Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 10:36:54 GMT -5
Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos invited to speak at conservative conference. um. So, yeah, free speech. But... isn't CPAC supposed to be a serious political conference, attended by elected officials and the like? To me, Milo is a troll, peddling an ugly and perverse form of "entertainment." My response to him has been an eye-roll and to ignore him -- why pay his brand of idiocy the respect of taking it seriously. But if he's now considered an official serious conservative voice, I need to rethink that stance. Evan McMullin and some others on the conservative side are decrying this move (and Milo himself) on Twitter. That's somewhat comforting. But I find it disturbing that anyone would give this troll a podium at a serious political event. I have yet to see this video. But the twitterverse has it that Milo actually condones pedophilia in the video. Has anyone seen it to confirm or deny this report?
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 20, 2017 12:03:04 GMT -5
CPAC has become a joke, imo. When you start inviting people like Glenn Beck to give keynote addresses, you've tossed "serious discussion" out of the window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 12:09:59 GMT -5
Yep.
It's bizarre. The serious conservatives seem to now be increasingly marginalized, while the circus sideshow rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 18:07:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 18:28:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 20, 2017 21:12:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 20, 2017 22:23:50 GMT -5
There's something I don't get about the reaction to Milo. When he got invited to speak at UC Berkley, people threw a fit and caused the event to be canceled. And yet, when he went on Bill Maher's show, that was fine. If the objection is that people shouldn't be giving him a platform, then Maher would be a much bigger offender, I would think, given that he has millions of viewers. Is there something I'm missing here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 23:29:31 GMT -5
I'm guessing it's largely that the Berkeley campus had a big protest-ready community with flexible schedules.
I'm sure Milo will self-publish. I'm sure people will buy. But I certainly can't blame S&S for not wanting to be associated with someone condoning pedophilia. There's controversial, and then there's sexually molesting children. Even racists and sexists tend to have a problem with that. They'd likely lose more customers via boycotts than they'd make on the book. Whereas Milo has nothing to lose by self-publishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 21, 2017 9:24:56 GMT -5
If you read the comments section of any article on this subject, you'll see the left hating on Bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 21, 2017 9:34:24 GMT -5
Okay, I've listened to some of the drivel, read some of the articles slamming Milo. I do not believe Milo is actually condoning pedophilia at all. He's mostly just trying to be provocative, while touching on a few legitimate issues re ages of consent (which I personally think he's getting wrong, but it's a matter of opinion).
It's actually pretty shameful, trying to slime him in this manner. I mean Milo is a serious troll and I don't care a whit about him, about the loss of his book deal, or anything else, but bad behavior is still bad behavior, regardless of who is being targeted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 9:59:43 GMT -5
The transcript of Milo's remarks are here. heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/?ref=emailshareHe is certainly condoning relationships between young boys and older men. The article won't let me cut and paste on my phone, and I need to run out, but you can read his actual words in context at the link. I despise the guy at pretty much the same level I always have. I don't think he belongs at CPAC. If I were S&S, I would have made the business decision to pull the book deal. I will not cry if Breitbart fires him. I think it's time for him and Breitbart to slither off to the fringes where they have always belonged. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 21, 2017 10:28:01 GMT -5
The transcript of Milo's remarks are here. heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/?ref=emailshareHe is certainly condoning relationships between young boys and older men. The article won't let me cut and paste on my phone, and I need to run out, but you can read his actual words in context at the link. I despise the guy at pretty much the same level I always have. I don't think he belongs at CPAC. If I were S&S, I would have made the business decision to pull the book deal. I will not cry if Breitbart fires him. I think it's time for him and Breitbart to slither off to the fringes where they have always belonged. Yeah, that's what I listened to. And no, I don't think he's condoning such relationships in general, he's arguing that it's not "one size fits all." He's certainly not saying that there should be no laws in this regard. And as usual, he's trying to walk a line and push buttons. Look, I disagree with him. I think he's a troll and an asshole (to put it mildly). And I don't care if he lost his book deal. Screw him. But misrepresenting is still misrepresenting. It's not okay--imo--just because of who is being targeted, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 21, 2017 11:02:03 GMT -5
I'm guessing it's largely that the Berkeley campus had a big protest-ready community with flexible schedules. I'm sure Milo will self-publish. I'm sure people will buy. But I certainly can't blame S&S for not wanting to be associated with someone condoning pedophilia. There's controversial, and then there's sexually molesting children. Even racists and sexists tend to have a problem with that. They'd likely lose more customers via boycotts than they'd make on the book. Whereas Milo has nothing to lose by self-publishing. Okay, I've listened to some of the drivel, read some of the articles slamming Milo. I do not believe Milo is actually condoning pedophilia at all. He's mostly just trying to be provocative, while touching on a few legitimate issues re ages of consent (which I personally think he's getting wrong, but it's a matter of opinion). It's actually pretty shameful, trying to slime him in this manner. I mean Milo is a serious troll and I don't care a whit about him, about the loss of his book deal, or anything else, but bad behavior is still bad behavior, regardless of who is being targeted. It's unnecessary to "slime" Mr. Yiannopoulous. All you have to do is read his own words and that takes care of itself.Seriously--fuck this guy. And fuck CPAC too. They were fine with Milo's racist, misogynist, bigoted hate speech until the time he started defending kiddie-diddlers. Then they took offense? What a bunch of stinking hypocrites. They can all join hands and go to hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 21, 2017 11:33:51 GMT -5
I've posted this elsewhere, but here's a link to a short vid with Phillip DeFranco discussing the situation and he provides some articles, quotes, and clips that (until I saw his vid) I wasn't aware of. It's a fairly well-balanced take on the situation:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 12:16:55 GMT -5
I've posted this elsewhere, but here's a link to a short vid with Phillip DeFranco discussing the situation and he provides some articles, quotes, and clips that (until I saw his vid) I wasn't aware of. It's a fairly well-balanced take on the situation: I like DeFranco's take. I think Milo goes further than simply discussing the age of consent, and for the reasons DeFranco cites. I do see a one-time victim rationalizing his own abuse. There is a clear implication that some thirteen-year olds might be mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. And that's just a no. They never are, however they look and however they feel. As most of you know, I adore dark humor and am not particularly easily offended by it. I am a screaming Southpark fan, for example. But I think Milo too often goes well beyond the bounds. Moreover, he too often doesn't do an artful job of using dark wit to highlight hypocrisy or ugliness (which IMO, dark humor should do, at least if it wants me to cheerlead for it). To me, he simply takes a sledgehammer to liberal causes. A scalpel is a much better tool for dark humor. And if you're discussing sex with underage teens -- yeah, you're treading at your own risk. Anything that involves anyone underage is treading at your own risk. I'm not big on sacred cows as a rule, but if there is one, it's kids. Leave them kids alone. ETA: I should add: I have little use for pure provocateurs, on left or right. Piss people off by all means, if that's an effective way to make your point, skewer their hypocrisy by all means and use humor to do it, but pissing them off pretty much just for the pure point of pissing them off, and to make those who dislike them cheer just because you pissed them off? Yeah. That's just fucking annoying to me. That's what a troll does. That, to me, is what Milo mostly does. I am happy to criticize hypocrisy on the left, and to make a joke at its expense (ditto on the right). But just provoking people and getting in their face? Fuck off. I shall not defend you. Those who do it are as much the enemy of truth and reasonable discourse as the hypocrisy, IMO. |
|
