Online:
Visits:
Stories:
Profile image
By The Liberty Zone
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

A Short Note on Milo (Updated With an Interesting New Video)

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 16:13
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

There will be a longer guest post probably sometime this weekend on the subject of free speech writ large, so I debated whether to address this on the blog today. But given the gleeful crowing on both the left and the right about the so-called “fall” of Milo Yiannopoulos, I wanted to quickly address the issue from my perspective.

I see those on the left cheering Simon and Schuster’s decision not to publish Milo’s book, titled “Dangerous” after a video surfaced in which he “appeared to condone” (notice, nowhere is it written that he did so) pedophilia. The left hates Milo, because he revels in his Internet troll persona, because he ridicules social justice warriors, because he refuses to bow to the gods of political correctness, because he got on the Trump Train early, because… well, you know.

Milo also resigned from his position at Breitbart, to which I say, “Good!” He’s much too good for them.

I see those on the right gloating that the American Conservative Union disinvited Milo from CPAC this year, where he was supposed to be giving the keynote address after this video emerged, because he’s gay, because he’s flamboyant, because he’s not what a typical, nice, Christian, conservative should be. He’s *clutch pearls* GHEY!!! And he’s in a relationship with a black man! OH NOEZ!

Here’s the full video and that includes those comments. If you haven’t seen the unedited version of the video in which Milo purportedly “supports” pedophilia, you might want to take a look before screeching about how he deserved it.

Here’s a transcript of the part that was edited out.

Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

So what did Milo really say here?

He said that child abuse charges have been inflated to such a degree, that we are now even policing relationships between consenting adults, because we disapprove of them.

He said that, generally speaking, the age of consent laws in the United States are proper and right.

He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.

He said that SOME of those “coming of age” relationships can help gay men feel safe and secure.

And he correctly defined pedophilia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children and made the distinction between the discussion about cross-generational relationships, which could happen between a 17-year-old and his 40-year-old partner, and the gross attraction of a full, legal adult to a pre-pubescent child.

How many of you, screeching that Milo condoned pedophilia took the time to read and analyze what he really said before condemning him?

And how many of you denigrated and ridiculed him and cheered the cancellation of his book and his unceremonious booting from CPAC merely because you don’t like him or what he stands for?

Be honest with yourselves.

For what it’s worth, Milo never was accused of pedophilia. He never condoned kiddie diddlers. As a matter of fact, he spent a lot of time exposing and shaming them – fighting the very thing he is now accused of defending.

He exposed creepy, white nationalist gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg/Nicholas Nyberg/Sarah Butts.

Two years ago, he went after repugnant child molester Chris Leydon.

I would venture to say, Milo has done more to fight child sexual abuse than any of the critics jerks now eulogizing his silencing.

By the way, Milo’s full statement about this incident is here. I emphasize the following, and note that Milo himself was a victim of sexual abuse as a child.

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Do I think that Milo is very often over-the-top? Yes.

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Do I think that his gallows humor is many times inappropriate? Yes. Vicious? Yes.

Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. (I note here our differences in whom we liked for POTUS, for one.)

But am I going to cheer concerted efforts to silence him by those who disagree with what he says and how he says it? No, I’m going to slam them hard, as I would any attempts to silence dissent and opposition.

I see the glee and exhilaration with which Milo’s critics applaud his supposed “downfall,” and I’m sickened by it.

Were you upset that someone like Milo, to whom nothing is sacred enough to avoid making fun of, was gaining a huge following?

Were you irritated that someone like Milo – a flamboyant faggot in an interracial relationship, who freely talks about blow jobs – all of a sudden became someone to admire in your precious, oh-so-holier-than-thou “conservative” movement?

Did you not like that Milo essentially told Leslie Jones to man up after she got a bunch of racist Tweets in her direction, because “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS!”

Did you hate his description of feminism as a “cancer?”

Did you think he was racist/homophobic/xenophobic, even though he’s in a relationship with a black man, has a Jewish mother, and repeatedly denied being a member of the “alt-right?”

And that’s why you’re cheering that someone finally found – AND DOCTORED – a video to silence him? How repulsively fascist of you!

You don’t care that the allegations are false.

You don’t care that the recording of Milo supposedly “advocating” child abuse was selectively edited and spliced, and you certainly won’t listen to the unedited version, because that would force you to do some introspective navel gazing to figure out why you were so anxious to believe the worst about someone with whom you disagree politically, that you’re cheering his gagging and the impact on his employment and his bottom line.

You don’t care about freedom or truth.

You’re no different than the shit snorting dick weasels who work to destroy those who do not toe their ideological line. You’re morally reprehensible, petty little tyrants who want to see your ideological adversaries silenced and, ultimately destroyed, instead of fighting them with ideas and reason.

You are gleefully cheering, because someone you don’t like has ostensibly been silenced.

And that makes you exactly the type of person people like Milo and his supporters have dedicated themselves to fighting.

You are the reason he exists.

UPDATE: And if you find Milo’s words to be a problem, but still loves you some Uncle George, you’re a repulsive hypocrite.

Filed under: culture, freedom, hypocrites, rants, social justice warriors

Tagged: book, Breitbart, CPAC, defend pedophilia, edited, Milo Yiannopoulos, silence, Simon and Shuster, video 



Source: http://thelibertyzone.us/2017/02/22/a-short-note-on-milo/

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.