Milo Yiannopoulos thinks it’s a mistake that the ‘modern’ left’ wants ‘consistency’


What was this stupid thing that Yiannopoulos said? He was defending the fact that he is Catholic, which Maher thinks is irrational. To be fair to Maher, he thinks that all religions are irrational.

Here’s the stupidity (and Yiannopoulos wasn’t joking or trying to be funny when he said it).

Well everyone is capable of bullshit stupid thinking. And that’s ok. It’s a characteristic of the more modern left, I think, requiring this absolute consistency, and forgetting that people are messy and complicated, and forgetting also some other human truths, some realities of human psychology, like for instance, the reason that they want to police humor, which is very important to both  of us, is that they can’t control it, because the one thing that authoritarians hate is laughter because they can’t control what people find funny.

I have no problem with his view that “people are messy and complicated.” I’m not sure who he is referring to when he makes the comment about human psychology and how the modern left doesn’t like laughter because they can’t control it. Is this Lena Dunham? I wish he would say who he is talking about. So this is unclear, but it’s not that stupid. What is so inane is his comment about the modern left requiring absolute consistency. I assume that he means logical consistency. If he does, then isn’t this a requirement of reason, not the modern left? Is he actually saying that it’s good to be contradictory and the stupid left doesn’t realize this? Is his reason that people are messy and complicated? OMG! He should take a course in basic logic! The reason he has given about people being messy and complicated has nothing to do with logical consistency. Only morons think inconsistency is a good thing.

But let’s try to be charitable to Yiannopoulos, something that he is clearly not good at, and something that is difficult for this blogger to do, especially after reading this article about him. Perhaps he is just saying that many foundational or basic beliefs, the kind you find in religion, cannot be justified; they are irrational. If this is what he meant, then it’s not that stupid a thing to say. I just don’t know who besides the mathematician, W.K. Clifford, a subscriber to evidentialism, believes such a thing. I also don’t know why he is so anti-Islam (or is it just certain Muslims?). Aren’t they messy and complicated? ISIS is just being irrational and the so-called modern left is ridiculous for being critical of this.

Yianno (or Bruno2), when you accuse someone of saying something that you think is mistaken, do the right thing and say who you’re referring to. Also, why is ISIS irrationality bad, but Catholic irrationality good? Is it just because the former are savages? But why is this rational?

Watch this video and you will see him begin to ramble about the modern left starting at about minute 5:45.

WTF? This is something that Lena Dunham might say. Ouch!

- Advertisement -

Comments 0

log in

Captcha!

reset password

Back to
log in