same as the trans women I know don't wish to sexually assault other women and girls in the ladies room! Get over yourselves!

He also repeats the lie that being trans is a mental disorder. No, it isn't. The dysphoria over the mismatch between the mind, the body and the social reality are what is treated - not the identity. You can't change someone's gender identity. The only known treatment for it that works is to help and allow the person to live as the gender they identity as.

Then he goes on to claim that gay men are mentally ill. He obviously views himself as "disordered" for (allegedly) being gay, himself. He has a history of making self-hating homophobic comments, as can be seen here: Milo Yiannopoulos - RationalWiki

F for Milo when it comes to facts, science and common sense!

Warning for some language:

Honestly, I lean strongly toward Milo simply being a character, a sort of gay-face minstrelsy. I think he is just playing a character, like Larry the Cable Guy. I see no evidence of him actually being what he says he is (a gay queen with a racist fetish for black men, has a black boyfriend and is a Jewish convert to Catholicism). He is basically something for the bros to laugh it and confirms their worst fears and stereotypes about gay men. (Effeminate, promiscuous, self-hating and race-mixing (for the racists)).

If he is for real, then he is a very, very sad and pathetic person. He would be a person who was most likely bullied a lot in youth and has become the bully himself in adulthood. He would also be a pathological narcissist and masochist. He would need psychiatric help, honestly. Regardless, he is a detestable person and shame on Maher for normalizing his crap.

I think what the video proves just how much Milo relies on his capacity to generate outrage to get attention. In that debate I just feel he's "small" next to the other four. I mean he knows how to play the crowd but he didn't come out of that very well.

 

[suncowiam]

Yep, I loved the interview part with Maher. Maher is a wonderful guy and not afraid to tell his liberal/left cohorts when they are sniffing glue. No doubt that is why there is some push back against him. It wasn't what amused me about where they disagreed, but where they were in complete agreement. Calling Milo a young gay Christopher Hitchens was a huge compliment however you look at it. The panel part didn't go so well because they thought he would take them seriously. Granted, the one panel member who repeated told him to go **** himself certainly was displaying a pretty stellar intellect... <Yawn>

Can't wait for his invitation to the White House.

As an afterthought: It is my feeling that those who take themselves far too seriously might be easily offended by Milo. He's a rude clown. Get over it.

Common, you can do better than tell people that don't agree with you to get over themselves.

Since when was it wrong to take liberties and equalities seriously? This is where he failed to prove his point unless you seriously believe the blanket assertion he made of homosexuals, transexuals and females.

Since you and @lovesong seem to think this was more of a stunt gone wrong, tell me what you believe his real views of homosexuals, transexuals, and females are. If you cannot provide any public source then how am I even suppose to consider your line of argument?

 

[freethinker44]

At what point then do we start believing what he says?

You don't.
He's trolling you.
He admits he's trolling you.
Don't feed the trolls.

 

[YmirGF]

Common, you can do better than tell people that don't agree with you to get over themselves.

Since when was it wrong to take liberties and equalities seriously? This is where he failed to prove his point unless you seriously believe the blanket assertion he made of homosexuals, transexuals and females.

Since you and @lovesong seem to think this was more of a stunt gone wrong, tell me what you believe his real views of homosexuals, transexuals, and females are. If you cannot provide any public source then how am I even suppose to consider your line of argument?

As @freethinker44 so eloquently stated, he is an unabashed, unrepentant, self-proclaimed troll. He is baiting people simply to get a rise out of them and he does that with surgical precision. That you take his rambling statements seriously clearly shows that you take your own ideas too seriously and perhaps have a bit too much time on your hands. I suppose one thing he gets right, almost all the time, is that people, in general, are tired of all the hand-wringers with their causes de jour.

As a gay man, I'm not the slightest bit troubled by any comments he has made about gays. I'm just too damned secure to be. You criticize his blanket statements by making your own blanket statement. He, very clearly, is most often talking about some of the more "out there" 3rd wave feminists and some of their more bizarre viewpoints. As for transsexuals, his views aren't quite so strident when you consider that transsexuals were largely shunned by the gay community for many years. There's really nothing more indignant than reformed sinners. Perhaps in that department he is simply a bit old fashioned.

I'm still stunned by Maher's quip that he has the potential to be a young gay Christopher Hitchens. Any way you slice it, that is a huge, huge, compliment.

 

[icehorse]

You don't.
He's trolling you.
He admits he's trolling you.
Don't feed the trolls.

Part of his message is that our society is too easily triggered. He admits to being a troll and a provocateur. I agree with some of his claims, I disagree with others. And sometimes...

he's gotten me to think more carefully!!!

I'm still stunned by Maher's quip that he has the potential to be a young gay Christopher Hitchens. Any way you slice it, that is a huge, huge, compliment.

Agreed, and not totally unearned.