Nobody is defending Neo-Nazi's, and neither Milo nor Richard Spencer are Neo-Nazis. What a few of us are arguing is that violence is not the answer when you simply disagree with somebody's point of view. And then going on to call them "Neo-Nazi's" - when it's blatantly false - only helps to justify those violent actions in the minds of the perpetrators.

They're not neonazis like Kanye West isn't a gay fish.

It's weird to me how it's "rational" to strawman the entire left as intolerant pussies based on the actions of the extremist minority, but it's brash to call people who consistently preach white supremacist ideologies neonazis.

Depending on what you mean by Charisma...

Milo is a troll. He writes for Beitbart (owned by Master Troll, Bannon). That outlet's whole business model is based on reactionary click baiting.

Milo also admits, loudly, that he was prostitute with sugar daddies. It's like he's just praying for some "tolerant" liberal to insult him over it to prove his point about the left.

Alt-right leader: 'Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!' - CNNPolitics.com

I am SURE that by now you have heard about this or seen video from it, it might have even been discussed earlier in this thread. How can one look at this, knowing that Spencer is a SELF-DESCRIBED WHITE SUPREMACIST and say that calling him a nazi is 'blatantly false'? what is there to gain by defending a racist pos (especially one in a position of influence) regardless of the exact term they fit under? call a spade a spade dude

HR has a brain condition and is getting surgery later this month

Damn.

hr?

Oh **** he has bad brains?

Now who's being racist?
:shycouch:

Bad Brains