0
7

[–] fracker_monocle 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

He's a decent journalist when he wants to be. I was shocked by how well he handled the interviews in the Butts stream, for example. However, I think he has decided to dedicate a lot of his time to trolling, which is fine. I kind of wish he had separate sections for his trolling and his actual journalism work, but maybe that's an issue with Breitbart. I honestly kind of enjoy some of his trolling, but I wouldn't pretend it's journalism.

2
7

[–] Chingasa 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

I don't really read his stuff but I don't see how a rational person would think there is no apparent side effects to the shit they put women on. They're pumped full of hormones from their birth control from their teenage years and 1 in 4 women are on mood altering medication.

8
-2

[–] Lord--Gaben [S] 8 points -2 points (+6|-8) ago 

Yeah, but he's going ahead and talking about "the Muslim invasion" and "it's what God wants," as well as using singular studies. Science works on consensus. One study doesn't prove anything, something becomes known when multiple scientists each do studies and get the same answer every time. It doesn't matter that birth control alters hormone levels, his article is blatantly unprofessional.

1
7

[–] frankenmine 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

There is a Muslim invasion. Millions of migrants are invading Europe, and an unknown number of them, possibly hundreds to thousands, are dormant terrorists.

3
2

[–] Chingasa 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Then let's just get rid of psychology all together. Because there's almost no replication in the entire field.

2
0

[–] HoocOtt 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

"Science works on consensus."

You do not understand how science works if you believe this.

If a bunch of scientists come to a consensus that pigs can fly pigs will not suddenly grow wings.

"It doesn't matter that birth control alters hormone levels"

You don't understand how hormones work either.

2
6

[–] ieatrocks 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

He's the alternate universe sarkeesian

hes not pro gg, he's pro attention, and hey that's totally fine just like it's totally fine for sark to do her thing...

just so long as it stays quality instead of a bunch of lying pandering and money grubbing.

1
4

[–] J_Darnley 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

What's wrong with this article? He site sources for each point. You can argue against them by finding contradicting sources or by showing how the source doesn't support what he says or by pointing out errors in the study.

[EDIT] Mostly I don't really care that much.

1
4

[–] frankenmine 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

We hate corrupt journalism.

Do you have evidence of corruption? No.

End of discussion.

0
1

[–] Guyven 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There you go. Just because an opinion piece offends you doesn't mean 'corruption.' That's the leap our opponents make.

I also love that almost every disagreement post here has exactly 1 downvoat >_>

1
4

[–] psymin 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

He wears his bias on his sleeve and isn't biased negatively towards gamers. That is a plus.

Yes a lot of his stuff is shit. But some of his shit is amusing.

5
-1

[–] Lord--Gaben [S] 5 points -1 points (+4|-5) ago 

Shouldn't we be against all shit?

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In this case "shit" means sensationalist, which isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world. If gawker were merely hyperbolic then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

0
3

[–] Palaxar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I never really followed Milo, You say "why do we support the guy" as if we are all a hivemind.

2
3

[–] ultimatemuffin 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Yeah, I definitely agree that this is a shitty article. But some of his other articles are not shit, and I think that focusing on ideas, rather than where they come from, is something that most people here would agree with.

4
-1

[–] Lord--Gaben [S] 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

Yeah, but we support the person a lot too. Why?

0
5

[–] Boltbeam 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

...We should stop supporting him because of his political views?

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)