I was listening to him on Joe Rogan’s podcast a few weeks back and found him extremely entertaining and spot-on on specific points. Has anyone heard of him prior to the LinkedIn situation?
I listened to that episode as well. Milo is a contributor to Brietbart.com. If you like him I would also recommend Steven Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson, Ben Shapiro, Gavin McGinnis. As well as https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald, http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.drudgereport.com/ http://www.breitbart.com/
As a self-identified homosexual, “cultural libertarian”,[5] and “free speech fundamentalist”, he is a vocal critic of feminism,[6] Islam, social justice, atheism, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian or belonging to the ‘regressive left’.
He’s a complete asshole. I like that about him.
Different for the sake of being different, like a child looking for attention
edit: like Joe Rogan though
Slightly off topic, I got banned by the “tolerant conservatives” at Breitbart, took me less than a month!! 
I used confusing double-edged sword strategy in the comments section. They weren’t sure if they should thumbs up me as the new leader of the alt right, or ban the hell out of my liberal snowflakeness. I think the mods considered me too threatening to the site, sowing confusion, and bringing logical analysis. Haha, it was good fun though!
But I still like Milo, even though they are anti-free-speech just like the “liberal nazis” they oppose.
I’ve grown to be a fan of him.
Milo on immigration, feminism, and the anti-free-speech liberal corporate fear nazis. 
[Video:https://youtu.be/Q3K1pGN-O8I]
the guy is a genius in that he has no real qualifications for anything but makes bank telling people what they want to hear. Similar to Ann coulter, slick on his part strike while the irons hot. Of course the right loves a token gay they can parade out and say “Look we dont hate gays!”
The sad thing is he is only able to talk this freely because he is gay, and thus “discriminated against bla bla bla, thus can’t be a bigot” (nonsense leftist logic). If he were a straight white male he would instantly be a “white supremacist”, which is what the fear mongers try to label him as anyhow…but it doesn’t quite stick cause of the “gay shield”.
i mean he is certainly a bigot and a condescending prick, but its all an act to sell tickets to idiots. Good for him
^ OMG you are a homophobe!!!
Why’s it all an act?
He’s said as much. He’s said point blank that his gayness allows him free speech that other white men are not allowed.
Are you insinuating he doesnt play up his conservative beliefs/gayness/word choices to pander to his audience? While I dont doubt he has conservative beliefs thats not what sells, its his whole image. He makes money off the character he plays, he recognized it long ago and plays it up to sell
its not limited to conservatives obviously, plenty of liberals do the same crap because people are dumb. I seriously question the mental capacity of anyone paying to see this guy (or any others) just like I question anyone who actually wastes the time to go to a HRC or DT (or any politicians) political rally
“belief in a free marketplace of ideas and allowing your adversary to state their arguments in the strongest possible terms.” An effeminate half-Jew gay man with jungle fever, a perfect foil to the leftist fem-dominate SJW agenda. He’s good at pointing out how the left constricts debates and obfuscates issues by defining the acceptable terminology, who is the victim class, and who is the privilege class. Once those boundaries are down you can finally address substantive issues, while the left are well versed on complaining, they are terrible at proposing viable solutions.
From the right-wing point of view:
British Accent > Gayness + Cabernet Sauvignon Nail Polish
How do you “play up your gayness”? Dude is gay and almost exclusively dates black guys but somehow he’s a bigot and white supremacist by the left’s account. There’s nothing to play up there, it simply is what it is. No more than any black person is “playing up his blackness” or a woman is “playing up her womaness” in a social issues debate. He does hit on it a lot, I think it’s because it forces the left to challenge his point rather than his person.
Anyhow, a lot of people miss his platform. He is exactly who he says he is. He is first and foremost pushing back in favor of free speach and free thought. I side with him very closely on this. So yes, he is inflammatory, but it’s not about playing towards an audience, he’s doing it to purposely illicit a response and push back against the idea that he can’t say this or that.
He’s made some great points about the left and Islam. A lot of noise occurs from the left about “islamaphobes” in the western countries who have concerns about the cultural impacts that aren’t that far off from the left’s concerns regarding Christian impact in schools and culture. He makes the point that while many make it sound like you can’t be gay and conservative, he finds it hard to be gay and liberal, knowing that in 10 Muslim countries he could be executed for being gay. Etc, etc.
It doesn’t all have to be taken literally to understand his broader point that we should not be limiting discussions or silencing dissenting thought. If you’ve seen his tour, he’s often respectful to his opponents during the Q&A but he will eviscerate their stances. They have literally set up safe spaces and crying rooms during his campus tour. If he’s not serving a clear purpose, I don’t know who is.
That being said, if the tables were turned and he felt the left were struggling to speak freely, I’m 100% sure he would take that side. He’s first and foremost a free speech debater. With that knowledge in mind I don’t see him as insincere at all. I see eye to eye with the guy in that regard.