Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC slot amid tape controversy

The Berkeley crowd didn't have problems with this particular view of his.

 

Lol. He destroyed himself.

 

Well, there is the little item of the millions of dollars worth of property damage on the one hand, and the threat of violence to the person of Milo, compared to the aversion of the shaming that would have come against CPAC by liberals who would have been violent should CPAC continued with their invite. I know, it's these little "nuance" things that so often are ignored by liberals....

 

Go luok up the word "hypocrisy" and educate yourself.

IF CPAC (IF) had physically prevented Milo Yiannopoulus from speaking at their own event (just like happened at Berkeley) then you would have a point.

BUT the speaking invitation was rescinded after it was discovered that this fellow Milo had made remarks approving of sexually exploiting under age boys.

Big difference. No hypocrisy there. Again, educate yourself.

 

Here's the bottom line - There are A LOT of Trump supporters right here in this thread who are defending this POS Milo, a man who stated that it is acceptable for adults to have sex with 13-year old children. I also know that you have refused to denounce this POS and skipped over ALL of those posts defending him and replied to my post instead. That speaks volumes. Please stay away from children.

 

Okay, I'll bite.

The silence may have a lot to do with the topic being politics, not pedophilia.

The silence may have a lot to do with the fact that Milo was the 13-year old, and said he was the aggressor in the relationship.

The silence may have a lot to do with the problem of what a 13-year old is.

You used the word child in a definitional way, but that merely indicates that you did not bother to get to know most of the 13-year olds you have encountered. the word child has that ring of finality that comes from arbitrary boundaries and static definitions.

I think it is interesting that you have no middle ground that weighs which 13-year old, or considers what the 13-year old thinks or wants.

I am not advocating for sex with teenagers.

Nor am I advocating for the view that a 13-year old should not own his or her body, and therefor has no right to choose whether or not to have sex.

Having taught for years in public schools (grades 6-12) and having had over 8,000 different students, I can vouch for the veracity of 3 things.
1-The vast majority of teenagers are ignorant of the realities of life, unpracticed in the basic skills of relationships, emotionally unstable, and generally f***ing nuts. Only a self-destructive idiot would knowingly risk being sexually intimate with one.

2-Teenagers have been stunted in our society by the artificial construct of adolescence (now extended into the late twenties) during which responsibilities and accountability are slowly dripped into their lives. Adolescents (before age eighteen) are treated like they have no legal ownership of their bodies or minds, even though no one really ever defines who actually does own them. Moreover, it is terribly rare for anyone to do them the courtesy of explicitly informing them that they do not actually own themselves, including their sexuality. We seem to just assume they figured it out and have agreed to it. (They have not.)

As a result, there is a lot of real confusion and frustration as they wrestle with free will that is neither tethered to an appropriately heavy load of responsibilities, nor defined by clearly marked social boundaries and critical self-awareness.

Meanwhile morally idealistic fools think that laws and sermons and lectures and forced concepts of virtue should suffice to enable emotional novices to reign in adult sex drives. Most of the 13-year olds I have known cannot tame even comparatively mild impulses, like cracking inappropriate jokes or blurting out how they feel about a homework assignment. Do you even appreciate any of the implications of Milo's statement about being the sexual aggressor in his teenage relationship?

3-Pretty much from the minute they hit puberty, they transform into biological adults, complete with adult drives and desires. Before puberty, most of what they wanted was security and acceptance, now they also want money, they want power, and they want sex. The strength of each of these very adult drives varies from person to person, and from day to day, but they are there pretty much running the show. The scariest one is the desire for power, because too many teens perceive how sex figures into garnering power long before they understand what they want to use the power to become.

I know you probably have some vague concept of a "sane rational adult", but I have no idea how one would verify at what point adulthood begins. Certainly our society has reached no consensus on what we mean by adulthood.

Picking an age (like 18 or 21) has been a disastrous failure, especially considering that most American millennials are still not self-supporting and self-directing by their mid or late twenties. The crybullies and snowflakes and various SJWs demonstrate that there is a level of immaturity that passes for political conviction, and I am confident there must be conservative analogs to that childishness.

Biological development is a poor marker, especially because in some cases, depending on the selected markers, it would mean the 13-year olds you are talking about would be included in the category of adult.

So before you pull some snide political judgment out of your self-righteous ass, consider the fact that the term 13-year old denotes a far more nebulous concept than most people want to spend the time to discuss.

 

He was targeted - his comments in full context were innocuous. This is not the 19th century.

 

Tyvm, for going to the trouble of posting such a thoughtful detailed reply on a thread that has focused on short term perceived political expediency over any other consideration.

 

It's a big thread.

Put up the Trump supporters in this group posts that support having sex with 13 year old children.

Put up or (*)(*)(*)(*)...

 

You know this how or is this just a lie?

 

Another making stuff up. Does it ever end.
The millions in damage? Done by the paid professional masked rioters? Perhaps paid by trump, yes, I assumed that one.

 

Hypocrites are all those who shouted he had his free speech taken away at Berkeley. Most of them were of the right side of the political spectrum. Now the right side of the political spectrum bans his speech and many of those same people stuff their head in the sand and some even cheer it. That is hypocrisy. I don't know why this needed explaining to you. Well I sorta do.

 

There's plenty of supporting evidence Milo is a NAMBLA enabler.

At some point you may want to reconsider defending him as breathlessly as you do.

 

Milo is just one more weird hero fallen from grace with the alt-right. And what a rogue's gallery they are....

 

He did. By a violence prone mob who decided for all others he shouldn't have the right to be heard.
I don't know what things are like where you are from, but where I'm from that's censorship by the mob.

He was not "banned" He was disinvited by CPAC because to let him speak would be to endorse his view of older men and underage boys.
Yiannopoulos can still be seen wherever someone will have him. No one prevented people from hearing him because his scheduled talk there was cancelled, unlike at Berkeley where the event itself was violently shut down and people chased away.

.It is possible some adult person is unable to understand such a simple concept?

 

Every single person making excuses and defending Milo's support for adults having sex with children are just as guilty as he is by extension.

However, I don't expect you to recognize that as you seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Hands off the children.

 

You could have saved your breath and just stated the above as it clearly indicates that you do, in fact, think it is acceptable for full grown adults to have sex with 13-year old children. That puts you squarely in the second group that I mentioned earlier. You may not "advocate" for it but you clearly have no problem with it. Despicable.

 

Sooooooooo.....

...you can't find ONE SINGLE TRUMP SUPPORTIN' POSTER (or post) that is defending that it's OK to have sex with a 13yo.

Got it.

NEXT!!!

 

It's not just Milo. The Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, is a pedophile and the right voted him into office and refuses to prosecute him.

 

Wow. I didn't mean to trigger you like that. I mean, I'm not sorry that you're flying off the handle...but I didn't mean to do it intentionally.

Like I said, "Every single person making excuses and defending Milo's support for adults having sex with children are just as guilty as he is by extension.

However, I don't expect you to recognize that as you seem to be cut from the same cloth."

 

So should 5 year olds "own their bodies" too?

 

One post.

One excuse.

You just say they are there yet you can't put one up.

Like I said...

...NEXT!!!

 

Pfffffft. Defend this jerk alllllll you want. It won't change his jerkness.

 

Lol. Bigger, darker font only makes you louder and more obnoxious sounding...but still wrong.

 

I see you can't find one either.

Not even one.