Milo Resigns from Breitbart

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.

I am a liberal, I hate Milo and think he betrayed the LGTBQ community, I despise Breitbart, Bannon and Fascism, and I have to agree with this post.

He was talking about his own personal experiences. Bad things happened to him and we cannot just put our heads in the sand and pretend Milo doesn't feel the way he feels about a situation where he, as a 14 year old boy, was molested by an older man.

Milo said he was fine with it.

He in fact is.... it doesn't bother him.

That's not OK but it's the truth. It is HIS experience.

We need to ask ourselves how that can happen and face this. That doesn't mean accepting pedophilia in any way shape or form. That is obviously never, ever something we can do as a society or as individuals.

But he said what he said about his experience and I personally don't know how to deal with it, but I don't think shutting down and blocking it out of my brain is an option I will give myself....
 
Last edited:
I am a liberal, I hate Milo and think he betrayed the LGTBQ community, I despise Breitbart, Bannon and Fascism, and I have to agree with this post.

He was talking about his own personal experiences. Bad things happened to him and we cannot just put our heads in the sand and pretend Milo doesn't feel the way he feels about a situation where he, as a 14 year old boy, was molested by an older man.

Milo said he was fine with it.

He in fact is.... it doesn't bother him.

That's not OK but it's the truth. It is HIS experience.

We need to ask ourselves how that can happen and face this. That doesn't mean accepting pedophilia in any way shape or form. That is obviously never, ever something we can do as a society or as individuals.

But he said what he said about his experience and I personally don't know how to deal with it, but I don't think shutting down and burying my head in the sand is an option I will give myself....
Ditto. I think Milo's a narcissistic gadfly and a liar, but the watching leftists celebrate him being censored (especially when the censorship is coming from the right) makes me sick
 
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.
Like Ruprecht said: Check out Drunken Peasants podcast on YouTube or soundcloud, episode #193 - 52 minutes in.

He essentially says that pedo priests are beneficial to young gays like himself so they can learn about themselves sexually.

I never got Milo's popularity... All he does is the gay male version of Ann Coulter. It's obvious he doesn't believe the shit he says and it seems like his only cache is with people who just want to gleefully rage that they've got a mascot queer who hates the left. Once you get past "fuck all the SJWs" he doesn't really have much of any substance to say. I find him disengenuous and self-loathing.
 
Ditto. I think Milo's a narcissistic gadfly and a liar, but the watching leftists celebrate him being censored (especially when the censorship is coming from the right) makes me sick

I see what you're saying, I get your point, but to be honest, it doesn't make me sick because I don't care what happens to Milo. He is a piece of shit and should never have been famous. Anything that brings him down is basically fine with me as long as it's not murder or something criminal. . I don't care if he's censored or dies in a fucking car crash. I say the world would be better off. He's also not a comedian, he's a pseudo journalist and a paid troll, so he doesn't get to use the comedian card.

At the same time, what he said was, "something happened to me, here is how I felt about it, here is how I feel about it now" - and yes, it's weird, sick, twisted, whatever, but we can't tell him he's not allowed to say it - and we can't back away from what he said without addressing it and considering just what the hell that means!

We also have to consider the Louis CK monologue on SNL, yes Louis is a comedian but he gets to go on Conan and elsewhere and talk about his political opinions and people respect him well enough....well he openly made jokes about pedophiles.... he had a like 5 full minutes on how pedophiles just "love to rape children so much!" and that was on network television, not some obscure podcast...
 
Never heard of the reagan battalion

That's the whole point of these subversive operations. They're around for precisely the right purpose. IF they get popular enough, the light gets shone back at them and they get exposed.

When you seen that McMullin, the guy who ran a campaign in one state to try and stop Trump, was an ex-CIA agent, you have to think he's got ulterior motives.

CIA only takes the type of people that like to "play the game" and willing to do honorless subversive tactics. It's hard to trust anyone who's ex-CIA.
 
What?

Are these sorts of replies even real?

Oh yes most definitely, he resigned because he believes in what he said, which is that young boys and old men should be f*cking. He feels that way and most likely has f*cked kids which he doesn't want to come to light ala he's dropping out. The people defending him are pedophile apologists and likely harbor latent homosexual pedophilic predilections.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes most definitely, he resigned because he believes in what he said, which is that young boys and old men should be fucking. He feels that way and most likely has fucked kids which he doesn't want to come to light ala he's dropping out. The people defending him are pedophile apologists and likely harbor latent homosexual pedophilic predilections.

This might actually be true. The problem I have with the end of your post is that Milo was the victim in his personal case, he was molested himself, and he has to be allowed to talk about his own personal experiences and say what he thinks so he can be challenged on his views and hopefully change his opinion, or at least be exposed for what he is
 
Sorry I had to switch to my phone and the quote option doesn't work.

I don't care what he has to say, I have no sympathy for people who hurt kids no matter what they've been through. He can fantasize about whatever he wants but when he advocates molestation of little boys that tells me that he is up for doing it and should cut his d!ck off. This isn't about right or left politics this dude is a straight up creep.
 
The people defending him are pedophile apologists and likely harbor latent homosexual pedophilic predilections

This seems like a rather drastic jump in logic. The people defending him probably just like his general politics and are protecting their team by standing up for him. I don't think it means they're gay child molesters.

I don't think there is a need to defend him. I agree with his general politics, but I don't like his delivery and I often think he doesn't believe what he's saying. I can still agree with his general politics and reject his ideas that men can have sex with boys.
 
Right and I can respect that you don't defend him. It makes me think more of you regardless of politics. However i stand by my statement that people who make excuses for pedophiles likely lack the revulsion from those acts that accompany a lack of interest in them.
 
Milo has also sheltered the pedophile priest that molested him by refusing to name him, leaving the pedo to continue to molest children for all anybody knows.
 
Right and I can respect that you don't defend him. It makes me think more of you regardless of politics. However i stand by my statement that people who make excuses for pedophiles likely lack the revulsion from those acts that accompany a lack of interest in them.

Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. Some people may simply downplay it because he hasn't confessed to molesting boys, himself. It can be seen as more of a commentary of his own molestation.

Milo said that it was okay that men have sex with boys, and since I don't agree, I'll tell you that I don't agree. I don't see what else he believes has to do with this.
 
Milo has also sheltered the pedophile priest that molested him by refusing to name him, leaving the pedo to continue to molest children for all anybody knows.

I think this one is more defensible from Milo's perspective, because he claims he instigated it.
 
It isn't from my perspective.

Yeah. The better criticism along the same lines is that he didn't do anything about the boys being abused at the Hollywood parties he went to, because he concedes it was wrong. The priest one is a little more nuanced given what he thinks, there's at least a reason why he would keep quiet.
 
Most people are overlooking the true scandal and outrage of this whole debacle:

Milo admitted to attending boat and house parties (plural, as in more than one) with (his words) "very young boys". Another sentence about these parties that should cause alarm is when he said: "these boys were doing lots of drugs and having unprotected sex with older men". That is a peculiar way of phrasing "children being drugged and raped by adults".

If this is true, why in the flying fuck did Milo not go IMMEDIATELY to the police!

If Milo desires an ounce of redemption, he needs to start naming names of the attendees/victimizers of these boat and house parties.
 
Most people are overlooking the true scandal and outrage of this whole debacle:

Milo admitted to attending boat and house parties (plural, as in more than one) with (his words) "very young boys". Another sentence about these parties that should cause alarm is when he said: "these boys were doing lots of drugs and having unprotected sex with older men". That is a peculiar way of phrasing "children being drugged and raped by adults".

If this is true, why in the flying fuck did Milo not go IMMEDIATELY to the police!

If Milo desires an ounce of redemption, he needs to start naming names of the attendees/victimizers of these boat and house parties.

Bryan singer seems to be name dropped a lot. Dude either knows people or is guilty himself.

Corey Feldman has some names people need to get some answers out of him.

.....

I don't think name dropping rich and powerful people as pedos over a podcast is a great idea, but it defitnley is something that should be investigated. It's really disturbing that there seem to be so many rumors about pedo rings in Hollywood and it is just being swept under the rug.
 
Milo already more popular than he ever was, this is the best thing about it all.
 
Back
Top