Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC slot amid tape controversy

Perhaps, more likely though paid for by the newly minted resistance movement funded by mr Soros and administrated by mr Obama. What an interesting standard this, speculation transmuted into "making stuff up". What's next, liberal news orgs shuttered for lack of content?

 

Are you saying that there aren't any Trump supporters in this thread defending Milo?

Or are you saying that Milo never said that it was acceptable for adults to have sex with 13-year old children?

 

His words. Why the attitude? Watch what you say in public. His own fault.

 

Sure. And if he had said what some here and in the media have conflated that as, perhaps I'd agree with you. But the difference is that it's the word themselves that matter here. As in, he didn't articulate a position of support for exploitation. Period. So, it isn't actually "his fault". It's a concerted effort by those who are afraid of his message to silence him, and his message.

So, the "attitude" isn't "attitude", it is offense at those so willing to denigrate from a position of ignorance and willingness to allow this kind of institutional bullying stemming from fear.

 

At some point you may want to show actually post some of that "evidence".

 

Back atcha pal. Find a single lib doing it since y'all are ALWAYS accusing libs of (*)(*)(*)(*) like this.

 

OK, cool. Now will you admit that his initial taped words sound very, very bad for him and his views? Even HE admits it.

 

Yea, it's attitude. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. This time..."in your face"...lost.

 

Which is why the libel published to destroy Milo Y has been so successful. Malice ignores facts and focuses on character assassination.

 

Yes, the attacks on Milo Y are clearly motivated by pure malice. Riots could not silence him so his enemies resorted to vicious low down libel.

 

Oh, the irony, Queenie.

 

Wanh. Milo brought this on himself. He makes money on being obnoxious. I do not feel sorry for him....those ARE his own words, he even admits he does it for shock value. If I were sitting in his audience BEFORE this and he jokes about giving good head because a priest taught him I'd have been horrified and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing walked out and blacklisted him.

 

Yeah, no problem.

And so what of it? In my opinion, the guy is far more honorable and has far better intentions for the common good of this nation than the entire democrat party, 90% of the mainstream media, half the republicans, 75% of college professors, all of Hollywood, and half the voters.

Yet he is reviled in the public eye like he is a pox on this nation. It is this nation itself that is the pox.

 

Are you saying that Milo Y endorsed pedophilia?

 

Very carefully point out where I said ANY such thing. I've been a member here for a lot of years....ask around...I have ZERO problem saying EXACTLY what I think. So, do NOT try to back me into a false corner by putting words in my mouth, er, fingers.

 

If you think he's honorable...great. I happen to think he's an obnoxious jerk.

 

Let me get this straight...Milo said that sex between a 13-year old child and a 28-year old man can be considered perfectly consensual and you think people who hold him accountable for that position are being libelous?

Un-friggin'-believable.

 

All I can say is how the mighty have fallen. I recently saw a video of Richard Spencer disavowing Milo and declaring that his career is in flames. The alt-right are disassociating from Milo because of this scandal. Spencer predicted that Milo has no more platform; his only hope is to reform his views and melt into the "Left".

 

If you had bothered to read all of my post carefully, you would have understood that I do not think it acceptable for full grown adults (whatever that means) to have sex with 13-year olds for precisely the same reasons it is problematic to discuss the topic.
More specifically, you would have understood the following:

1. I specifically said, "Only a self-destructive idiot would knowingly risk being sexually intimate with [a teenager]. That hardly indicates I have no problem with it.
   
   
2. The problem with what your response centers around the term 13-year old children, and how often children is an arbitrary term that is divorced from the reality of what 13-year olds actually are.
   
   
3. The fact that our culture has not figured out what actually constitutes adulthood makes discussion about the topic problematic. We unconsciously equivocate when using necessary words like child and adult. We even assume that we know what we mean, but when we compare situations, it often becomes apparent that we do not.
   
   This nation is only a century away from a time when it was common for US-born 13-year olds to take on the full complement of adult responsibilities, including work, marriage, parenthood, and care of elderly relatives. There are currently immigrants in the US, primarily from Latin America and the subcontinent, who actually did take on all aspects of adulthood at or around the age of 13 prior to immigrating. I have actually had students who were married before they moved to the US with their husbands and their kids.
   
   By the same token, there are many "normal" 28-year old American kids who have not taken on any critical aspect of adult behavior or responsibility.
   
   This range makes statements like yours into nothing but thoughtless moralism, which again indicates that you have no appreciation of the complexity of what a 13-year old actually is, nor how diverse that demographic is. There is nothing particularly wrong with being moralistic, but it behooves you to avoid being thoughtlessly so.
   
   
4. Much of the problem of discussing 13-year old sexuality centers around the fact that our society has decreed that they do not own themselves, but we have never really defined who actually does own them, nor have we dealt with the problem that most 13-year olds don't agree to not owning themselves and their sexuality. 13-year olds actually have free will, and often use it unscrupulously.
   
   
5. Thoughtless judgments like yours do not engage with the reality of teenage sexuality, which would explain why so few people would want to chime in on the topic.
   
   Consider that the essence of rape is the insistence by the rapist that the victim does not actually own his or her body, specifically in regard to sexuality.
   
   Your statement likewise entails that you are insisting that a 13-year old does not own his or her own body, specifically in regard to sexuality. Despite the fact that you present it as a moral attitude, this puts you in the same camp as any rapist.
   
   I am not calling you a rapist, nor am I saying you condone rape. I am merely illustrating one of the many problems inherent in discussing teenage sexuality.

I am sure you mean well, and want people to be protected from being victimized, but thoughtless good intentions cause a lamentably large percentage of the pain and havoc in the world. If you want to make meaningful contributions, try thinking about the content of the post to which you are responding, before you chime in on the topic.

I did not address a simple topic, nor did I consider it one dimensionally and without nuance. I repeatedly pointed out the complexity of the topic as an explanation as to why people would conceivably and legitimately avoid commenting on it.

I welcome your thoughts, but I would appreciate you presenting complete thoughts, not just snap judgments and insults. Thoughtless and ignorant accusations only bring down the level of discourse on the site.

So, seriously,
What do you think constitutes adulthood?
What are the constraints of your definition?
What supports your concept of adulthood?
How should we deal with the non-adults who do not accept your definition?

 

Yes, and the notion that these 21st century so called "progressives" care at all about the welfare of children or could be shocked and offended by any kind sexual conduct let alone speech is laughable.

Their outrage is just another phony political act to excuse violence and slander against their effective opposition. And you too have noticed how the entire corrupt political class RP/DP unites to destroy serious opposition.

 

I also happen to think you avoided addressing my point.

You want to talk about obnoxious jerks? The coward, phony, liar obama and the evil queen hillary come to mind. Then the despicable, devious anti-american press. They are the ones causing the most destruction to America.

Here is milo having a good time with the phonies on the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgl53EXInPc

 

And when did he suggest this? Could you provide the quote that he said, and not something someone else said about him? What is "Un-friggin'-believable" (thanks, that is quite the word soup there...) is the unwillingness to accept the actual fact, and depend on the fiction for your own opinion and then cast it as fact. But keep repeating it, as it will reinforce it for you to the exclusion of actual fact.

 

The rats are running and jumping ship.

 

We are discussing Milo and, of course, you'd like to steer away to others. Anything to avoid Milo the Jerk, huh?

What point do you think I avoided?

 

More evidence of the extreme damage these malicious libelous attacks have done to Milo Y's career.

If his vulnerable enemies have any sense at all left they will want to see Milo Y thrive in spite of all this defamation.