February 22, 2017

"But let’s be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don’t care about children."

"They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I’ve never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don’t care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail. I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.... Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want.... I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression."

From the transcript of Milo's press conference.

I blogged the press conference yesterday, here, with just the video, and there are 200+ comments over there. I'm blogging again because I'm seeing a transcript for the first time, and I wanted to forefront that passage.

And let me propose a thought experiment, in the style of my Trump hypotheticals, 2 posts down.

What if there were a young, handsome, smart, funny provocateur who'd spiked into popularity spouting left-liberal politics, stirring up young people on college campuses and irking older liberals who didn't think he knew enough or had served his elders long enough to deserve his place in the spotlight? And what if then his antagonists dropped some edited audio of late-night podcasts he'd recorded some years ago in which he revealed that when he was 14 he'd had a sexual relationship with a 24-year-old priest but that he refused to think about himself as the victim and he displayed his rationalization of the victimhood experience by characterizing himself as the sexual aggressor and by claiming that the priest had actually helped him?

How would Leftist Milo be treated?

96 comments:

Scott said...

Milo jumped the shark in the United States when he started trolling public attitudes about pedophilia. He's crossed the line from provocateur to exhibitionist; from daring to who the fuck cares?

zipity said...

Is this a trick question?

He'd be treated as a god. The second coming. And anybody who dared to question him would be torn asunder.

gspencer said...

"How would he be treated?"

To ask the question is to answer it. You, I, & the regular other posters to this site know exactly how he would be treated. Bill Clinton readily comes to mind.

The hypocrisy of the left is simply breath-taking.

Eleanor said...

For the folks on the left, condemning someone for participating in a homosexual relationship with an older person would be hypocritical. Was it "rape-rape"? That wouldn't stop them necessarily, but it would be a harder sell. Milo set up "The Perfect Storm". The left wants him silenced, but their protests have only made him stronger. Using the homophobia and religiosity of the right against him turned out to be more effective, and the GOPe's willingness to help made it even easier. No one will convince me there wasn't collusion involved.

Paul Jackson said...

Agree that he'd be treated like a god. He'd quickly be signed to a book deal, given a time slot on MSNBC, while they figure out whose House or Senate seat he should run for.

dreams said...

As to Milo, I don't have an opinion, yet.

DanTheMan said...

>> How would he be treated?

This isn't really a hypothetical.

Let's ask Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski, Ted Kennedy, Lena Dunham, Madonna etc. etc. etc.

Curious George said...

"Scott said...
Milo jumped the shark in the United States when he started trolling public attitudes about pedophilia. He's crossed the line from provocateur to exhibitionist; from daring to who the fuck cares?"

You're dreaming. He will be bigger than ever. And your characterization of him is dead wrong.

Bob Boyd said...

All criticism of lefty Milo would be dismissed as homophobia. The critics would be the ones who were out of a job.

Annie C said...

http://heatst.com/entertainment/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/

Mac McConnell said...

The Left would suck his dick.

MisterBuddwing said...

How many of us buy into the "Summer of '42" fantasy - the shy teenage boy who gets "deflowered" by a (gorgeous) woman at least several years his senior? Somehow, that never gets called statutory rape or molestation.

rhhardin said...

You might remark correctly on the effect of affirmitive action on blacks without caring about blacks, but just be interested in systems and perverse consequences.

It's a good analysis nevertheless.

Caring might even get in the way. It would make you a leftist. Doing damage because you like your good intentions, and not caring about the damage in fact.

Who's the good guy?

Laslo Spatula said...

"What if there were a young, handsome, smart, funny provocateur who'd spiked into popularity spouting left-liberal politics, stirring up young people on college campuses and irking older liberals who didn't think he knew enough or had served his elders long enough to deserve his place in the spotlight?"

Wasn't this basically Obama when he came into the spotlight?

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee" -- Bill Clinton.

I don't know if Obama sucked anyone's cock though. Feel free to add innuendo.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

Milo could usefully take the line that hysteria about underage sex with adults is what does the damage to the underaged kid, not the thing itself.

The psychological mechanism is that if the kid is allwed to take responsibility at least partly for what happens to him, he's in control.

If society goes crazy about it, the kid has no control.

That's the damage.

rhhardin said...

Milo's version is that it's complicated, but with no analysis.

Rick said...

Identifying his sexual partner as a priest was a major mistake. To the left the priest is a safe target justifying the distinction between Milo's Two Minutes of Hate and Eve Ensler's continuing fame.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

He would be excoriated in the conservative media and blogosphere. He would never have been invited to speak at CPAC, but if he had, he would be disinvited.

Unknown said...

I wonder if any young men will step up to say one day soon that they were groomed and coddled and petted by Daddy Milo. He likes the Daddy theme, he calls Trump his Daddy, afterall. All of this outrage on the right over a British bomb thrower, wow.

rhhardin said...

Even today in the hysteria climate, half of guys would treat underage sex with a hot teacher as a good thing.

That's not allowed to figure in, owing to a convergence of sex equality and just being bad people who can be ignored.

traditionalguy said...

Don't ask. Don't tell. That keeps the politicians safe.

Milo's crime is that he tells. Telling it all. That confronts us with a choice: Do we 1) righteously condemn the Dangerous Faggot? Or do we 2)laugh at his schtick?

The second has taken over for the first option since people woke up to the concept that its not our business how other people have sex. But CPAC cannot wake up. If they did they would win elections like that horrible man Trump.

Michael K said...

"Identifying his sexual partner as a priest was a major mistake."

Yes, that may have been a factor.

Michael K said...

"half of guys would treat underage sex with a hot teacher as a good thing."

Including me. Every 15 year old's fantasy, especially in the old days before the pill when sex was hard to find.

Todd said...

What if there were a young, handsome, smart, funny provocateur who'd spiked into popularity spouting left-liberal politics, stirring up young people on college campuses and irking older liberals who didn't think he knew enough or had served his elders long enough to deserve his place in the spotlight? And what if then his antagonists dropped some edited audio of late-night podcasts he'd recorded some years ago in which he revealed that when he was 14 he'd had a sexual relationship with a 24-year-old priest but that he refused to think about himself as the victim and he displayed his rationalization of the victimhood experience by characterizing himself as the sexual aggressor and by claiming that the priest had actually helped him?

How would Leftist Milo be treated?


Rhetorical question right? You and everyone reading the blog knows exactly how the left would treat "one of their own" that had the holy-trinity of leftism covered a) gay, b) prefers black men, c) was sexually abused by a priest. If he was in any way a reasonably articulate leftist he would be SET FOR LIFE. He would be able to say absolutely anything to anyone at any time and he would get a pass. He would be on every single talk show and wind up with his own. Does anyone seriously doubt that this is what would happen?

Fernandinande said...

How would Leftist Milo be treated?

Differently.

Chris Brand, British psych prof and not a liberal or homosexual, wrote during the priest-molestation panic that he was molested by priest(s) and that it was no big deal, not traumatizing; they gave him money and were more interesting to talk to than other people in his sphere.

He was fired and his academic book was cancelled.

rhhardin said...

Milo may have been channeling Phaedrus.

Does he have a classical education?

Milo Minderbinder said...

The closest analogy to Milo's situation (no hypo needed) is Madonna's statement, noted with a media yawn and grin, that she'd asked her then 14-yo son if he would refer one of his friends to Madonna for the obvious.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Social conservatives who were thawing to gays because of Milo now no longer have Milo. Maybe this was even a deliberate part of Evan McMullin's takedown plan.

Speaking of which, I wonder what McMullin's future is now outside the dirty tricks/oppo research sector. I suppose he could run as a Democrat, but what Republicans will trust him not to do the same thing to them he did to Milo any time he feels like it?

Quayle said...

"The hypocrisy of the left is simply breath-taking."

That may be, but pointing it out will not be effective and will not stop it. Here is my argument:

1. The definition of hyprocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform". But another related word for hyprocrisy is "pretense".

1.a. There are two possibilities when soneone espouses a particular moral standard. Either they believe it, or it is a sham - a vaneer - a pretense.

2. The left's espousal of one or the other moral position is now become the latter - mere shams and pretenses.

3. The true moral order of the left, by which they are clearly operating, is "kill our enemies". That is the prime objective. The espousal of various moral positions are mere tools in that objective.

4. You will never win. Pointing out or charging one with hyprocricy, while it may have an effect on persons who truely do believe in the moral standards they espouse (see e.g. MLK's assertions to a then-Christian nation), it has zero effect on the person who is only using the moral stance as a pretense and a weapon for their will to power.

5. The only appropriate response is to dismiss them, to ignore their false barbs and charges, and perhaps at times to point out their attention to the finest details about "nothings" while swollowing and ignoring that another decade has gone by in America and the poor in our inner cities are still poor.

Then we must work together with principal, to achieve the kid of society we truly want and envision.

Fernandinande said...

rhhardin said...
Even today in the hysteria climate, half of guys would treat underage sex with a hot teacher as a good thing.


It's hilarious how the MSM calls the teen-aged boys "victims", although that status may occur after the feminist courts intrude into people private lives: "Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support".

PB said...

Democrats laud the behavior among themselves that they would decry as abhorrent in Republicans.

They would praise a real Hitler in their midst as they attempt to label any Republican as that. It is the totalitarian impulse they cultivate.

PB said...

Bill Clinton was a happy, celebrated sexual predator and perjurer that they defended.

Unknown said...

"How would Leftist Milo be treated?"

Isn't that exactly what Leena Dunham wrote about in her book? She molested her toddler sister and the MSM / Hollywood thought it funny, or ignored it.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

He would be the next Polanski, revered as a genius but brought down by the evil bigoted stupid fools of the right...

buwaya said...

Just as an aside, the Socialist candidate for President of France, Emmanuel Macron, was seduced by his teacher, 24 years his senior, when he was 15. He eventually married her.

exiledonmainstreet said...

dda6ga dda6ga said...
He would be the next Polanski, revered as a genius but brought down by the evil bigoted stupid fools of the right..."

Polanski actually drugged and raped a 13 year old. Milo did not.

Amadeus 48 said...

Mmmm-- a lot to say here, but where to begin?
--Observe the behavior of the left commentators on your original post. Some victims of pedophilia are less worthy than others--and some perpetrators are viewed by the left as saints.
--Your imaginary Lefty Milo would be celebrated for his bravery, and ultimately sanctified as a liberated soul. (Cf. Eve Ensler, Harvey Milk, Madonna, Ronan Farrow).

But this is crazy. What do Ritmo, ARM, Inga, Trollyou, etc. have to say about your hypothetical? Silence has descended (I note the lame attempt above by Unknown Shirley to turn this back on Milo). I am sure they are still thinking.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Clayton Hennesey said...
Social conservatives who were thawing to gays because of Milo now no longer have Milo."

He might have lost some of them, but I'm not sure he has lost the crowd that finds him most appealing - college age kids who are not socons but are tired of PC and found his views an exciting alternative to the boring, stale Leftist Orthodoxy they have been bombarded with their entire lives. We'll see.

roesch/voltaire said...

Ross Dothan in the NYT, I think, has written an excellent analysis of the Milo phoneme here is a sample:
From Dubya’s evangelical conservatism to Milo’s Rimbaudian new right, from “marriage is between a man and a woman” to “well, we draw the line at ephebophilia” is a rather dizzying trajectory. But if you understand what’s happened to cultural conservatism over the last decade, the strange career of Yiannopoulos makes a striking sort of sense.

William said...

I think the biggest scandal about Bill Cosby was how long it took for his behavior to become a scandal. If you're safely ensconced within the liberal bubble, the dogs don't bark. In another thread you mention LBJ. I read the Caro books. LBJ was a gold mine of scandals, but they never became public until he fell afoul of the liberals after Vietnam. Even today, they're not much noted. His first election to the Senate was engineered through massive vote fraud. Don't expect to see a movie about that......As a general rule, a liberal's survivability chances in any scandal are about twice those of a conservative. In sex scandals, the odds are even better. Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton became more revered after their persecution and brave struggle against the forces of Puritanical repression in America.

Otto said...

"young, handsome, smart, funny provocateur " Our cherished value system.Such banality will serve to no lasting ,worthwhile civilization.

William said...

Milo himself is a poster child for how the sex abuse of a minor can ruin that person's life. At an early age, he was confronted with an experience that he could neither comprehend nor integrate. He's intelligent and witty, but not smart enough to make sense of his life nor witty enough to make humor out of the soul murdering experience.......I think artists with his background generally go on to epater le bourgeoisie. His choice of targets is unusual. If he had stayed within the accepted boundaries for wounded artists and made fun of middle class rather than liberal conventions, he would have been fine........Suppose Anne Frank had survived the concentration camp and gone onto become a stand up comic who made jokes about how sexy she though the camp guards were. People handle irrational experiences in irrational ways.

Karen said...

This topic is very dangerous for liberals. If we begin talking too much about younger boys being molested by older men, we might start thinking that homosexuality has something to do with this kind of mistreatment. Almost every gay man I've ever known was at some time in his very young life molested by an older relative or some older man in his life. Pre-teens often go through a sexual identity confusion but if they are in a healthy environment they will grow into their sexual identity . If that is interrupted by a molestation, it can easily lead to feeling that their role has been chosen for them

exiledonmainstreet said...

As a general rule, a liberal's survivability chances in any scandal are about twice those of a conservative. In sex scandals, the odds are even better. Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton became more revered after their persecution and brave struggle against the forces of Puritanical repression in America.

2/22/17, 9:48 AM

As was noted in the above thread, both George Takei and Bill Maher have publicly come out in favor of sex with minors. I'm sure the libs will ignore that.

As Milo said, it's not like they give a shit about children.

Thorley Winston said...

Social conservatives who were thawing to gays because of Milo now no longer have Milo.

I think it depends on what their impression of him was before. I have seen exactly three videos of Milo Yiannopoulos prior watching his press conference. The first was off a takedown he did of BLM where he went through the statistics of how much more likely a black male was to be killed by means other than by a police officer. The second was imploring conservative white voters NOT to fall into the same trap of identity politics that the Left has. The third was in answering a question of whether if there was a pill to make him straight he would take it (his response was that he thought sexuality was messy and while he couldn’t imagine not loving men, his one sort-of regret was that it meant he couldn’t father a child). Each of these left me with the impression that he's sharp and pretty thoughtful.

I watched his press conference and read the transcript of his original remarks and I have to say it hasn’t changed my impression of him. Much as I’d prefer that some topics not be fodder for public discourse, that ship sailed when Governor Clinton answered “boxers or briefs?” and it’s not coming back. I don’t feel compelled to defend Yiannopoulos for his views on this topic but it’s pretty clear to me and any person who can read at above a sixth grade level that he wasn’t endorsing or minimizing pedophilia and the characterization of his comments as such is simply slander.

William said...

It would be just my luck to be completely wrong about this, but I don't think many people would describe their earliest sexual experiences as idyllic. The words klutzy, disappointing, squalid spring to mind. Still, sex is one of those subjects people like to romanticize, i.e. Lie about. What Milo did was lie about his early sex life.

Todd said...

For those asking if Milo has lost "conservatives", I would respond that most "conservatives" are not of those traits that most come to mind when one thinks of "conservatives". As an example, I am "labeled" a conservative but am in reality socially liberal and fiscally conservative. More libertarian than anything else. I don't care one wit what adults do behind closed doors. I don't want the government doing more than they were initially designed to do. I want as much of my money as I can hold on to, to spend as I see fit. I think there are too many laws trying to codify morality (as well as just too many laws).

I also want the government and society to treat everyone equally. Individuals should be held responsible for their choices with the consequences being equally administered.

I don't think I am to atypical.

I think the "talking heads" will distance themselves but the "rank and file" don't care so much in part because they (we) see the double-standards and in part because after all this time with the left having the out-rage meter set on eleventy, many of us just don't care what they say any more. Today, the left is like a kid that yells mommy over and over and over again whereas the adults just tune them out. The left is screaming into a void. The MSM is screaming into a void. Hollywood is screaming into a void. We. Just. Don't. Care. Anymore.

I believe Milo will survive just fine.

slarrow said...

Obviously, leftists would fall all over themselves to laud such a person to the heavens. The cries of "so brave!" and "thank you for this" would tumble down upon the NotMilo until he couldn't walk for stumbling over accolades.

But Milo's a threat, so they attack him. He's entirely right--the pedophilia charge is merely a weapon used by people who don't care about the charge itself to sway the people that do. In resigning from Breitbart now, Milo has made a tactical error: it emboldens his enemies on the Left and the NeverTrumpers (like the odious weasel Evan McMuffin or whatever his name is.)

But the move is a smart strategic one. As his friend Vox Day (for whom Milo once wrote a forward) has said: "Give a man a platform and he will speak his mind. Deny him a platform and he will build his own... and you will never silence him again." Milo's on his way to building one now. Better watch out.

Birches said...

Any other abuse victim would be treated with compassion.

I don't really care about the left's hypocrisy. I care about the NeverTrumpers who insisted they were better than this and that is why Trump shouldn't be President. The pussy grabbing tape wasn't edited, what's their excuse on this hit job? Milo and I have little in common with regards to values and I would say that is the case for most social conservatives, but it wasn't the socons that brought him down. It was the jealous and petty neocons. They disgust me.

Sebastian said...

What ifs are pointless. The only point in leftist discourse is to pursue power by any means necessary. If leftist Milo serves the cause, protect him; if for any less likely reason he is a liability, sacrifice him. But of course there can't be a leftist Milo: free speech is also just a tool. If it helps taking it to the man, use it; otherwise, attack it. Principles are for pussies.

buwaya said...

Good points about homosexuality and childhood abuse.
This may explain such things as Pathan culture, where both are ubiquitous. Such high proportions certainly aren't "born that way".

People may be surprisingly easily programmed in some ways.

Which raises all sorts of points, of course, about priests and teachers and scoutmasters.

Tradition exists for excellent reasons, even if they arent understood.

Birches said...

This captured my feelings pretty well.

Triangle Man said...

This is a nonsense hypothetical. It assumes that the handful of characteristics listed are sufficient to capture the likelihood of success or failure as a celebrity. Milo has fallen as a celebrity, but may rise again if he is sufficiently driven to seek the limelight.

n.n said...

Baby hunts are a Liberal phenomenon. If it's a baby, if it's a Conservative, abort it for political progress.

Mr. D said...

If Milo wants a second act, he needs to become the new David Brock.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I'm wondering if my comment above might not have fallen victim to a game of telephone. I wrote:

Social [i.e., not socially liberal, fiscally conservative conservatives; socially conservative conservatives] conservatives who were thawing to gays because of Milo now no longer have Milo. Maybe this was even a deliberate part of Evan McMullin's takedown plan.

In other words, what if Milo had instead been shot and killed by NeverTrumpers, to the great glee of left liberals?

The agent who was thawing social conservatives to his homosexuality, which many social conservatives see as an absolute deal breaker not far removed from pedophilia, has been whisked off the scene forthwith, no more Breitbart, no CPAC, no book. Whatever thawing towards homosexuality, fully embraced and celebrated by left liberals, might have been in progress with social conservatives as a result of Milo has abruptly has its agency removed.

Milo was a iconoclastic, populist libertarian character and, as such, anathema to the pure ideological religions of both the left and the McMullin right, but you can't make a pure left nor a pure right omelet without breaking a few gay eggs, and purists on both sides wishing to enforce the ideologically pure status quo are more than fine with that.

Bay Area Guy said...

I read the Statement by Milo.

It is thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent and honest.

He is being treated as if HE were the child molester, when, in fact, he is not.

There is a concerted effort to make him a pariah, when he shouldn't be.

CPAC should read the Statement and re-invite Milo to speak at their conference. But that won't happen, because Milo has made enormous enemies on the Left (who protest/riot and violate his 1st Amendment Rights) along with a segment of fussy Conservatives, probably #NeverTrumpers who don't like him either, and don't want to take political heat from the Left.

I hope his book comes out soon, under another, less cowardly publisher.

I hope he continues to speak on college campuses.

Again, I want to re-emphasize. I have very little in common with Milo, other than our admiration for Trump. I think child molesters should be shot. I think the age of consent should be 18. And I think Milo can be loud, obnoxious, and obscene. But I do think we should treat Gays and Lesbians with much more kindness and gentility and tolerance, although I totally oppose the gay POLITICAL agenda. Yes, I still oppose gay marriage, euphemistically and antiseptically called, "same-sex" marriage.

But, Milo is getting a raw deal, not because of views on sex, but because the Left hates his politics. Plain and simple.

Politics ain't beanbag as some wise old pol once said.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Leftist Milo would be celebrated.

I have a bigger problem with the Priest/parishioner relationship than the age difference. A 24 and 14 year old could hook up at the beach and be walking hand in hand/kissing and most would probably find nothing unusual. There are 14 year olds who look young for their age and 24's who look 14. That is not pedophilia. It may be statutory rape and you might personally disapprove - that does not make it pedophilia.

MaxedOutMama said...

Well, Milo is now publicizing a George Takei clip discussing his sexual experience at summer camp when he was thirteen.

No one's hunting George Takei down, are they? None of Takei's sponsors are fleeing, are they? No one in the media thinks Takei's comments are shocking and deplorable, do they? Takei is celebrated for his courage in the media. But Takei is reliably left.

We all know the Milo hunt is cynical and hypocritical, although the public's deep opposition to normalizing adult/young teen sex is NOT.

But it is very possible to say that both of these men have a screw loose, and don't understand something important about social/sexual development in young teens, without thinking that either man should be driven from the public square.

MaxedOutMama said...

And shouldn't we all be watching Whoopi Goldberg discuss "rape-rape" and Roman Polanski?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZskUvAGyjQ

It is so blatantly clear that Milo is being attacked not for his comments on teen relationships with adults, but for his politics, that I can only roll around laughing at anyone who is unaware of this fact.

I don't think it's going to work.

Ken B said...

How would he be treated if he were a Trump hating faded TV actor?

buwaya said...

" A 24 and 14 year old could hook up at the beach and be walking hand in hand/kissing and most would probably find nothing unusual."

If both were male that would be a huge problem in any European traditional society, and it would indeed be worse if the kid was 14. If either were female, it would likely create certain social expectations, and maybe anxieties.

It would go very badly south of the Med and East of Suez if one of the pair were female.
It would probably go well enough with Arabs, Pathans and the like if, both male, the boy were lower status than the 24-year old.

In traditional China it would work if one was a slave or eunuch. Though the family would intervene, one way or another, for the sake of descendants.

Ultimately these things aren't really a matter of individual whim, as we aren't individuals. The modern opinion here is defective. We are a social species and whatever we do happens in a context of other people, upon whom we exert an influence, even unconsciously. Traditional societies understand this, if only unconsciously.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Well, Milo is now publicizing a George Takei clip discussing his sexual experience at summer camp when he was thirteen."

-- I'm sure that's different because shut up.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Mr. D said...
If Milo wants a second act, he needs to become the new David Brock."

There's already a David Brock. And after Brock, there was Andrew Sullivan, MD, OB/GYN.

Milo liked being a trailblazer. Nothing trail-blazing about a gay conservative dude going lib. And there's nothing original at all about being a gay liberal.




Bob Loblaw said...

As a general rule, a liberal's survivability chances in any scandal are about twice those of a conservative. In sex scandals, the odds are even better.

That comes with the territory for social conservatives, as the one sin still universally recognized by Americans is hypocrisy. You can't preach about the sanctity of marriage, wife at your side, while schtupping the cabana boy.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Thorley Winston said...

I don’t feel compelled to defend Yiannopoulos for his views on this topic but it’s pretty clear to me and any person who can read at above a sixth grade level that he wasn’t endorsing or minimizing pedophilia and the characterization of his comments as such is simply slander.

This is why Milo will still be around in 10 years and the people trying to take him down now wont be.

Mr. D said...

Exiledonmainstreet said:

Milo liked being a trailblazer. Nothing trail-blazing about a gay conservative dude going lib. And there's nothing original at all about being a gay liberal.

Of course not, but a fella can make a nice living that way. Martyrdom isn't especially lucrative.

Bay Area Guy said...

I wrote above:

"But I do think we should treat Gays and Lesbians with much more kindness and gentility and tolerance,..."

I don't want to sound too patronizing. The country and culture used to be wildly hostile towards gays, but has transitioned to acceptance pretty darn quickly, over the past 15 years. That's a good thing.

As this transition to mainstream continues, all the patronizing goes bye-bye - and we will treat gays as miserably as we treat everyone else:)

Achilles said...

Clayton Hennesey said...

The agent who was thawing social conservatives to his homosexuality, which many social conservatives see as an absolute deal breaker not far removed from pedophilia, has been whisked off the scene forthwith, no more Breitbart, no CPAC, no book. Whatever thawing towards homosexuality, fully embraced and celebrated by left liberals, might have been in progress with social conservatives as a result of Milo has abruptly has its agency removed.

Wrong. You will see in the coming weeks. Milo will be fine. His book will still sell he will just get to keep more of the money now.

Milo was a iconoclastic, populist libertarian character and, as such, anathema to the pure ideological religions of both the left and the McMullin right, but you can't make a pure left nor a pure right omelet without breaking a few gay eggs, and purists on both sides wishing to enforce the ideologically pure status quo are more than fine with that.

You use "was" in the past tense. Not so. In ten years the people who support the ideological religions of the Clinton left and Bush/McMullin right, who are the same people by the way, will be driven back to Europe and we will have our country back.

Larvell said...

A slightly different thought experiment:

Imagine a child that is molested by a priest. Now imagine any set of facts, other than opposition to their political agenda, that would cause the left to view the child as the bad guy for not feeling sufficiently victimized.

buwaya said...

President Duterte was also sexually victimized by a priest, and he ended up an enormously popular populist politician as well as an organizer of death squads on a grand scale.

Cause:effect?

Hunter said...

It's not that hypothetical. One needs only look at Perez Hilton or Dan Savage, both of them are meaner and nastier than Milo.

Brando said...

I don't know about a Leftist Milo, but what happened here is sort of BS and I'm not a fan of his. That "pedophile" tape was taken way out of context, and two "rightist" organs (CPAC and Bretibart) as well as a publishing company all freaked out over it. Maybe it's that our society is skitting at even a hint of pedophilia (though can be forgiving if it's Roman Polanski!) or maybe they were looking for an excuse to drop him (though I don't see why Breitbart/CPAC would, as they already knew what he was about and approved it--what were they afraid of?). Whole thing is bizarre.

I think when it blows over, and people start to realize it isn't what they thought, he'll make a comeback.

Achilles said...

Blogger buwaya said...
"President Duterte was also sexually victimized by a priest, and he ended up an enormously popular populist politician as well as an organizer of death squads on a grand scale.

Cause:effect?"

Duerte and Trump flow from the same popular rebellion happening all over the world. The elites everywhere have made common cause with various criminals. It just seems like some of the victims move to different extremes.

Matthew Sablan said...

Brando: I thought that Milo walked away from Breitbart to spare them having to decide what to do about him. I haven't been following this story very closely though.

n.n said...

He would still be aborted in a baby trial if another candidate was considered more viable a la Obama vs Edwards et al.

n.n said...

buwaya:

Duterte, perhaps Milo, too, forged in the fires of sin, arose to sleigh the evil and dysfunction. That would suggest that Duterte as Milo as perhaps most or all of us are fighting an inner and outer battle for our lives and, say, our souls. There may be more substance to the myths passed through generations than the secular orthodoxy would have us consider.

Unknown said...

You will note that it is the left who keep insisting that high school kids, even middle school, need access to birth control and free abortions without parental permission. And how old are those kids? Doesn't matter who is hurt if it fits the narrative.

Brando said...

"Brando: I thought that Milo walked away from Breitbart to spare them having to decide what to do about him. I haven't been following this story very closely though."

I heard that was the official reason, but I'm a bit skeptical--if the whole thing's trumped up and gets him extra publicity, why would they even let him go? The whole thing smells like a freakout.

William Chadwick said...

True that. The "liberals" in the media care for advancing their agenda: i.e., increasing the power of the State and decreasing the liberty of the individual. If they really cared about children they'd be against statism, which is dangerous to children and other living things.

Jose_K said...

The left Milo would win an Oscar because it was not rape rape

Todd said...

Jose_K said... [hush]​[hide comment]
The left Milo would win an Oscar because it was not rape rape

2/22/17, 2:47 PM


Wait, what do you mean it was not "rape-rape"? I thought that according to Whoopie, what Roman Polanski did was not "rape-rape" because he drugged the 13 year old girl. Milo did not say he was drugged so by the Whoopie standard it could be actual, you know, "rape-rape" and actionable. Where are all of the MSM when you need them to get to the bottom of this with Whoopie?

Joe said...

At an early age, he was confronted with an experience that he could neither comprehend nor integrate.

Milos disagrees; he has stated without ambiguity that he was the aggressor. The reaction is to say that's not possible, but why not? Why assume that 14 year olds are so stupid that they can't comprehend sex at all?

Another point is that if a 14 year old can get married in some US states and western countries, then we, as a society, don't hold an absolute view of age of consent for, say, 16 or 18.

(To be clear, I believe there should be a universal age of consent of 16 with no exceptions for marriage and no Romeo & Juliet laws. At the same time, I'll admit that throwing two 15 year olds in jail, and/or requiring they register for life as sex offenders, for having sex is idiotic.

Can there ever be a truly honest discussion about this?)

Scott said...

PB,

Of course the Left would laud Hitler....he was a non-drinking, non-smoking vegetarian who loved dogs and kids. Perfect beta male.

buwaya said...

"Can there ever be a truly honest discussion about this?"

Never.

This is where inhuman laws (the ones with judges, lawyers, policemen and jailers) fail.
This is where customs should rule - operated by mothers and fathers and mothers-in-law and priests. Without consistency perhaps, no system of universal justice nor impartiality and loaded with irrational prejudice, no hope of precedent, and on occasion requiring a human sacrifice - an avenging parent perhaps. But better for all that.

n.n said...

In addition to deprecating The Hippocratic Oath in order to normalize elective abortion, they must have planned to modify prepubescent girls to appear as boys and vice versa. Perhaps the psychos and judges can tackle other forms of child exploitation next. Milo must have exposed them before they were prepared to wage an emotional appeal.

Nancy Reyes said...

has anyone "outed" the men who molested Milo or Takai?

Teenagers can "consent" but they are immature and really do not understand the risks, so they are easily molested by serial molesters, be they freshmen girls who are "seduced" by senior high school jocks or someone they met on line, or the nice priest/counseler/relative who seduces the boy with questions about his sexuality, or maybe a heterosexual but beautiful boy who is too shy to say no. The reason for age of consent is in recognition that youngsters can tread into dangerous areas because of hormones/lack of experience... this also holds for alcohol and driving a car.

When 8 percent of boys in a CDC survey admit to "intercourse" below age 12, someone needs to be open about the exploitation of the innocent by those who have power over them.

https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/Results.aspx?TT=A&OUT=0&SID=HS&QID=QQ&LID=XX&YID=2013&LID2=&YID2=&COL=S&ROW1=N&ROW2=N&HT=QQ&LCT=LL&FS=S1&FR=R1&FG=G1&FSL=S1&FRL=R1&FGL=G1&PV=&TST=False&C1=&C2=&QP=G&DP=1&VA=CI&CS=Y&SYID=&EYID=&SC=DEFAULT&SO=ASC

Joe said...

"Teenagers can "consent" but they are immature and really do not understand the risks"

Some do, some don't, especially since by definition teenager goes from 13 to 19. What is the age at which people can no longer be seduced, taken advantage of and/or tricked?

What's interesting is putting sex (fornication) aside, the legal age at which one can get married with parental consent is all over the place in the US. Many states have no lower limit.

BN said...

Is it just me or does 15 minutes last longer these days than it used to?

Or is it just here that it does?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Oh, so what's going on here? Is it going to be a 24/7 Milo-fest?

Jay Elink said...

National Review, which I suspect had a nefarious hand in this, is rightly being called Cuck Central.

I think THEY made sure this happened, and by doing so they've revealed themselves as every bit as ruthless as the most vicious of Progs, and very much the hypocritical "self-proclaimed elitist snots we all thought they were.

Not a fucking penny, Jonah. Not a fucking sou, Rich. Not a kopek, Williamson!

Basta!!

Ron said...

All analogies are flawed, but that one was really poor.

bgates said...

From Dubya’s evangelical conservatism to Milo’s Rimbaudian new right, from “marriage is between a man and a woman” to “well, we draw the line at ephebophilia” is a rather dizzying trajectory.

Likewise from Obama's 2008 pronouncement that “marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union — God is in the mix” to Obama's 2009 appointment of assistant deputy secretary of education Kevin Jennings (remember him?) whose Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network had a recommended reading list for middle school and high school students that included stuff like this:

One recommended book is titled "Queer 13: Lesbian and Gay Writers Recall Seventh Grade." On pages 43 through 45, writer Justin Chin tells of how as a 13-year-old, he went along with "near-rapes" by older men, but "really did enjoy those sexual encounters." Chin also recounts each sexual action he performed with an "ugly f*** of a man" he met on a bus.

In another book, "Passages of Pride," the author writes about a 15-year-old boy's relationship with a much older man.

"Near the end of summer, just before starting his sophomore year in high school, Dan picked up a weekly Twin Cities newspaper. Scanning the classifieds, he came upon an ad for a "Man-2-Man" massage. Home alone one day, he called the telephone number listed in the ad and set up an appointment to meet a man named Tom.... Even though Tom was older, almost twice Dan's age, Dan felt unthreatened by him. Dan admits Tom was a 'troll' in every sense of the word -- an older closeted gay man seeking sex with a man much younger. But Dan says he was not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages. 'He kind of had me in a corner in that he knew I didn't have access to anything I wanted.' says Dan. 'But everything was consensual.'"


Todd said...

Joe said...

What is the age at which people can no longer be seduced, taken advantage of and/or tricked?

2/22/17, 6:53 PM


Jury is still out on that one as no one has yet lived long enough...

mtrobertslaw said...

RE: Ann's thought experiment

The left would argue by turning the young boy into a victim, you are branding him as inferior and worse, you are denying him his freedom and undermining his autonomy as person.

This is what charging the older man with a crime really means. And it is unconstitutional.