Milo falls on his sword

Here’s a video from today showing a cowed Milo Yiannopoulos falling on his sword—resigning as an editor at Breitbart. Within just 24 hours, his life has fallen apart: his book deal with Simon and Schuster was canceled, as was his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and he’s lost his job at Breitbart. He’s also going to be branded as a pedophile for the rest of his life.

Whether or not you think Milo had this coming to him, I still find it sad, especially when I found he was a victim of sexual child abuse. There’s no evidence that he himself was a pedophile, and I’m not sure whether canceling his book was the right thing to do. What I’m pretty sure of is that his notoriety has cost him his image; as one columnist said, the Right finally found it expedient to eject him. I was no fan of Milo, but I don’t think this is a time to gloat. Whatever you think of him, he’s smart and charismatic, and I hope he can leverage that into a new life.

I haven’t followed this complicated tale closely, and have listened only briefly to the tapes that led to his downfall. With luck, Grania, who has been following this more closely, will write a reasoned post on this soon.

165 Comments

  1. Ty Gardner
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    He clearly stated that he’d attended a party with men having sex with underage boys and didn’t do anything about it. That’s unacceptable. I’m OK with his world falling apart simply as a result of that.

    • GM
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      Dave Chapelle said it best years ago:

      • Cindy
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        Thank you for that. Dave Chappelle is brilliant as always.

        Unfortunately, I imagine that his brand of humour would only serve to anger the humourless PC police…

        BTW, have you seen Chappelle’s skit on ‘keepin it real’? That is one of my faves…

        • GM
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

          I’m not sure which one you’re referring to but I probably have.

          The man was a genius at his peak during those years, one masterpiece after another.

          And yes, doing something like that in today’s climate would be unthinkable.

          He would be out of whatever gig on TV he has for the “how old is 15 really” one the very same day.

          For this one too:

          And many others.

      • Ty Gardner
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        Thankfully I, unlike America, am ideologically consistent on that question.

      • somer
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        What is this? Rape apology? Not for the first time.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      The world is full of victims that have insufficient evidence or resources to pursue action against more powerful and connected individuals. Under those circumstances they may be wiser to remain silent.

      It appears that he has not remained silent in other cases.

    • somer
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      Yes relationships are complex – not that complex because at the end of the video Milo makes the nature of this clear saying “some of those relationships between younger boys and older men the sort of coming of age relationships with older men help those young boys discover who they are. … Some of those relationships are some of the most [interview interjection “it sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me”] [Milo responds] and you know what I am grateful for Father Michael I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

      • somer
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        I wouldn’t normally be looking at “the Reagan battalion but it was a link in an NPR article “After Comments On Pedophilia, Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns”

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:33 am | Permalink

      Milo is young, good-looking and a master at self-promotion. He owes much of his success to the alt-left, but that can swing both ways. He said he’s “been through worse before” and will do quite nicely by himself. so forgive me if I don’t feel any sympathy for his temporary setback.

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      + 1

  2. kelskye
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    What concerns me about this is how the latest revelations are taken as a vindication of the attempts at suppression beforehand. If he has engaged in pedophilia, or bore witness and did nothing, then he is absolute scum. But that in no way made it acceptable to try to suppress his speech beforehand – or even his speech now on anything that isn’t advocating child rape.

    • eric
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      I have not heard anyone claiming this vindicates prior censorship attempts, though that doesn’t surprise me. Could you link to what you’ve heard?

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:35 am | Permalink

      “If he has engaged in pedophilia”

      You are aware that pedophilia refers to prepubescent children and that Milo’s remarks refers to relationships between adults and teens? (or are there other remarks by him I am unaware of?)
      It seems the media deliberately uses the wrong term.

      • kelskye
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

        The fine details of the definition of pedophilia aren’t really the point to be concerned about. The sex with people too young to be giving consent is.

        • nicky
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

          Obviously, but what is the age someone is deemed to be able to give consent? I know 14 year olds who could give consent, (eg myself at that age, but nobody to ask for consent 😦 ) and I know 30 year olds I would not deem to be able to give consent.

          • horrabin
            Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

            You could say the same thing about drinking or voting; as long as you are going to have an age based law it will have to be in some respects arbitrary. Some teens could handle drinking alcohol fine while there are adults who get into fistfights or drink and drive, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t set any age-based law regulating drinking.
            Different countries set different ages for consent, it’s pretty easy to find out. Are you saying we should somehow judge consent issues on a case-by-case basis? How? Individual interviews by a tribunal or something?

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:39 am | Permalink

      This reminds me the Hungarian reporter who notoriously tripped refugees. When it turned out that one of these refugees was actually an Al-Nusra militant, some people tried to vindicate the reporter, attributing to her an almost supernatural gift to recognize terrorists.

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

      What’s got people scratching their head is why the legacy of Harvey Milk (pederast according to a sympathetic biography), Allen Ginsberg (NAMBLA member), and most recently George Takei have remained intact. Takei is the public face of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut ffs, despite having spoken positively way back in 2006 of his illegal sexual experience as an underage kid with adult counselors: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/george-takei-spoke-glowingly-about-being-molested-as-young-teen-by-older-man/

      It’s obvious Milo was a marked man. There was a tremendous effort to take him down where it simply didn’t exist with the above figures. Milo made alot of enemies in the culture industry, and it eventually took the kind of thing that the right hates – but the left is rather ambivalent on – to put him in his place. So what if it screams of hypocrisy.

  3. eric
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure whether canceling his book was the right thing to do…

    I assume it was business, not personal. IOW they thought it wouldn’t sell. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

    I hope he can leverage that into a new life.

    But this time, doing something useful.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      McDonalds, always hiring.

  4. Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Oh, this thing is going to blow up in a very unpredictable way. There is a Youtube recording doing the rounds now, where George Takei makes almost exactly the same claims as Milo, while reminiscing pleasantly on his experience as a 13 y.o. at Summer Camp. In it he claims to have had a consensual sexual relationship with his 19 y.o. instructor, which he welcomed at the time and does not regret.

    • Filippo
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:34 am | Permalink

      I gather he would not feel as free to comment had the positions been reversed.

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Well, before we anyone screams double standard it’s possible few people knew about this Takei interview. The Milo one had been around for over a year before reaching mainstream attention. Takei’s days as spokesman for top corporate brands may be numbered too if this counter-news remains newsworthy.

  5. Cindy
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    I am a bit behind. I haven’t yet watched the vids in question because honestly I just don’t find Milo be all that interesting (in truth, I am more concerned about violent reactions to him)

    However, I am not so sure that calling the cops would have resulted in any arrests, as the folks involved are just too powerful. There is clearly a child sex abuse problem in Hollywood, and it seems like no one cares. Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame even commented on it…

    I have only watched secondhand videos, so one of the main points of contention seems to be that Milo stated it was acceptable for 13ish year old boys to be having sex with older men because biologically they are adult…if so,that *is* messed up.

    BTW, Salon has since removed the articles that they had published by admitted-paedo Todd Nickerson.

    • somer
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      This was also reported in the Washington Post though they didn’t give a link
      ““You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means,” he told the hosts of a podcast. “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.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-news/2017/02/21/0217c128-f7cc-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.d86e8e4a5a83

      • Thanny
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:34 am | Permalink

        That quote is precisely correct. What’s the problem?

        • somer
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:15 am | Permalink

          Its still attraction of the much older to underage -children in early stages of adolescents. Pedophilia’s the problem.

          And Joe Rogan utube on Milo’s views on pedophilia mentioned elsewhere on this thread

          • Eric Grobler
            Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:39 am | Permalink

            “Its still attraction of the much older to underage -children in early stages of adolescents. ”
            But that is Hebephilia not Pedophilia although 13 is quite young for boys who develop slower than girls.

            • somer
              Posted February 22, 2017 at 6:01 am | Permalink

              I think this is splitting hairs and Im glad its Illegal in Britain and in the US which Milo would know. Plus at one point he mentions boys from 11 I think on the Drunken Peasant video

              • Eric Grobler
                Posted February 22, 2017 at 6:09 am | Permalink

                “I think this is splitting hairs”
                I agree that if we refer to children aged 11 it is splitting hairs.

                However there is for example a huge difference between men being aroused by pictures of a fully developed 16 year old girl vs a prepubescent child.
                The former is normal and the latter is a serious psychiatric disorder.

              • somer
                Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:44 am | Permalink

                Theres a power relationship and a maturity issue that could really harm the life of the minor. Hence catastrophic affects of clerical abuse – which in Australia occurs 80% to boys. They wont have the issues of pregnancy and a child but its still traumatic because its traumatic power relationship affecting their bodies in which in many cases they felt compelled to “consent”.

                Endorsing sexual relationships between much older adults and those at the Young end of puberty (13 which is well below 16 and even as low as 11 if the boy is “sexually mature”) is not OK

  6. Dave
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    If Milo slips into obscurity I guess that means the university left will have to find another bête noire to be offended by. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else tries to fill the “Milo niche”.

  7. Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    A troll is a troll. I’m reminded of junkies falling off the wagon, it’s sad for sure, but what can one do watch those that play fire, promise not to play again, yet pocket matches surreptitiously

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

      How many junkies do you know, and what are you really saying about them?

      • Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        I work as a street medic and the recidivism is almost compete. The ones that make it out, I never see again. And currently about ten. And those I have met are liars to the core. That was my point about Mr Y, that he’s a liar, a troll, and that whatever his position on free speech, he’s got a junkie’s perspective on free speech, it’s never enough.

        And I don’t look down on junkies, it’s just a slow way to die.

  8. Limor Geisler
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think there is any reason for pity here. He has not made his career as an iconoclastic thinker who has been attacked for his real views. He is so obviously intentionally provocative and has said many times that he doesn’t care how cruel or callous he is. In fact, cruelty is his stock-in-trade. I’m glad he is finally paying the price for his disgusting speech. Maybe he should have been given a platform when invited in the past, but I don’t see the need to hear more from this deeply cynical, cruel, and troubled man.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      I’m with Limor. I have never understood why anyone would want to listen to such toxic rhetoric.

    • Limor Geisler
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      And, to be clear, I think it is appropriate that he lost his book contract and his job. Abuse of children is not up for debate.

    • Keith
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. He carved out a career as a cruel troll and is now learning that free speech, which I support, also comes with consequences. Time to grow up, Milo, and seek the help you desperately need.

  9. Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m far more concerned for all the people he’s trolled over the years. And I’m not in the slightest convinced that this isn’t simply a preclude to launching something new.

    Milo is the worst kind of human. He finds joy in hurting others.

    • Mary Drake
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

      I agree. And I am a little disappointed with Prof Ceiling Cat’s comment: “Whatever you think of him, he’s smart and charismatic, and I hope he can leverage that into a new life”.
      I am not saying he should be drawn and quartered, but I have no sympathy for him at all. As a female, I’ve been on the receiving end of too many cruel comments to wish anything positive for this awful man.

  10. revelator60
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    I have no sympathy for Milo, who has already spouted more than enough contemptible opinions to have earned mass antipathy. The most one can say in this case is that he was not making an argument for pedophilia—which involves pre-pubescent children—but rather ephebophilia, which involves sexually mature adolescents. From what I’ve read there isn’t much overlap between the two, since pedophiles are less attracted to young people who show signs of sexual maturity. But that’s ultimately irrelevant—I hardly need to emphasize that it is flat-out wrong for an adult to have sexual relations with a 13 year old (Milo’s faulty logic also assumes a 13 year old would be sexually mature, but people enter puberty at different ages). And of course Milo turned the whole thing into a defense of Catholic Priests! I’d say he won’t be missed, but I suspect the Alt-Right is not done with him yet.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

      When even Richard Spencer condemns you, I think your career with the alt-right is toast.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      I am not even sure he was saying that. The video doing the rounds has been edited.

      The timing is also very suspicious, given the material involved is old and without much in the way of previous consequence.

      It seems some of the outrage stems from his relationship with a 26 year old at age 17 and general ignorance that the US age of consent is much higher than the rest of the Western world (14-16, Milo is British).

      I also expect that some victims of abuse would use black humour while discussing it. I probably would if it were me. Not on a chat show though.

      It will also be interesting to see if the alleged insider leak that warned of the “hit” in advance of it taking place turns out to be authentic.

      I don’t like the fellow, but I feel the need to be vigilant on this issue because erosion of free speech and justice begins with the people who are the least liked.

      • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Peter Tatchell has campaigned to lower the age of consent to 14 and he’s a ‘national treasure’.

        In a review of a book on ‘boy-love’ he wrote:

        ”The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell#Age_of_consent_laws

    • Michiel
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 1:30 am | Permalink

      To me it sounds like he’s not assuming that every 13 year old is sexually mature, but that some of them are, and it’s not pedophilia to have a sexual relation with someone like that.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:44 am | Permalink

        “and it’s not pedophilia to have a sexual relation with someone like that.”

        And he is correct – it is Hebephilia.
        The problem is that he plays down the dangers of relashionships between adults and teens.

        • Jonathan Wallace
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:36 am | Permalink

          Young people mature at different rates and some thirteen year old boys will still be physically children whilst others may have acquired many or most of the attributes of physical maturity. I would suggest, however, that for the purposes of deciding when it is appropriate for young people to be able to engage in sex legally, ‘sexual maturity’ should include not just the physical attributes of maturity but also emotional maturity and I believe that that may lag well behind the physical development. It is difficult to measure when a person has acquired the necessary level of emotional maturity to be able to give informed consent and I believe that society should err on the side of caution. In the UK the age of consent is sixteen and I would not advocate going any lower than that.

          Of course young girls and boys may well experiment with sex before that age and that may generally do little or no harm but relationships between teens and adults are altogether different and risk significant emotional damage to the young person.

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      My impression is that when pedophiles cannot find or do not dare to molest prepubescent victims, they opt for teens. The oldest victims of Marc Dutroux were, if I remember correctly, 17 and 19. It is a common strategy to groom teens that are just over the age of consent in the particular country. Therefore, I disapprove that the age of consent in countries I know is well below the age of legal smoking. I say, if 15-yr-olds want sex so much, let them do it with their peers!

  11. Karen Fierman
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Milo is like a Kardashian of the alt-right. He’s famous for being or doing … WHAT? His ouster from the conversation is a good thing, in that he has been just one more distraction from things tha actually matter. Seriously! There’s no there there.

    • mordacious1
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Au contraire. The Kardashians make their living by being titillating (to some, disgusting to others). No redeeming qualities whatsoever, imo.

      Milo, otoh, is a speaker and a writer. There are many people who do quite well doing this, Hitchens for example (not to compare Milo to Hitchens…different league entirely). Being a contrarian, a provocateur, a comedian, a troll even, is a noble calling. Laughing at the king when he has no clothes should not be diminished. People like Milo point out our absurdities, which need to be pointed out at this time, in particular, the absurdities of the regressive Left. YOU may not like him, but he’s good at what he does.

      • revelator60
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        “People like Milo point out our absurdities… in particular, the absurdities of the regressive Left.”

        There are lots of people pointing out the absurdities of the regressive Left, including our very own Professor Ceiling Cat, and unlike Milo they don’t see any need to be alt-right shockjocks.

        • mordacious1
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          To each his own.

        • denise
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

          I think there’s a place for people who deliberately push buttons just to demonstrate the result.

      • Linn
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:27 am | Permalink

        I still visit this blog from time to time though I rarely comment now. I find it quite hilarious and sad at the same time how almost everything has become about the regressives. Newsflash to those that think leftist college students are responsible for everything from the holocaust to Trump to bad weather, it’s the right wingers that are sacking milo now!
        You know, the right wingers that were talking so nobly about free speech and laughing at the snowflakes on the left? Well, now they’re the ones reacting and needing safe spaces. Like Trump has shown, the right wing are the ones that most want to silence others, but as the hypocrites they are, they still point to regressives. I guess Milo will still blame the left for having to leave.

        I actually wasn’t bothered by most of the paedophile talk, but the defense of catholic priests was somewhat disgusting. Which goes to show that one can get away with everything as long as one pretends to be a troll. If a regressive had excused catholic priests by saying that the kids actually wanted it and that it was good because it taught them about sex, everyone would be up in arms. But when a catholic like Milo says something similar (Im not saying those were his exact words of course), it’s fine because he’s oh so charming as usual. Well, the right wingers have abandoned their mantra about free speech now (and it was obvious that they were hypocrites from the beginning considering how Trump has spoken against the press and anyone criticizing him). It will be interesting to see what follows. 🙂

        • Linn
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 2:42 am | Permalink

          One should never write posts from a phone.
          The first two sentences came out wrong I see now. They’re not supposed to hang together. Wanted a line between the two. Didn’t mean to imply that our host only complain about regressives, but that right wingers and certain liberals as well, make regressives out to be responsible for everything, even in cases where right wingers are the ones responsible.

  12. aljones909
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    He was incredibly stupid but I don’t think his life should be ruined by this. His press conference today was quite dignified.

    “My experiences as a victim led me to believe that I could say almost anything on this subject – no matter how outrageous”

    • Linn
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 3:27 am | Permalink

      I don’t get why anyone would think that themselves being abused means it’s ok for them to say that abuse is fine. If I were to get off on being whipped, that doesn’t mean it’s fine for me to advocate whipping people in general. Which is where the biblical golden rule falls short (you should NOT always treat others the way you want to be treated)
      If I thought it was so nice when my uncle came to my bed at night when babysitting me, I still have no right to say that all uncles should have sex with their nieces and nephews.

      Not to mention that some rapists were raped as children themselves. Is it ok for rapist catholic priests to point to their own abuse as kids in defense? “My experience as a victim lead me to believe that raping little kids was an alright thing for priests to do”. I can imagine the outrage if a rapist priest had used that as an excuse.

      Many of the people that defend something were victims of what they’re defending. The women circumcising young girls were themselves circumsised. That doesn’t make it any less of a crime and they have no more weight behind their defense of such horrid practices than others. In many ways, hearing past victims defend something is even worse.

      • nicky
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        But that whipping people in general, isn’t it that an idea to explore?

        • Linn
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

          Explore it all you want but our own experiences with something doesn’t really give us a free pass to think it should apply to everyone, and it certainly doesn’t mean we escape criticism.
          I just don’t like the whole “I was a vicitim and liked it so I can say whatever I want”.

          I’m not talking legally here (legally he has the right to say it of course), just that someone getting off on being abused as a minor, doesn’t mean abuse is fine.
          Just like enjoying a good whipping doesn’t give someone the right to say that f.ex a woman that was whipped for infedility should have enjoyed it.

          Like I said in a previous post, what I reacted to the most was the indirect defense of rapist catholic priests. That to me is like defending that a person is whipped for infidelity by saying that you personally enjoy being whipped.
          Or if you prefer (pointing to another recent blog post), just because some women like wearing a burka or hijab, doesn’t mean that forcing women to wear it is a positive thing.

          He is in every right to seek out a priest now for sex if he wants, he has no right (talking morally, not legally) to imply that the rape and abuse of kids by priests is positive.
          And I know he probably didn’t mean for it to come out as a broad defense of all rapist priests, but he should have thought before he opened his big mouth (but thinking before speaking is something he rarely does).

  13. Chris Slaby
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call him smart (I think Bill Maher was being overly nice with his comments); opportunistic, sure. And he certainly was very successful at pushing the buttons of the Regressive Left, thus using his performance art to highlight the real problems that exist in our country today with free speech. But I agree with other commentators following his appearance on Maher’s show. To call him an intellectual lightweight would be far too generous. Beyond the specific (and generally correct) critique of the Regressive Left’s trigger happy response to speech that they find offensive, he said and did nothing else of substance. He was a self-promoter with a shtick, and it worked well for a bit. It’s quite annoying that this is what it took for his “downfall.” He made one good point and then contributed nothing else of substance (all the while spewing hateful things just to rile people up); he should have been long gone.

    On the book deal I think this piece in the Atlantic got it right: “But not giving someone a book deal isn’t suppressing their right to free speech—while publishing their work means elevating their voice above countless others. As [Roxane] Gay wrote in a statement when she pulled her book in January, ‘Milo has every right to say what he wants to say, however distasteful I and many others find it to be. He doesn’t have a right to have a book published by a major publisher, but he has, in some bizarre twist of fate, been afforded that privilege.'” (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/02/simon-and-schusters-completely-avoidable-milo-disaster/517362/?utm_source=atlfb) Milo should not have been “denied” his platform the first time he spoke (and I don’t necessarily know that he was), but after hearing him out, any thinking person should have dismissed what he was saying as pure shock value (and frequently vile shock value, at that) and promptly given him the exact amount of attention that his “thoughts” deserved: zero.

  14. Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I rarely disagree (or ever), but here I must. Here is what he said, on Joe Rogan’s show. I don’t know if this was the instance causing him trouble, but it is one. They interrupt each other frequently:

    Milo: You have never seen a 15 year old girl where you thought she was hot!?

    Joe: [vehemently denies, maybe only when he was himself 15]

    Milo: … maybe when you were 25? When you were 30? Of course you did!

    Joe: [interrupts] “they are little kids!”

    Milo: [restating whether young teens are hot to adult men]

    Joe: I thought she is gonna be hot, but I don’t want to f**k her

    Milo: … bullshit!

    Milo Yiannopolous then explains how he considered himself the sexual predator when was 13 and had allegedly sex with a priest.

    He said appalling things before, but they were within the pluralistic spectrum as far as I could tell (the useless Regressives failed to show instances to the contrary).

    The views he expressed in the interview are no longer within democratic pluralism. He is undermining conceptions of consent and responsibility, and in that way serves apologia for pedophiles — which is utterly inacceptable.

    What is also different is that the inviters themselves rescind the invitation, rather than a third party that injects itself and tries to sabotage someone’s appearance and the right of an audience to hear an invited speaker.

    Regressives are however hypocrites. I won’t be naming names, because this is seriously hot water, but it came to my attention how regressives (yes plural) also in the atheist-skeptics community have made excuses for pedophilia. Salon also advocated for it, but deleted their case apparently a while ago.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      Reality potentially undermines law, so we must all be seen to pretend that reality is not real.

      Otherwise, people who do not understand nuance and context might be encouraged to break the law.

      Problem is, how do you set an age of consent in the first place if you are not allowed to discuss the issues surrounding it?

      • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        No, it doesn’t. You can argue about it. You can also argue for the reintroduction of unusual punishment, such as drawing and quartering. But you cannot be protected from damage to your reputation you inflict on yourself, and to consequences that arise ouf of that.

        (1) Nobody needs to give reasons for refusing someone else a platform, a book deal or a stage. They can just do that, but it becomes increasingly more justifiable/i> the more someone moves outside the pluralistic spectrum. I thought that Hirsi Ali’s views while controversial, give no good reason on that ground to first offer her a stage at Brandeis and then refusing it.

        (2) As explained above, it matters immensly who does what to whom. If an organisation or group wants to invite him, and he wants to go there and talk to them, they are free to assemble in this fashion. It no business of others, and they have no right to sabotage it, whether or not they like what he might say. But a book publisher can of course decide they are no longer interested in publishing. This is at best a matter of contract between them, and you can personally dislike what they do or didn’t do, and then decide to no longer purchase books from that publisher. But it’s hardly more than that.

    • denise
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      No longer within democratic pluralism? Wow, that’s pretty strong. I have to disagree. There are lots of people who had sex with adults when they were underage who continue to see themselves as willing participants and view the experiences as positive. I’ve known a few myself.

      Are you seriously saying it’s outside of the bounds of free expression for them to discuss their own experiences and feelings?

      • Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        We aren’t at all argueing about what is allowed legally, but whether some views exist which are beyond the pale enough so that an organisation (or an individual) is justified to distance themselves from someone who expresses certain opinions. I believe such views exist, and I include pedophilia into that list, but not ordinary pluralistic views, e.g. voting a different party. Though with splitting hairs, there are some special cases. If Yiannopolous came out as a Democrat, conservatives are also justified to disinvite (etc).

        • somer
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

          I agree – I mean anyone encouraging something that has a high potential for physical violence IE non consensual and/or highly unequal power relations in sex relationship with children – its unacceptable.

        • Linn
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:47 am | Permalink

          I can agree with the whole distancing thing. It’s quite ridiculous that free speech has suddenly become about saying what you want wherever you want. He is perfectly able to create his own website or rent a place and invite people that actually want to listen to his mindless, crude (but oh so chaaarming) drivel, but he can’t force everyone to invite him. Free speech only protects you from government intervention, it doesn’t mean everyone has to listen and agree with you.

          If I’m holding a conference about afro americans and apartheid, I would feel perfectly justified in disinviting someone that recently said he was a member of KKK. I wouldn’t want to live in a country where I’m forced to invite every idiot that wants a stool to stand on. That’s not freedom.

    • somer
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

      Wow I didn’t see That Joe Rogan interview with Milo – he’s done several

  15. Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    This is why you let them talk because eventually the piper needs to be paid.

    I thought it was interesting that in previous appearances he had on beaded necklaces and bracelets and wild clothing. Here, he’s in a suit. Which didn’t appear to fit him well. (The suit that the is). He’s in full save my butt mode right now. He also doesn’t mention that it was his friends as much as his enemies that brought him down. Even Breitbart staffers wanted something done.

    • Posted February 22, 2017 at 3:00 am | Permalink

      Even the necklaces are a smutty joke ( look up pearl necklace) I have NO sympathy for this cruel nasty troll. He wanted to be the wild card and he got played.

  16. Mark R.
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    I don’t believe in karma, but it is sometimes true that what goes around comes around.

    I don’t think censoring him was a helpful endeavor, but I can’t say I have any beef with this. I also can’t bring myself to feel much sympathy for him.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

      Just give a man like Milo enough rope and let nature take its course.

  17. Diana MacPherson
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    I don’t feel eel so bad for Milo because I simply don’t find him very interesting. There are lots of other people I’d rather listen to and lots of us are languishing among the mediocre so hey, welcome to the club Milo!

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      “There are lots of other people I’d rather listen to and lots of us are languishing among the mediocre so hey, welcome to the club Milo!”

      I don’t see him languishing greatly as a result of this. His legion of fans among the youtube anti-sjw crowd are fully supporting him, and calling this a hit job. The 50,000 people who had pre-ordered his book will still want it, and while he may no longer be invited, or allowed to speak on college campuses, he will be able to rent venues, and charge admission. He also has 600,000 youtube subscribers who will be more than willing to donate to a patreon to help him financially.

  18. SharynS
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I can feel no pain for Milo. Someone who thinks a 13 yr old is a reasonable age of consent surely recognizes that someone his age would understand the difference between harmful and not harmful – and potential consequences of each.

    I could change my view about his, thus far, dispicable character should Milo learn anything from his real life lesson.

    • aljones909
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      He was abused by a priest when he was 13 years old. He has referred to this as positive. He has also run campaigns to identify pedophiles. Could these contradictory attitudes be a result of the abuse he experienced?

    • mordacious1
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      What about 14? There are currently 16 countries in the EU where this is the age of consent. Are all those people beneath contempt? Personally, I think it should be at least 18, but I tend to be a prude.

      • Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

        I think the age of consent should be raised to 21.

        I didn’t get any when I was a teenager and I don’t see why anyone else should.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

          I do hope you’re being satirical there.

          cr

        • Eric Grobler
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:48 am | Permalink

          “I think the age of consent should be raised to 21.”

          Wow, you want to criminalise a lot of normal people who fall it love?
          Perhaps you are not serious?

          • Jonathan Wallace
            Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

            If you read his second sentence I think you will see that this was a joke.

        • Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          The age of consent relates to adults having sex with youths. Teens can still have sex between themselves.

      • eric
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

        I think Aneris got it right, above: Milo is free to argue 14, or 13, or whatever age he wants to argue. But if Breitbart wants to fire him and his publisher wants to pull their book deal from him, that’s not an infringement on his free speech right to argue for a change in the age of consent.

        • mordacious1
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

          I think Breitbart can hire/fire anyone they choose. My only problem is, when an angry mob comes after them with pitchforks and torches. The Democrats, for example, constantly moaned that Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls should be left alone. I agree wholeheartedly. But then they threatened Nordstrom’s, et al because they carried Ivanka’s stuff. What’s with that?

          My point is, let Milo speak. Don’t riot, light the city on fire, break glass, assault people. If what he says is to beyond the norm and repulsive, then he will draw very small crowds and disappear.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

            “What’s with that?”

            I’ll tell you what’s with that: Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls were minors while their fathers were president and made no pronouncements on public policy.

            Ivanka is an adult, who’s taken an office in the White House, regularly speaks out on matters of public interest, and serves as advisor to the current president.

            The situations are not at all comparable.

            • mordacious1
              Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:16 am | Permalink

              Once Chelsea started serving on the board of the Clinton Foundation, was also an adult and commented on public policy, she was fair game? The media treated her with kid gloves. Anyone who went after Michelle Obama was immediately criticized, even though she also involved herself in public policy. I’m not a Republican, I don’t support Trump, but I do see a double standard. If you want to attack Ivanka’s policy opinions, do so. If you want to go after her product line…well, that’s just weak.

          • eric
            Posted February 22, 2017 at 10:26 am | Permalink

            I think it’s reasonable criticism to ask whether the President’s spouse and/or nuclear family is using their position for personal profit; that’s generally considered unethical, dangerously close to trading favors and influence given the closeness between the president and his/her spouse. The potential for influence in this case was shown obviously and clearly when Trump remarked negatively on Nordstrom’s actions. Clearly, what deals corporations make with Ivanka (or Melania) is going to influence how the President talks publicly about that corporation. That’s a very bad place for us to be.

            In contrast, I don’t remember any public statements by Hilary on corporations making business deals with Chelsea.

            I do think that the press can reasonably cover Chelsea in her adult work, if there was something newsworthy about her competency or incompetency. However I suspect the only thing nationally newsworthy about Chelsea Clinton’s work is her last name.

      • somer
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:15 am | Permalink

        Its pretty depressing Europe has these attitudes. Even where age of consent is 16 its difficult for the police to do much about abuse of early teens by much older adults if they appear to have been willing – usually tormented kids who grow into tormented and messed up adults.
        However Milo’s advocating something that’s illegal in UK where legal age is 16. He’s explicitly advocating sex between children (male or female) and much older people. Its clearest of all in the Joe Rogan interview. Its not acceptable with this kind of power difference, or the implications at this age.
        https://www.youtube. [BREAK TO PREVENT INSERT)
        com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg&feature=youtu.be&t=3m25s

      • Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:59 am | Permalink

        My country is one of these, and I knew a man who groomed 15-yr-old boys.

    • Thanny
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:41 am | Permalink

      The age of consent in Japan is 13.

      It’s 14 in several nations, including Germany.

      It’s 15 for more than half the world’s population.

      It’s 16 for 60% of the United States.

      The only proper “age” of consent is puberty, with extra protections against aggressive seduction by adults over 18 (i.e. being seduced by someone who has undergone puberty should never be a crime, while seducing someone under roughly 16 should be).

      • Jonathan Wallace
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:16 am | Permalink

        Firstly puberty is not like a switch where a child changes into an adult in an instant. It is a process where numerous changes take place over an extended period of time. At what point do you deem the process to be sufficiently advanced to meet your criterion?

        Secondly, making the crime dependent on who seduced who, as you suggest, is thoroughly unworkable. An adult man could claim to have been seduced by a thirteen year old girl and I am pretty sure a skilled lawyer could convince the girl that that was so, irrespective of what actually happened.

        Maturity occurs at different ages in different individuals so the law has to simply draw a line somewhere. It seems sensible to be cautious over this and I think that those countries which have opted for 13 or 14 have got it too young. This is particularly so because the age of consent is just a single point in time and does not just allow a young equal-aged couple to experiment legally with sex but also makes the young girl or boy fair game (legally anyway, even if society frowns) for the fifty year old man. It seems to me that it is better to set a slightly higher age of consent in order to reduce the risk of exploitative adult-teen sexual relationships whilst accepting that some (many?) youngsters will mature earlier than this and will experiment with their peers and the law will draw a blind eye to that.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

          This is why many US states have a close-in-age exemption of typically 3 years and I think that’s thoroughly commonsensical.

          cr

  19. Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    From what little i’ve seen and heard of Milo, i don’t suppose i’ll miss him. Saying outrageous things doesn’t make you smart. I’d say if you’re gay and Catholic, you’re a few bricks short of a load.

  20. alexandra Moffat
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Thank you,JC – always wise, kind but not foolish. I hadn’t known who he was until I saw him on Mahrer, found him pathetic and kinda sad-and unappealing. Yes, maybe ha can retrieve his life and grow up.

  21. tubby
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Oh, he touched a shibboleth. I can’t even tell if he recognized it or if he was just too much of an Internet troll to realize.

  22. cero
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    I think most people didn’t watch the clips everyone is talking about. There are many reasons, why one can wish, that Milo’s career ends. But in this case Milo is absolutely right.

    If you haven’t seen the clips, Phillip DeFranco talks about it and also (fully) shows the clips in question, as well as Milo’s defense:

    In there Milo tries to take a nuanced stance on pedophilia. First one should note, that pedophilia itself is just the attraction to children. This is a more of a psychological problem and if it is a strong attraction those people should be helped instead of demonizing them.

    What is problematic are people who try to do these things, which is only a small percentage of pedophiles.

    Then in one clip he points out, that pedophilia is the attraction to pre-puberty children, while the attraction to teens is called hebephilia, which is more common than pedophilia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

    In another clip he points out, that a lot of people are sexually attracted by (some) 14-year old girls, even though they would never dare to touch them.

    And he also points out, that inside the gay community it is very hard to get to sexual relationships as a teen, which makes them more vulnerable to offers from elder men.

    Milo did never say he would support sexual realtions with children and he never questioned the age of consent.

    So he gets this backlash for being rational about a controversial topic. That is not something I can support.

    • cero
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      Well I have to step back on the claim, that he doesn’t question the age of consent.

      He indeed points out, that the age of consent is arbitrary (which it is, there is nothing in the age of 16 or 18 – depending on country – which could justify making this the point of adolescence).

      However, he did not say that the age of consent should be lowered and he later said explicitly, that this was not his intent.

      Instead he wanted to describe the situation inside the gay community.

      • Craw
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:45 am | Permalink

        Rejoicing that a man lost his job because he advocates a change in the age of consent seems to fit. Not the only example.

  23. Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    “outrageously funny” 

    Was he ever?

    /@

  24. Craw
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    A lot of hatred in some of these comments. Sound a bit like a Baptist revival meeting some of them.

    • mikeyc
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

      Hate? I don’t see much here. But hate is a word that has become so over-used that in many contexts it doesn’t really mean much anymore.

      Perhaps you could point some of it out?

    • Cindy
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Burning witches.

  25. Zach
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like he fell on someone else’s sword.

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

  26. Keithmooncrazy
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Well he’s very smooth…he should have been just a regular politician. Well spoken and thoughtful. However, I’m rather surprised that Jerry’s buying the abuse angle. The only chance as slim as it is dig himself out from this to play this angle. He’s not convincing on this, especially if you listen to the tapes in question. He’s a con man.

  27. Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Freethought Blogs has reached an all time low:

    Richard Dawkins has been defending pederasty for years, and that hasn’t stopped his prolific atheist career much.

    So now we’re even seeing a double standard here of all places, this territory that many of us see as unambiguously bad. And to be fair, almost everyone who has been on FTB has at some point taken the piss out of Dawkins. But apparently, pederasty will only torpedo your career elsewhere if you’re gay.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/atg/2017/02/21/im-not-actually-happy-about-what-happened-to-milo-yiannopoulos/

    This has to be the most despicable and gratuitous slurs I’ve seen directed at anybody.

    FTB are a fucking disgrace.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      I think I am actually going to vomit.

      The commenters are actually running with this shit and not challenging it:

      Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
      Milo deserves all this and much more. That isn’t any less true because Richard Dawkins doesn’t deserve to have a career either.

      • Cindy
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Yet, apparently none of the below is a problem:

        Salon’s pro-paedo articles
        Lena Dunham admitting to having molested her little sister
        A well known anti-GamerGater admitting to being a paedo (you can google it)
        And a regular at FTB who told a story about how he used to molest young girls (can also be google)

        Aren’t double standards lovely?

        • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

          There is a point where Dawkins should contact his lawyers.

          If Richard Carrier can sue for comparatively trivial accusations Dawkins should drag them in front of a British libel court.

          Their behaviour is increasingly deranged. Maybe they need sectioning for their own good.

          • Frank Bath
            Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

            Surely what Dawkins is saying is, ‘autre temps autre mores’. Or ‘the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there’. He is not defending what happened to him nor is he preaching it.

            • Gamall
              Posted February 21, 2017 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

              “autres temps, autres mœurs”.

              “Mores” is the latin, e.g. in the related “O tempora, o mores!”.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted February 22, 2017 at 1:53 am | Permalink

              Richard Dawkins’ crime, which he can never be absolved of, is that he’s white, he’s educated, he’s influential, and he’s frequently outspoken. And he does not defer to po-mo fashions.

              cr

  28. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    I take no joy in Milo’s fall from grace. But this incident reveals the hypocrisy of the faux-free-speech warriors of the right wing. I’ve listened to the tapes of Milo’s disputed comments, and there’s nothing there that wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment if made in a public forum.

    CPAC dropped him because they found his statements “objectionable” and in bad taste. But most everything out of Milo’s mouth on the way to his 15 minutes of fame fit that description. The right had no problem as long as he was passing comments found objectionable by some on the left. They derided those who objected as “snowflakes.” But the same right-wingers have shown how quickly they themselves melt once the squick falls on the other foot.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      I think Simon and Shuster were looking for a reason to ditch him because a boycott would bite.

      This allows them to drop his book while still retaining the moral ground.

      • Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

        “I think Simon and Shuster were looking for a reason to ditch him because a boycott would bite.”

        Yeah I think this made it easy for them to end the deal without it appearing that they were buckling under to threats.

        • Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:51 am | Permalink

          That doesn’t wash, though, as his book was selling very well, and would have made the publishers a pile. Remember, he would still have many purchasers. The book was, after all #1 in preorders for a brief time.

          • Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

            “That doesn’t wash, though, as his book was selling very well, and would have made the publishers a pile.”

            You may be correct, but first of all I don’t think Simon and Shuster needed the money from his book, and secondly I don’t think it would have been enough to make up for the bad press.

  29. Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    If Milo’s so smart, why is the lasting image of him going to be of a racist, fascist pedophile who pandered to the absolute worst instincts of the Right for money?

  30. Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    M.Y. reminds me of Max Tucker in the sense that they both know how to use social media to create fame and wealth for themselves by shocking people. Different baby formula perhaps, but the same regurgitation of boring mush. They so good at it, they don’t even need to wear bibs. Tucker as he aged morphed into something more respectable most likely because of the burn-out factor caused by this kind of interface with life. M.Y. will use this development to his advantage and probably would welcome a slower pace.

  31. Historian
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    In the tape Milo referred to himself as a “performer.” The protestors take him much too seriously and that is their big mistake. He is a self-admitted comedian of the political type. Now the Republicans find him a liability and have dropped him like a hot potato. It will be interesting to see if he can resurrect his career. But I urge the far left (meaning a very small number of people on the left of the political spectrum) to leave him alone. Just ignore him, making it likely that he will be nothing more than a minor speaker on the campus tour. In a few years, he will be nothing more than a minor footnote of the Trump years. But, I have doubt that my advice will be taken.

    • revelator60
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      “But I urge the far left (meaning a very small number of people on the left of the political spectrum) to leave him alone.”

      Good advice. Provocateurs thrive on attention—without it they shrink into nothingness. Milo got lucky when those Black Bloc idiots started a riot—he owes them his thanks.

      Incidentally, David Auerbach thinks Milo’s downfall was orchestrated:
      “The attack seems to have originated with the NeverTrump [right] wing of the media, though it was quickly taken up by mainstream media as well as some erstwhile allies of Yiannopoulos. (Six employees of Breitbart reportedly threatened to quit if Yiannopoulos was not fired.) And the attack is clearly a product of organized, right-wing research and publicity. This clip had been readily available for a year and somehow only came to prominence just before he was going to have a beachhead into mainstream conservatism via CPAC. Yes, it was a hit job. Since this is the game Yiannopoulos himself plays, the question isn’t whether he ‘deserves’ his present misfortune (you pays your money and you takes your chances), but why a canny operator such as him didn’t see this coming.”
      (/www.waggish.org/2017/trump-diary-6-february-21-2017/)

      • somer
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        The man undoes himself. Funny it didn’t require any screaming, violent protesters but a series of interviews with the man himself. Im sure also that it helped that Maher and Joe Rogan had made him look weak and foolish (particularly the one to one interview on Mahers show and on the Rogan show where he mocks Milos hypocritical religiosity even without that appalling exchange where Milo tells Rogan to the latter’s disgust that he should be attracted to and want to have sex with 15 year old girls). Free speech undid him rather than violence and shut downs. Actually I thoroughly agree with Brietbart sacking him and depriving him of his biggest paid platform. He has now been shown to be effectively advocating [sexual] violence. He can still say what he likes – but far fewer people will listen or approve than those who ignore or disapprove.

        • Steve
          Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

          Please stop defending Maher. He did not make Milo look foolish. He defended Milo’s transphobic statements as ‘not unreasonable ‘ and compared him to Christopher Hitchens.
          Milo’ downfall comes down to only one thing- conservatives are okay with racism, sexism and transphobia but not with pedophilia/hebephilia. Some defenders of free speech they are.

  32. Christopher Bonds
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Good comments from Jerry.

    • Frank Bath
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

      True enough.
      Ego run riot. Milo took himself at his own word and paid the price.

  33. @eightyc
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    This is essentially the “Free Speech But” Brigade striking again.

    Same old shit, different players.

  34. Kevin
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Sad, not that I thought he was interesting. Hopefully he can move on in some constructive way.

  35. Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    In the United States at present, age of consent is determined at the state level.

    Quote from Wikipedia article on “Age of Consent”:

    “While the general age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.”

    Unless the law has changed, in some states people younger than the legal age of consent can be married if it is approved by parents. I personally know of cases in which 12 (California)or 14(Arkansas) year old girls were married in this manner(This was in the 50s.)

    One of the reasons the U.S used to have such high maternal death rates were marriage and pregnancy of prepubescent girls. Take a look around at the ages of some wives on tombstones in old graveyards. Or, if you’re into genealogy, look at the ages of death of female
    ancestors. It used to be very common for males to have two or three wives due to deaths of earlier wives in childbirth. It also used to be common for males to have huge numbers of progeny with multiple wives in sequential marriages after deaths of earlier spouses.

    One thing that isn’t addressed are the different ages at which people mature. I knew a girl in grade school who developed large breasts in 3rd or 4th grade. The older boys found her very interesting and she put up with a lot of verbal abuse. As mentioned, it can cause the early maturers unwanted attention which they may not be prepared for. Some people mature early and some much later than the norm.

    In many countries, including here, pedophilia takes place, but is not acknowledged. Probably many of us have pedophile relatives without being aware of it (I am aware of it.) In some countries, rape within the family is not viewed as rape (maybe, privilege.)

    Nor does this take into account countries in which older males legally married to
    prepubescent girls, are supposed to wait for their maturation to have sex with them, but many do not wait. The number of females dying in these countries, or living lives of disability as a result of giving birth at too young an age is atrocious.

    Milo is a flyspeck on a page of history. The issue of abuse of children is major. So is freedom of speech. Let’s pay attention to real issues.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

      One of the reasons the U.S used to have such high maternal death rates were marriage and pregnancy of prepubescent girls. Take a look around at the ages of some wives on tombstones in old graveyards

      I just provided someone with a whole bunch of links on this very subject today. Just Google “National Geographic + child brides”. It will make your blood boil.

      One thing that really irritates me is this idea that people prior to the modern era all died at the age of 30, so that it was necessary to impregnate 9 year old girls. Fucking hell. I am not one to swear on this website but damnit, the ignorance! I thought that I’d give the prominent MRAs on youtube a try (Honey Badgers and Karen Straughan) and they were making the argument that 9 years old was acceptable age to marry off and impregnate a girl because people die young or some such bullshit. In their ignorance they also argued that a girl could manipulative her parents into *not* selling her off to a 50 yo man to be a sex/breeding slave.

      I saw this movie a few years ago and it communicates how awful it is for child brides in Afghanistan:

      https://itvs.org/films/i-was-worth-50-sheep

      • Cindy
        Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        Oh, this was in regards to Islam, all of it, btw.

        And yeah, people have a habit of glossing over maternal mortality and instead focusing on how men die in war. Both are bad, but the argument that ‘maternal mortality doesn’t count cuz nature’ is fallacious as all hell.

      • Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:01 am | Permalink

        Because someone suggested it, I watched Karen Straughan/Honey Badgers and it was on history, too, and also a bizarre form of revisionism. They and their supporters don’t even seem to recognize that they are in revisionism territory.

        I can understand that the Intersectionality crowd makes feminism unpopular, unfortunately, or that postmodernist disciplines (so-called “Academic Left” I dispute their leftism) aren’t exactly reliable, but that’s no good reason to throw away everything and basically invent history to suit their “MRA” agenda.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 6:00 am | Permalink

        “so that it was necessary to impregnate 9 year old girls. ”
        That is just silly.

        The argument will be that in many traditional cultures grils are available for marriage after their first menses which typically occured after 12/13.

  36. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Milo’s claim on Bill Maher last Friday that he wants to protect girls from transwomen in restrooms rings a bit hollow now, doesn’t it?

  37. Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    He was an ingroup of one. That usually doesn’t end well.

  38. Ken Pidcock
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    Bah. The man has lived to damage people. There’s too many assholes who never lived to pay the price. I’m frankly glad that he did.

  39. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 21, 2017 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    The Right kept Milo the way some people keep exotic pets — to garner attention from some and howls of disapprobation from others.

    Suddenly, Milo has become too exotic for their tastes. I doubt he’ll be fielding many more invites from the Young Republicans on campus.

    • Posted February 21, 2017 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

      “I doubt he’ll be fielding many more invites from the Young Republicans on campus.”

      And if he gets any I imagine universities, given the pedophile angle, will feel perfectly justified in not approving the invitation.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        In the case of state-funded universities, where the university sanctions student groups to invite speakers, I don’t think the university can discriminate on the basis of the content or viewpoint of the speaker consistent with the First Amendment.

        As for the College Republicans, my understanding is that these groups must be chartered by the local branch of the Republican party. That’s who’ll put a foot down when it comes to Milo (if the young GOPers were still of a mind to invite him).

  40. Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    “Posted in obituary” 😀

    Well played, Jerry. Though I don’t think it is the end of him. He has the audience, and appears to have made good money. He can put both to use and create a platform of his own, and as he indicated, other publishers have queued up already.

  41. dg
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    About the group that released the Milo tape:

    The group that accused Milo Yiannopoulos of defending pedophilia is funded by an anti-Trump, pro-McMullin PAC that once tweeted “we hate white children.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/notorious-never-trump-org-funded-group-behind-milo-controversy/#ixzz4ZOMy3YAd

    • somer
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 2:03 am | Permalink

      the regressives will always say those things. Various videos of him saying pro pedaphilia things (including the Jo Rogan one that is the most explicit) have all been around since first half of the 2016s. Breitbart are now saying they never really trusted him and he worked separate from the rest of the team – i suspect they were embarrassed by his sexual proclivities and wanted an excuse to dump him After the Trump campaign and the first month of the Trump presidency. The anti Trump Republicans and his humiliating performance on Maher and other free speech fora recently provided a final good look for them to publicly dump him.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      The “Reagan Battalion,” which released the Milo videos, is a conservative group of the “never-Trump” school. Some in the fever swamp of the far right have claimed that it is a false-flag operation of the left.

      But that makes no sense in light of the timing of the release. These videos are not new; some had been around for the better part of a year. The left had plenty of reason to dislike Milo before this, and no reason to have sat on the videos until now. And if the left wished to use the videos to embarrass CPAC, it would’ve waited to release them until it was too late for Milo’s invitation to be rescinded.

      These videos were released now for one purpose: to keep Milo from appearing as the keynote speaker at CPAC. A substantial portion of the Right isn’t comfortable with Milo’s flaming, flouncing public persona (an aspect of his public persona Milo kept in the closet at his press conference yesterday, while struggling to salvage his career).

      Hell, part of this wing of the conservative movement still isn’t comfortable with the button-down gayness of the Log Cabin Republicans (who have their own tortuous history with CPAC). These conservatives could not abide the idea of Milo becoming the public face of young conservatism, so stage-managed his fall.

  42. David Duncan
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    I hardly know a thing about Milo, and don’t really care either way, but this will empower the snowflakes, which is a bad thing.

  43. Diane G.
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 3:53 am | Permalink

    sub

  44. Filippo
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:26 am | Permalink

    I wonder if the same result would have obtained had he made the Trumpian statement that he could shoot (kill) someone in Times Square and no one (at least of a conservative/Tea Party psychological mindset) would have a problem with it.

  45. Sigmund
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    It seems a little ironic that Milo, always happy to play the contrarian neo-conservative provocateur, has been humbled not by opposition from the regressive left movement but by the most traditional of public denouements: the uncovering of hypocritical attitudes towards sexual behavior.
    I don’t personally think he is a pedophile or genuinely supportive of that behavior, however he was perfectly willing to cast such aspersions against transexuals in general. In so doing he was setting himself up for a fall in exactly the same way as the completely heterosexual Ted Haggard.

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 6:17 am | Permalink

      Interesting perspective Dr Freud.

  46. Eric Grobler
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    Why do the media conflate paedophilia with hebephilia?
    Should Milo not be accused of condoning “hebephilia”?

    I do not think evolutionary speaking it is “abnornal” for males to be aroused by young sexually developed females – it is a question of moral’s.
    As a society we acknowledge that girls/boys of say 14,15,16 are not mentally mature and should thus be protected from adult relationships.
    (b.t.w. the age of consent in countries such as Germany and Italy is only 14!)

    I think Milo should rightly be critisied about his cavalier remarks on gay relationships between adults and teens but I find it concerning that all the headlines read “paedophilia”.

    • somer
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      As far as Im concerned if its between a young adolescent and someone much older its hair splitting. German legal regimen re rape generally is pretty bad. Re European law thinking its OK – its irrelevant in that Milo is from UK and he knows that age of consent both there and in US is 16. AND in one of the videos he mentioned your “hebephilia” as potentially being with boys as young as 11 if judged “sexually mature”

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        “11 if judged “sexually mature”

        Ok, I concede eleven is in peodeophile territory.
        But the media still conflates the two and there is a big difference between being attracted to a 15 year old vs a 9 year old in terms of the mental disorder.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted February 22, 2017 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

          I don’t think there’s any mental disorder in being attracted to *some* 15-year-olds, since it’s impossible to tell them (the ones I’m referring to) physically from 18-year-olds. (Other 15-year-olds may look like 12-year-olds). Everyone engaged in these debates seems to implicitly assume that all 15-year-olds are the same and easily identifiable, and of course they’re not. Similarly 16-yo’s and so on.

          The law, of course, being a blunt instrument, has to think of a number which will in many cases inevitably be inappropriate, although commonsense has snuck in in many US states to soften the most glaring anomalies with ‘close-in-age’ exemptions.

          And I do agree that ‘paedophile’ is a term which gets flung around as recklessly as ‘Nazi’.

          cr

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted February 22, 2017 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        “he knows that age of consent both there and in US is 16”

        Not quite. In many US states it’s 17 or 18.

        Which just shows how arbitrary some of these lines can be.

        cr

  47. Aelfric
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    The man is simply a huckster, as far as I can tell. See here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/01/the-kernel

    and here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/breitbart-editor-milo-yiannopoulos-takes-100-000-for-charity-gives-0.html

    Given that his downfall was the direct result of his outrage-as-content act, I must say I feel no sympathy. All heat, no light.

  48. jwthomas
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    If there’s no libertarian free will what’s all this
    condemnation and finger pointing about? He couldn’t help being anything other than a narcissistic fool desperate for attention. Let’s tend our own gardens and leave others to theirs.

  49. Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Disagreeing with and condemning this guy is easy. He deals in hate. Defending him, if only because we can then shout him down, is much harder. But we must, not for his sake but for ours. If he has any nerve, he will hold to his belief and accept the consequences.

    • Aelfric
      Posted February 22, 2017 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Forgive me, but I am honestly not sure what you mean by “defending him” here. If you mean standing up for his right to speak and opposing violent opposition thereto, I completely agree. If you mean “insulating him from the consequences of his speech,” then I disagree.

  50. Joseph Lapsley
    Posted February 22, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Pedophilia yes or no, he is a destructive person who played no positive role in society. Hopefully he gets everything he deserves.

  51. Fernando Peregrin
    Posted February 23, 2017 at 4:45 am | Permalink

    This is in Spanish. You can use your favoritr on-line translator. Itñ realy interesting and a bit polemic.

    Letras Libres (Spainand Mexico)

    https://plazamoyua.com/2017/02/22/tabusitos-a-estas-horas-y-el-contexto-de-rdudda/


%d bloggers like this: