This whole attitude of "oh, conservatives are the new counter-culture" is part of this whole desperate rebranding thing the right has been trying to do since Gamergate, which is to look "cool". It's something I see in Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson, Sargon and the other right-wing pundits whose careers are built on "triggering feminational socialists!!!", and it's something the alt-right tries to do with memes, because it's for the sole purpose of trying to look cool up against the SJW liberals.
yeah
it's kinda like what the liberals did with the religious right in the 80s and 90s
but that's totally not a worthy comparison amirite we're just a bunch of nose-picking losers
The reason this idea of having conservatism be "punk" or "counter-culture" is hilarious is because these people invest so much power and integrity into these hierarchies that control society and yet try and paint themselves as these rebellious types going against the status quo while promoting a hyperreal version of it at the same time. Hell, Paul Joseph Watson makes this video about how punk conservatives at the same time he talks about how it's bad that popular culture is sooo taboo. Conservatives have been trying to paint themselves as "punks" since the 1980s and it's always failed and reverted to the same old dumb hierarchies they've always worshiped.
thinking pop culture is bad and going against it is the exact definition of punk
and he's not saying pop culture is taboo, he's saying it's vain, narcissistic and extremely self-centered, which you can't deny is true
If you're referring to the riots at Milo's planned event at Berkeley, it's not like anybody was preventing him from speaking. He could've easily walked into there and done his event anyways. It probably would've been even better for his reputation if he had gone up and spoken anyways amidst all the protests going on outside. Secondly, Milo has as much a right to free speech as those protestors had a right to assemble and protest his event. And Milo isn't entitled to a platform nor an audience of generous listeners.
You must be a diagnosed handicapped child. Otherwise, you'd have to have your richard lodged firmly inside Hillary Clinton's pusillanimous individual to say something so ignorant.
It wasn't a loving protest. It was a
riot. There were no "protesters"; they
ALL rioted, set fires, beat people up, threw bombs at police, and you're telling me "oh Milo could've still gotten in there and spoken."
Let's take you, turn you into a liberal spokesperson, and you're going to speak at, say, Liberty University, and a bunch of national socialists and white supremacists show up and start beating up your supporters, keeping them out the of the building, all while setting things on fire, smashing their OWN university center's windows, start pelting the police with fireworks; I don't know, go wild with your imagination (it's what they did at Berkeley)
Tell me that you'd try to still get in there and give a speech, even with that moat of animals around the auditorium.
And you've got it backward, buddy. Riots are against the law. You're not entitled to rioting (MIND loving BLOWN). UC Berkeley, on the other hand, has an OBLIGATION to give a platform to ALL points of view and to uphold free speech principles, considering it's a PUBLIC university.
