Milo Resigns from Breitbart

TheGreatA said:
This is not an issue with child molestation because Milo has never explictly argued in favour of it. His words were taken out of context, from a long podcast with Rogan where he already back-tracked on several of those statements during the argument and said that 16 should be the legal age of consent. Obviously, having a debate and entertaining ideas without accepting them, is beyond most people's understanding.

And no, they did not cave to pressure from conservatives. The Reagan battalion, or whatever, is an unknown commodity among conservative groups. Nobody knows who the hell they are, nobody pays any attention to them. The mainstream news decided to cover it, they are the ones who created the pressure. Various Democrat groups also mounted pressure to have Milo's license to speak revoked.

This "Reagan Battalion" seems rather questionable anyway:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/anti-milo-reagan-battalion-interviews-far-left-mic-com/

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/02/caught-the-reagan-battalion-is-a-democrat-front-group/

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reagan-battalion-milo-yiannopoulos-never-trump/

I'll refrain from judgment until the situation is cleared up.
Click to expand...
He argued that certain 13 year old boys, like himself at that age, were old enough to consent with adult men and that it could even be very beneficial for the boy. Under our current law that is child molestation, so there is no misinterpretation. Sure, he's arguing that the law is wrong but there is no way around the fact that we legally define it as a crime and most of society agrees with it. So spin it however you want but you're technically wrong.

And I am not wrong, the CPAC's decision was made by Republicans. I'll repeat, since when do republicans give a fuck about liberal media opinion? They don't, is the answer. The answer, which is so obvious, is that Republicans are outraged at his comments and don't want him around. Breitbart felt the same way. What he argued is a fucking crime and the vast majority of people agree it is a valid law.

Milo fans pinning the blame on liberals is hilarious quite frankly.
 
kpt018 said:
He argued that certain 13 year old boys, like himself at that age, were old enough to consent with adult men and that it could even be very beneficial for the boy. Under our current law that is child molestation, so there is no misinterpretation. Sure, he's arguing that the law is wrong but there is no way around the fact that we legally define it as a crime and most of society agrees with it. So spin it however you want but you're technically wrong.

And I am not wrong, the CPAC's decision was made by Republicans. I'll repeat, since when do republicans give a fuck about liberal media opinion? They don't, is the answer. The answer, which is so obvious, is that Republicans are outraged at his comments and don't want him around. Breitbart felt the same way. What he argued is a fucking crime and the vast majority of people agree it is a valid law.

Milo fans pinning the blame on liberals is hilarious quite frankly.
Click to expand...

He's not arguing the law is wrong. He was simply trying to rationalize his own experience, which would be deemed as illegal abuse of a minor (since he was 14), in saying that perhaps there are cases where consent can be given earlier, like his own. But in the end he relented to saying that the law is correct, and serves as a viable standard for when young people can give consent.

Considering his occupation as a provocatuer, and someone who often questions people's rigid ways of looking at such subjects, these comments cannot be taken as an outright defense of pedophilia, but rather an attempt at upsetting Rogan's more rigid view on the subject, and testing his moral back-bone. He quickly goes on to say, after the debate, that if there is going to be any efforts to normalizing pedophilia, it's probably going to be by the progressives, not by the likes of him. He also made other, anti-pedophilia comments during the Podcast, which obviously weren't brought up, conveniently. Of course he has also exposed pedophiles through his articles.

Again, these comments were well-known for over a year before a scandal was manufactured out of them. Taken out of context, sure they look bad, but that is why we ought to take words in context, not out of it.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatA said:
He's not arguing the law is wrong. He was simply trying to rationalize his own experience, which would be deemed as illegal abuse of a minor (since he was 14), in saying that perhaps there are cases where consent can be given earlier, like his own. But in the end he relented to saying that the law is correct, and serves as a viable standard for when young people can give consent.

Considering his occupation as a provocatuer, and someone who often questions people's rigid ways of looking at such subjects, these comments cannot be taken as an outright defense of pedophilia, but rather an attempt at upsetting Rogan's more rigid view on the subject, and testing his moral back-bone. He quickly goes on to say, after the debate, that if there is going to be any efforts to normalizing pedophilia, it's probably going to be by the progressives, not by the likes of him. He also made other, anti-pedophilia comments during the Podcast, which obviously weren't brought up, conveniently. Of course he has also exposed pedophiles through his articles.

Again, these comments were well-known for over a year before a scandal was manufactured out of them. Taken out of context, sure they look bad, but that is why we ought to take words in context, not out of it.
Click to expand...
So his own points were contradictory, giving him no basis to bitch that people are getting him wrong.

They're terrible in context and sorry, whether you're trying to be controversial or not your words mean what they mean.

And for the record I don't really care about what he said. I am just saying the idea that this is liberals attacking him and conservatives caving to that pressure is ludicrous. At best, conservatives are misunderstanding him and at worst they are understanding him perfectly fine and still have an issue with him.
 
TheGreatA said:
He's not arguing the law is wrong. He was simply trying to rationalize his own experience, which would be deemed as illegal abuse of a minor (since he was 14), in saying that perhaps there are cases where consent can be given earlier, like his own. But in the end he relented to saying that the law is correct, and serves as a viable standard for when young people can give consent.

Considering his occupation as a provocatuer, and someone who often questions people's rigid ways of looking at such subjects, these comments cannot be taken as an outright defense of pedophilia, but rather an attempt at upsetting Rogan's more rigid view on the subject, and testing his moral back-bone. He quickly goes on to say, after the debate, that if there is going to be any efforts to normalizing pedophilia, it's probably going to be by the progressives, not by the likes of him. He also made other, anti-pedophilia comments during the Podcast, which obviously weren't brought up, conveniently. Of course he has also exposed pedophiles through his articles.

Again, these comments were well-known for over a year before a scandal was manufactured out of them. Taken out of context, sure they look bad, but that is why we ought to take words in context, not out of it.
Click to expand...
His statements on The Drunken Peasants podcast were claiming that pedophilic relationships were beneficial to the minors involved and that the priest that molested him taught him how to suck dick really well.
 
I can't for the life of me find out where he said this. I can find out what he said, but not where exactly he said it at.
 
Greoric said:
Well I don't know you're putting it out there. Was he referring to her not being human by virtue of her race, or because he thought she was just a repulsive person with repulsive ideas?

All I've seen from him is a defense of an in-group preference for Caucasians. That's not racism, especially considering the current movements by other ethnicities to draw similar lines with regard to race.
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole blog post?
If you're honestly arguing that his comments about Jemisin as a genetically inferior "half-savage" in combination with (and in the context of) his comments about Africa, a "nation of Jemisins" and in explicit contrast to his comments about White Men, aren't racial... then I guess racism doesn't exist in your world.

Maybe you haven't read his comments about Sowell?

Fourth, I would absolutely prefer an America with the physical characteristics and beliefs of the Swedish Prime Minister to those of Thomas Sowell, especially after the Sweden Democrats take power. This is for three reasons:
  1. Genetic Reversion to the Mean.
  2. The MAOA-2R gene.
  3. Based on my personal interactions with him, Dr. Sowell is neither as smart nor is he as intellectually honest as most conservatives wish to believe.
Fifth, an absolute priority of not being racist is neither a functional ideology nor a sound foundation for public policy. Regardless of one's personal perspective, the historical reality is that racism is far closer to being the solution than it is to being the problem.
Click to expand...
 
lfd0311 said:
I can't for the life of me find out where he said this. I can find out what he said, but not where exactly he said it at.
Click to expand...

Drunken Peasants #193. Starts about 52min and goes on for some time.
 
Ruprecht said:
Did you read the whole blog post?
If you're honestly arguing that his comments about Jemisin as a genetically inferior "half-savage" in combination with (and in the context of) his comments about Africa, a "nation of Jemisins" and in explicit contrast to his comments about White Men, aren't racial... then I guess racism doesn't exist in your world.

Maybe you haven't read his comments about Sowell?
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty disgusting. Noted.
 
I think Milo is a natural stand up comedian in the wrong realm.

Would Milo's comments about his experiences as a Church going child who was abused, be that controversial if he was a famous comedian? I doubt it. They would be perceived very differently.

Think of the shit Jim Jeffries, Bill Bull, or Louis CK have said, and then make them a political voice of sorts. They'd be destroyed all the same. This all comes down to status.
 
kpt018 said:
So his own points were contradictory, giving him no basis to bitch that people are getting him wrong.

They're terrible in context and sorry, whether you're trying to be controversial or not your words mean what they mean.

And for the record I don't really care about what he said. I am just saying the idea that this is liberals attacking him and conservatives caving to that pressure is ludicrous. At best, conservatives are misunderstanding him and at worst they are understanding him perfectly fine and still have an issue with him.
Click to expand...

The dude is a troll. He is genius but clearly it back fired. He fed the left and it finally caught up on him.
 
HereticBD said:
I think Milo is a natural stand up comedian in the wrong realm.

Would Milo's comments about his experiences as a Church going child who was abused, be that controversial if he was a famous comedian? I doubt it. They would be perceived very differently.

Think of the shit Jim Jeffries, Bill Bull, or Louis CK have said, and then make them a political voice of sorts. They'd be destroyed all the same. This all comes down to status.
Click to expand...

He tied the rope around his own head and fed the left for sometime. I don't think you can defend but, he said what he did as he has his entire career. The right is just as every bit as cowardice as the left with this nonsense.
 
bigbangspiritbomb said:
He tied the rope around his own head and fed the left for sometime. I don't think you can defend but, he said what he did as he has his entire career. The right is just as every bit as cowardice as the left with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

What I personally wonder though is, say he was a lefty voice and said what he said. Would he be vilified by the left, or would he have been given a pass? Would the left denounce him like the right did, or would they call for more understanding of his comments, or simply dismiss them as Milo just being Milo? I think Milo's biggest crime was saying what he said as a conservative talking head.
 
HereticBD said:
I think Milo is a natural stand up comedian in the wrong realm.

Would Milo's comments about his experiences as a Church going child who was abused, be that controversial if he was a famous comedian? I doubt it. They would be perceived very differently.

Think of the shit Jim Jeffries, Bill Bull, or Louis CK have said, and then make them a political voice of sorts. They'd be destroyed all the same. This all comes down to status.
Click to expand...
He wasn't making a joke, he was endorsing predatory pedophilia. Milo isn't a comedian, he isn't funny. He's just anger porn.
 
Not a fan of Milo he's way too out there for me and a troll mostly with some ok points. But saying things like this he should have this kind of back-lashing it's fine. It doesn't have to be our team (right) vs left and no matter what you cheer for your own. That is a shitty way to deal with politics
 
DevilsLettuce said:
He wasn't making a joke, he was endorsing predatory pedophilia.
Click to expand...

What exactly did he say, that fully endorsed it? In a literal sense. Serious question. I'm not sure I heard it all, but what I did hear was him making jokes(my interpretation) about his experience with a priest when he was younger, and then something about it being normal in the gay community. Pretty much a controversial bit a comedian could do. Taken literally, it's highly offensive. Taken as comedian telling a bad joke, not so much. Lena Dunham said arguably worse shit, and in a more literal sense, and nothing came of it. Like I said earlier, I think this all comes down to his status, and not so much the words he said. What I heard at least, anyways. I could be wrong.

To be clear, I think he just fucked up. I think the story he told is complete bullshit. He got lost in his own persona, thought he could get away with anything, tried to be a little extra controversial, and it completely backfired on him. Now he's trying to play the victim so people feel sorry for him, and perhaps salvage a bit of his career he threw away with some careless comments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,923
Messages
55,455,196
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top