Quoting Wikipedia:
Pass the brain bleach, please.
So, here’s the thing. If he’s saying this because it’s the only way he can make sense of his own abuse at that age, I can feel shitty for him, but not at him–as long as, and this is key, he’s not turning about doing it to some other poor kid. I read his statements this way, and I think this is a somewhat common take for folks who are sexually abused as young teens. It’s not the worst thing he’s ever said.
Except:
- The fact that he has a giant microphone, and that a lot of the people who listen to him are manchildren, makes it extra-dangerous for this particular victim of sexual abuse to say things that minimize its harm. The emotionally stunted tweakers who idolize him don’t need to hear that sexually abusing young teens is not so bad. They really really don’t.
- For someone who’s made his living demonizing other folks by misrepresenting what they say, a little bit of petard-hoisting isn’t something I’m gonna cry over.
We’re a week away from the 5 year anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death. That would be too rich if that operation splintered from this. (In fairness to Andrew, while he was a dirty lowlife tactician and all, he wouldn’t be happy with what Breitbart News has become.)
[QUOTE=Milo]
I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst…There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
Oh no, Milo, when it comes to pedophilia we’re sure you’re not soft.
Heck, octopus is on record as feeling that way right here in this very thread:
It’s not the violent protests he was complaining about at that point: it was the very notion that people who are offended by a particular speaker should dare to try to “dictate to others whom they can invite”. At least, when the offended people espousing such alleged “anti free speech rhetoric” (another octopus quote) are liberals.
But when it comes to conservatives being offended by Yiannopoulos and trying to “dictate” to CPAC whether they should keep him on the guest list, suddenly “anti free speech rhetoric” trying to “dictate to others whom they can invite” doesn’t bother octopus at all anymore.
I hope you’re wrong. I’d be content if he just loses his microphone. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right.
He just lost his $250k book deal with Simon & Schuster. They’ve cancelled publication.
Simon & Schuster Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos' Book Deal Following Pedophilia Controversy | HuffPost Entertainment?
Plus anyone who’s been watching could see that the rest of the conservatives he’s been lapping after would really despise him. The man Milo calls “daddy” wouldn’t treat him any better than he does his other whores.
Thanks but I no longer subscribe to the “if you ignore a troll, he’ll get bored and wander off” school of thought. It sounds like it ought to work, in the land of sweet reason, but here in the darkest timeline, they instead take silence for consent.
Also, I don’t use ignore lists. I think Linus is entitled to bleat out his sad little thought-burps. I’ll reply or not as the spirit moves me. Ignore lists are awkward compared to just scrolling past his nonsense.
While I normally wouldn’t encourage people to give Yiannopoulos’ media platforms more traffic, it is satisfying to watch him twist and cringe, “virtue signalling” all over the shop:
Turns out the “anti-PC” “say anything” cheeky bad-boy of the alt-right is not actually such a bold advocate of free speech after all. When he runs his mouth in such a way as to land his career in potentially serious trouble, the sassy comebacks and outrageous taunts suddenly vanish while he frantically tries to look like a decent human being by imitating what decent human beings do when they say something offensive: namely, take it seriously, denounce it and apologize for it.
The desperate little face-saving clutch at “well, you slow-witted Yanks just don’t understand my more sophisticated British humor” is a fun touch, though.
You have it wrong. He said Father Michael taught him how to *give *head.
I think you have the dipshit all figured out. He’s a troll and a fake.
Anti PC is only good when he does it.
Free speech is only good went he uses (abuses) it.
etc etc etc.
Say what? You are more intelligent than that. People can be concerned about multiple principles simultaneously. Competing principles and all that ring a bell? But these aren’t even competing principles.
You can advocate freedom of speech and property rights and not contradict either!
If Milo was prevented from exercising his freedom of speech at a venue he has a right to be at by invitation or otherwise than I’d critique those violent goons. If a group chooses to not invite someone, freedom of association, than why should I have a problem with that? You think people are entitled to be in a place they are not invited, have no right, or have no ownership of?
Public universities are held to a different standard with regards to freedom of speech than a private group holding an event. I don’t expect a synagogue to be forced to allow an imam to preach Islam. I do expect a public university to allow a free exchange of ideas.
I am not labeling Milo hate speech or anyone else for that matter but let’s take a look at what the ACLU says about hate speech, as it’s among the most controversial, and public universities.
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus
They say it better than I do and I’m in agreement with them. So I’m not sure what the “gotcha” is supposed to be when I’m not in favor of forcing a private group to invite a particular person. I’m in favor of a lot of rights for a private individual or a group with regards to not being forced to associate. Public universities are not a private group or individual though.
I don’t think the government should discriminate based on gender and it does. However, I don’t have a problem with individuals discriminating based on gender with regards to dating. Different scenarios can sometimes have differences.
You’re just being dishonest. Sad!
Exactly. I fail to see why this is somehow so much worse.
Why?
No, really, why?
Does the existence of a person who is basically a human embodiment of 8chan /pol/ crossed with the youtube comments section and a bucket of yak semen actually improve the world in any way?
I’m not going to give them credit for this, though, because they never should have given him a book deal to begin with. Fucking tools.
Why shouldn’t they, other than the fact that you dislike his opinions? There may be many out there who would be interested to see what he has to say, whether they agree with him or not. Should they be denied the opportunity to read him? It’s a free country and Simon & Schuster may publish or not publish as they please. Clearly they thought the pains weren’t worth the profit on this one, and profits there would certainly have been. No big deal, he’ll find another publisher but I’m sure you’ll think they shouldn’t touch him either.
Do you honestly believe that only books of which you approve should find a publisher?
There are plenty of hateful bigots and pedophiles that would love to read his book, you are correct. I don’t know why you are so looking forward to it, as it is pretty much no new material, and a fan like yourself would have already encountered all of this material.
But, to your last sentence there, you do realize how fucking stupid that question is, right? Are you really stupid enough to think that it is a gotcha question, rather than just a highlight of your ignorance and inability to follow a very simple train of logic?
If taken to its extreme, then yes, any publisher that publishes material of which I find highly offensive I will not support in the future, are you trying to say that I don’t have a right to boycott? If you are literally asking that publishers need permission before publishing books, then you are not only completely (and probably deliberately) misunderstanding, you also don’t understand the first thing about this country.
Instant Karma: just add Republican snowflake tears.
Speaking for myself, I perceive Yannanopolis as an attention whore who thrives on negative publicity. Those types of people aren’t trying to enlighten and contribute to the well-being of their readers. I can guess his agenda based on the way he shows his ass off in public without having to pay a dime. What is he going to say that I haven’t heard any self-entitled brat say before? I want to read something more substantial than “Leslie Jones is a cow and GBusters sux lol!”
The only reason conservatives have him in their bandwagon is to cockblock liberals from pointing out their lack of diversity. I’m sure Yanno realizes that too, and doesn’t care so long as he gets more spotlights pointed at him.
The “multiple principles” in this case are “refusal to invite someone I approve of” (before) and “refusal to invite someone I now find to be an embarrassing association” (after).
Hmm… if you go to Breitbart, Milo is noticeable by his almost complete absence. He’s only got one article that I can see there, a podcast.