Milo Resigns from Breitbart

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I'm watching CNN and I just want someone to explain to me how the fuck Anderson Cooper's hair is always so on point. His fade his fucking deluxe.

LOL
I wish I could feel this way about a haircut.
Or about anything.

 

[Hades86]

Never seen so many pedo sympathizers in one thread. You guys are pathetic , standing up for a pedo just because he triggers the left.

 

[HomerThompson]

LOL
I wish I could feel this way about a haircut.
Or about anything.

Prepare to be amazed:

 

[squeezewax]

I still don't get the outrage. Pedophilia is probably the worst crime there is and pedos should be executed, but what did he say about defending pedos?
Didn't he say when he was 17 he had a relationship with a 29 yr old priest? Then said that IN THE GAY WORLD, not the non-gay, conventional world we live in, that type of thing is very common.
An older gay will have a relationship with a younger gay, although he was 17 which i wouldn't think is that young and is over the age limit.
I understand what he was trying to say about these relationships happening so much. Maybe he meant that in the relationships there are beneficial things for the younger person as in coming to terms with his sexuality or something? If you are a young gay bloke i imagine every day life can be difficult. Bullying at school possibly, all types of things, and the whole time that person and his desires seem perfectly normal to him.
So i think he is saying that meeting someone older with life experience who has lived thru the same difficulties are beneficial to the young one. Even if its just talking about how to survive in a world where quite often a gay is public enemy number one.

As far as i'm aware he didn't say anything about raping 10 yr olds, did he? About forcing kids to have sex with old guys? Or have i misread what he said?
I'm happy to condem the guy but only if i think he has said the wrong thing. Saying that his experiences with older guys weren't awful doesn't equate to 'i think everyone needs a pedo in their life!'

 

[dontsnitch]

I still don't get the outrage. Pedophilia is probably the worst crime there is and pedos should be executed, but what did he say about defending pedos?
Didn't he say when he was 17 he had a relationship with a 29 yr old priest? Then said that IN THE GAY WORLD, not the non-gay, conventional world we live in, that type of thing is very common.
An older gay will have a relationship with a younger gay, although he was 17 which i wouldn't think is that young and is over the age limit.
I understand what he was trying to say about these relationships happening so much. Maybe he meant that in the relationships there are beneficial things for the younger person as in coming to terms with his sexuality or something? If you are a young gay bloke i imagine every day life can be difficult. Bullying at school possibly, all types of things, and the whole time that person and his desires seem perfectly normal to him.
So i think he is saying that meeting someone older with life experience who has lived thru the same difficulties are beneficial to the young one. Even if its just talking about how to survive in a world where quite often a gay is public enemy number one.

As far as i'm aware he didn't say anything about raping 10 yr olds, did he? About forcing kids to have sex with old guys? Or have i misread what he said?
I'm happy to condem the guy but only if i think he has said the wrong thing. Saying that his experiences with older guys weren't awful doesn't equate to 'i think everyone needs a pedo in their life!'

He said something to the extent of it being okay for men to have sex with boys because the relationship is beneficial, with the caveat that the boy is willing. Basically he's saying that consent laws don't always apply. He then cites his relationship with a priest when he was 13/14.

Pretty cringey stuff but there is an obvious political agenda here since he said this like a year ago.

 

[bat_country]

I hear he is in the U.S. on a work visa. Considering he's now unemployed shouldn't he be deported back to Britain?

 

[Big Al's Texas BBQ]

He said something to the extent of it being okay for men to have sex with boys because the relationship is beneficial, with the caveat that the boy is willing. Basically he's saying that consent laws don't always apply. He then cites his relationship with a priest when he was 13/14.

Pretty cringey stuff but there is an obvious political agenda here since he said this like a year ago.

The feeling I got from the podcast was at one point they were talking about different things at the same time (Milo's encounter with a priest at 13/age of consent/his relationship with a 29 year old when was 17) and due to poor choice of words and lack of topic mediation, the conversation became a jumbled mess.

 

[dontsnitch]

The feeling I got from the podcast was at one point they were talking about different things at the same time (Milo's encounter with a priest at 13/age of consent/his relationship with a 29 year old when was 17) and due to poor choice of words and lack of topic mediation, the conversation became a jumbled mess.

Depends which podcast you're speaking of. The things he said on the Drunken Peasants is the one he's getting heat for. The Rogan one is less incriminating.

 

[Big Al's Texas BBQ]

Depends which podcast you're speaking of. The things he said on the Drunken Peasants is the one he's getting heat for. The Rogan one is less incriminating.

Yes, I meant the Drunken Peasants one. On the Joe Rogan Podcast, Milo was being very trollish, so that one shouldn't matter much if at all. What I find interesting is that no one has pointed out the fact that on the Drunken Peasants podcast, one of the guys (I think his name is Paul) said, "Are there some 13-year-old's out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably." Why is that guy not being crucified with Milo also? I timestapped the podcast to where the guy says it:

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, I meant the Drunken Peasants one. On the Joe Rogan Podcast, Milo was being very trollish, so that one shouldn't matter much if at all. What I find interesting is that no one has pointed out the fact that on the Drunken Peasants podcast, one of the guys (I think his name is Paul) said, "Are there some 13-year-old's out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably." Why is that guy not being crucified with Milo also? I timestapped the podcast to where the guy says it:

I don't think you timestamped it right.

I think it's the fact that Milo described how such relationships are positive in nature, which is a step above saying that some children can consent, but I hear what you're saying.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes, I meant the Drunken Peasants one. On the Joe Rogan Podcast, Milo was being very trollish, so that one shouldn't matter much if at all. What I find interesting is that no one has pointed out the fact that on the Drunken Peasants podcast, one of the guys (I think his name is Paul) said, "Are there some 13-year-old's out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably." Why is that guy not being crucified with Milo also? I timestapped the podcast to where the guy says it:

Because that guy's a nobody.
This was set off by Milo's selection for CPAC.
The group that shared the video all over the social media, The Reagan Battalion, had been foaming at the (social media) mouth since they heard about him being the key speaker.
Unsurprisingly, they were part of the "never Trump" conservative group and had backed Evan McMullin in the election.

 

[Big Al's Texas BBQ]

I don't think you timestamped it right.

I think it's the fact that Milo described how such relationships are positive in nature, which is a step above saying that some children can consent, but I hear what you're saying.

I fixed the timestamp in my original post. There's also a video clip of Bill Maher defending a relationship of a 35-year-old woman having sex with her 12-year-old student. How come he wasn't called a pedophile apologist?

 

[Big Al's Texas BBQ]

Because that guy's a nobody.
This was set off by Milo's selection for CPAC.
The group that shared the video all over the social media, The Reagan Battalion, had been foaming at the (social media) mouth since they heard about him being the key speaker.
Unsurprisingly, they were part of the "never Trump" conservative group and had backed Evan McMullin in the election.

I'm aware that this was a hit piece on Milo, especially since people like Maher, Takei, and Dunham didn't get smeared by the media anywhere near on the same level.

 

[dontsnitch]

I fixed the timestamp in my original post. There's also a video clip of Bill Maher defending a relationship of a 35-year-old woman having sex with her 12-year-old student. How come he wasn't called a pedophile apologist?

I see, I hadn't heard the entire podcast, only the Milo clip, and you're right, he more or less agrees with Milo. I think Ruprecht is right that it's because Milo is on the precipice of political stardom and the other guy is a nobody.

As for Maher, I think that's a better comparison. He advocates the same thing with the exception that he phrased it for a television audience. I agree with you here, Maher should also be called an apologist.

 

[Ruprecht]

I'm aware that this was a hit piece on Milo, especially since people like Maher, Takei, and Dunham didn't get smeared by the media anywhere near on the same level.

Even if you give Milo the benefit of the doubt on the stuff he said about the age of consent, he was still advocating pederasty.
This is while he was being built up and promoted as a conservative icon.
Even if conservative America could handle a homosexual icon at this stage (very questionable) , there's no way pederasty was going to be given a pass.

 

[Madmick]

Never seen so many pedo sympathizers in one thread. You guys are pathetic , standing up for a pedo just because he triggers the left.

Milo is not the pedophile in this story. Frankly, I'm not even sure I believe there was a priest. I think Milo just conveniently picks up that salacious stereotype because it was convenient to play with, and commands intrigue which naturally draws more viewers, and that's what he really craves.

I feel like Sam Harris really nailed Milo. He's not a true believer. He's a performer. It's the principle that his performance has come to represent (the genuine freedom for all voices to truly be heard) that matters to me, and I am equally disgusted by you if you would cravenly wash your hands of that greater struggle merely to claim a prize opportunity to virtue signal.

Nobody here has defended pedophilia that I've seen, so shelve the drama queen act.

 

[DevilsLettuce]

Milo is not the pedophile in this story. Frankly, I'm not even sure I believe there was a priest. I think Milo just conveniently picks up that salacious stereotype because it was convenient to play with, and commands intrigue which naturally draws more viewers, and that's what he really craves.

I feel like Sam Harris really nailed Milo. He's not a true believer. He's a performer. It's the principle that his performance has come to represent (the genuine freedom for all voices to truly be heard) that matters to me, and I am equally disgusted by you if you would cravenly wash your hands of that greater struggle merely to claim a prize opportunity to virtue signal.

Nobody here has defended pedophilia that I've seen, so shelve the drama queen act.

Free speech will exist just fine without Milo's boring ass. Trump is a bigger threat to free speech than the lack of Milo is.

 

[kpt018]

The dude is a troll. He is genius but clearly it back fired. He fed the left and it finally caught up on him.

Definitely agree he's a troll, not sure about the genius part. I have yet to hear him make a good point. I would say he's a marketing guru for sure though.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

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.

If you could bare listening to Stefan Molyneux's rambling for nearly an hour, he called out several people on the left, Bill Mahr for instance who made some similar comments in his career but argued the domination of a million to Obama gives him a pass.

He left the slightest or faintest of impression that pedo shit is okay. What is says more is that, the man has his own issues, is a product of the aftermath of experiences, and what the left and right do is blame the victim.

I like Milo and I will continue to support him from a distance lol He reaped the reward of being out spoken and sooner or later it would bite him in the ass. He will bounce back but they needed to take him down a peg and he gave them the fire power.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

Definitely agree he's a troll, not sure about the genius part. I have yet to hear him make a good point. I would say he's a marketing guru for sure though.

If you haven't heard a good point, you are not listening. His points on feminism, on rape culture, on the on going wave of obesity in women, and subscription to victimhood by women especially on the left is hilarious.

He sunk himself. Mcg got humble pie. sooner or later, it happens to everyone. That or you die (RIP Big L)