Correct me if I'm wrong but I've just thought that

>>722905290
Bill Maher said something similar yesterday. Milo has potential

>>722905290
>Correct me if I'm wrong
You're wrong. It's just the accent. Hitch would have abhorred Milo.

They are entirely different. Hitchens had reasoned arguments and was on the left. Milo is a troll who will just say anything for attention.

>>722905290
I had actually thought of this after seeing the show. Milo just presents hi,self in a more modern way but their views have some parallels.
>>722905632
>It's just the accent
I'm British mate. It isn't the accent.

>>722905717
Milo has said both sides hate him so I don't know where he really sits politically. However, he does use reasoned arguments combined with his own sense of humour. He does troll but Hitchens did that in some senses with his "Hitchslaps".

>>722905290
that's because you watched a bill maher clip and can't think for yourself

hitchens was a communist in support of the views of trotski, he was extremely vocal about his disdain with religion

milo on the other hand, is the antithesis politically of what hitchens believed

just about the only thing they had in common was that they were both british and both public with their political views and enjoy debating/berating people

other then that I think hitchens would debate circles around milo and they both have extremely different political views

>>722906676
I enjoy both speakers and just thought there was some parallel to be made on their views with regards to Islam and feminism, that sort of thing. Politically, I'm not sure where Milo stands because both sides hate him. I think he might lean to the right but in my view he's somewhat central.

>>722905290
They disagree on the biggest thing though,

RELIGION.

>>722905290
Both Yiannopoulos and Hitchens only look at the surface to form their arguments, so yeah I would say there are parts to them that would be similar.

I would not really classify them are speakers who think, but rather regurgitates of what the community thinks and tailor their style. A lot like the sophists that Socrates despised during his time. (e.g.people who have good rhetoric but do not care for the truth)

File: antkisses.gif (923KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 500x368px

>>722907097
True, Points for you anon.

>>722907335
I think they do often have some truth to what they say though, specifically in the times they were speaking.

If they were tailoring to the trends I don't think they'd have been as controversial as they both had and continue to be.

>>722907335
Read God is not Great and Letters to a Young Contrarian, and you might rethink your opinion on Hitchens. His thinking is not superficial at all.
Nor did he 'regurgitate'. If anything, others regurgitate him.

>>722907999
Trips of truth

Hundreds of thousands of people have similar views when it comes to Islam and feminism.

If there's anyone that's remotely similar to Hitchens these days, that would be Douglas Murray. They were friends and everything.

But that's not saying much. The only thing Hitchens was right about was religion. His politics were horrible. I cringe every time I watch his debate with Galloway.

At the end of the day all these people (Murray, Milo, Trump, Farage, Wilders, etc.) are just controlled opposition. They all suck Zionist cock.

>>722907580
They tailor to specific trends, not the complete general public. As Yiannopoulos with the alt-right, and Hitchens with New Atheism. Hitchens though humorously is a hypocrite in many ways, while _promoting_ free thought, also manages to create a dogma that now is ingrained to the heads of many atheists as some sort of holy scripture which cannot be fallible.

>>722907999
Hitchens books do not elaborate nor extend any philosophical discussion. Just like his debate style, his books simply beat an already dead horse. Bertrand Russell while I admire his mathematical contributions more than his philosophical contributions, has spoken on religion, specifically some of the arguments that Hitchens makes in his book. What is more to the point is Russell does it in a manner that is respectable. Unlike Hitchens who is doing it as if it is some sort of pleasure.

>>722909114
Ah, inb4 the book he wrote about Mother Teresa. There were already articles on the topic, and even ones published in magazines. (Funny enough she had a lot of scrutiny from Catholic academics, arguing from a religious basis that her actions are not in the public interest nor were possible moral.)