So let me guess Milo is misogynistic and Islamophobic because Breitbart?
Well, this Milo guy has:
1. Written an article for Breitbart titled "Why Women Should Leave the Internet" that was clearly misogynistic.
2. Has blamed the entire religion of Islam for the Pulse shooting in Orlando.
So yes, I would say that he is misogynistic and Islamophobic.
(Not to mention that he is also transphobic.)
(One more thing: I will *not* link to the article I mentioned in point 1, as I am not willing to link to Breitbart at all (not even an archived or image version).)
Again, your definition of "clearly" seems to lack any context. Besides, by Googling that "title" I find it isn't the actual title of the article at all. But that is the title as quoted by "WeHuntedTheMammoth". Talk about ideological...
So starting right there, you are spreading misinformation. You are quoting a site with a political slant. But I guess that means you feel "entitled" to name-call everyone. You are right and no one can disagree...
Now, if you read the actual article without looking for offense, maybe you'd see the point he is making. Fact one: more men are harassed online than women. Fact two: women complain about harassment almost 2 to 1. And his point in the article is that maybe, if its bothering people so much, they can turn it off rather than trying to turn it into an issue of sexism when it's a rampant problem for everyone, even moreso for men.
But when you are looking for reasons to name call people, I guess you aren't trying to read context, or rather will let "WeHuntedTheMammoth" tell you what you should think.
As to the Pulse nightclub shooting...why did it happen? It was an Islamist correct? He attacked the club because it was a gay nightclub, right? In many (if not most) Muslim states, it's the death penalty to be LGBT. And Milo is gay too. So when he talks about core issues with Islam, I can see why he may have some serious issues. Now, if you'd actually (again) READ WHAT HE SAID on the matter, on not take it out-of-context as black and white, you'd see he said he was doing his best to also provide humor to a bad situation.
Now yes, he places blame on the religion and some of it's stated tenets. Shouldn't he? Doesn't Christianity have the same problem? Isn't what he said FACTUAL? But you'd rather call him names like Islamophobic for stating the truth? There is a big difference between pointing out ACTUAL problematic issues with a religion's tenets and condemning each and every practitioner. I'd argue, the latter makes one Islamophobic, the former is speaking the truth as it is. The problem is you don't seem to even try to grasp any of this subtlety and given the above statement, it seems you are getting your headlines and opinions from ideological spin doctors...
Now that 4 of the 5 people I earlier named as "other side" forum issues have chimed in, let me say this to the 5th...
TinyE - Don't double-down on your bad habits like these 4. I don't think anyone has a problem with you attempting to make a funny joke here and there in virtually every thread. The issue is when you and others go into thread with the intention and purpose to derail any and all conversation. It's really not up to you to forcibly change topics you dislike.
Here's the real problem. Too many people repeating the same rhetoric they are reading without even trying to think for themselves. The KingBradley's are reading every extremist right-wing leaning article and taking it all for absolute truth. The Telika and Dtgreenes doing the same for the "left".
How about all of you, look for the actual source material. Read conflicting views. Try to take your political blinders off and look at all the issues from the "other" side. If you bother to do this, maybe the issues will gather a bit more depth and then you'll see why simple name-calling and black-white thinking isn't helping anybody.