I really do not want Milo as an enemy of the right.
Violence at UC-Berkeley: The Wacko Lefties Who Make Milo Even More Famous
- Thread starter Phil Elliott
- Start date
That's still true so we still need Milo since he is the only one who does not cower to the PC bullies on the left.
At least they are buying them. Most of the "true-conservatives" (whoever they are) cannot sell a lifebuoy to a drowning man. Sorry but this is the fight we are in whether you like it or not.
You're forgetting Ben Shapiro. He confronts the PC bullies on and off campus and sells conservatism very well. Furthermore, he actually cares about policy, so rather than just selling shock value and himself, he's selling conservatism.
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
My guess is the reason he doesn't get mentioned much in the media is because he's more civil. I don't think they really want to publicize a coherent conservative voice, even if they're going to vilify it. There's too much risk that people might actually decide he's reasonable.
I haven't really paid a lot of attention to Milo, but I caught him for a few minutes on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. I didn't really hear much in the way of content, but noticed that Milo's hair and makeup were very tastefully done. If he has a sister, I'll bet she is really hot.
Well that escalated quickly. I am not a fan of these witch-hunts where a person is given the heave-ho after making a remark that might have been phrased better, but does not, IMO, rise to the level of hysteria attached to it. Did Milo defend pedophilia? He is technically correct that pedophilia is sexual attraction and/or contact between an adult and a prepubescent child. He pointed this distinction out and stated plainly he was not defending pedophilia in that light. So he is to be completely shunned b/c people don't know the true definition of pedophilia? This reminds me of the CA city-councilman (or might have been county) who was made to apologize to the black council members for correctly using the word "niggardly".
This looks to me like those on the right who were never comfortable with Milo's life choices finally finding something they could can him over. It seems a bit specious to me and reeks of the usual right-caving-in-to-unreasonable-shrieking-from-the-media.
This looks to me like those on the right who were never comfortable with Milo's life choices finally finding something they could can him over. It seems a bit specious to me and reeks of the usual right-caving-in-to-unreasonable-shrieking-from-the-media.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Nobody looks good defending Milo in this controversy. Whether "someone had it out for him" or not, he clearly was advocating for grown men "teaching" teenage boys. Milo is a star that burned too bright. His current schtik is done for now. Like Mr. Deez, I'd expect him to reinvent himself. Absent that, I worry for his mental well being as someone that clearly craves attention then loses it.
^ that was my thought watching him on Maher. This "star" is burning too bright.
I'll also add on the overtime portion the only people that dealt with Milo properly were Jack Kingston and, to an extent, Maher (though I thought Milo won the 1 on 1 with Maher earlier in the show). Malcolm Nance and Larry Wilmore thought they were delivering blows, but really, Milo succeeded in bringing them down to his level and getting them to roll around in the mud with him. How does the saying go "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." Milo even made a comment that he was hoping to get a "f*** you" out of Kingston, but like I said, Kingston was smarter than the rest and stayed out.
Anyway, I am all about free speech (and my years of posting history place me as free speech extremist) and I am more than happy to take up the unpopular opinion, but whatever train Milo is on, I prefer a different train. While I think he has the right to speak at universities sans disruption and generally speak his mind, I am not a Milo fan and I would rather support a free speech advocate that does not get off on shameless and uncalled for personal attacks of people (example: Leslie Jones. I am an SNL fan, but did not like the ghosbusters cast or reboot concept. Personally attacking the actresses over it was classless and indecent. Sure he has the right to do it, but why do it?) Being politically incorrect and being a jerk are not the same thing (even if the liberal media thinks so). Milo is well past the jerk zone.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Wait...is Milo now playing the victim card? He made a name for himself by ridiculing those that played the victim card: BLM, Feminists, Transgendered, etc.
Even the principled individuals can be hypocrites when their bully pulpit is removed.
Even the principled individuals can be hypocrites when their bully pulpit is removed.
I think Milo's comments are pretty offensive. If not technically pedophilia, advocting sex between adult men and 13-14 year old boys is pretty close to freak-out/gross out territory for a lot of us.
Last edited:
There was a time when we all pretty much agreed that NAMBLA was, without any qualification, bad. I guess not anymore.
I don't want to go deep into this, but I thought the catholic priest scandal was mostly homosexual priests preying on young boys vs actual pedophilia (pre-pubic). However the media called it pedo to cover up the homo behavior. Both highly wrong obviously.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm not understanding the attempt to split hairs on the pedophile vs. homosexual that likes young boys. Both are illegal.
You're right - it's all bad. I was attempting to say that most people don't know the difference and others exploit that ignorance for their own political ends. I see it all the time when it is discussed in the media.
Yes, they are different. You're not allowed to have sex with a 5 year old because it's depraved and per se abusive. It's pretty much impossible to do that with good intentions.
You're not allowed to have sex with a 14 year old for different reasons. It's not per se abusive. Adult men used to marry and have sex with 14 year old girls all the time, and nobody thought anything of it. The problem now is that it's usually not done for marriage anymore, so the adult man's intentions are very suspect. Furthermore, most adult men are pretty good bullshitters when it comes to getting a girl to have sex with them. Most adult women have the sophistication to smell this from a mile away and can avoid being exploited. However, most 14 year old girls don't, making it too easy for a dude to exploit them, and that does constitute abuse. To account for that disparity in sophistication and therefore enhanced risk of abuse, the law takes sex off the table unless the guy doesn't mind going to jail.
So yes, they are different. However, there are major moral and societal problems with both, especially when the adult is also in a position of trust and power such as a priest. Not only does it abuse the minor, it undermines the trust the public needs to be able to have in its religious leaders. The bottom line is that what Milo was talking about is very messed up, is damaging to the public, and almost surely damaged him even if he doesn't think it did.
Last edited:
The British upper class was a lot more lenient regarding what Milo was talking about. Milo probably got tripped up by forgetting the audience he was talking to (American puritans).
I doubt that the British upper class has ever been particularly favorable or lenient to the idea of priests having gay sex with minors. Nevertheless, if disapproving of it makes one puritanical, then I think a lot of very liberal people are going to find out they're a lot more puritanical and prudish than they thought.
If you have to side with NAMBLA to defend Milo, then perhaps he's not worthy of your defense.
Last edited:
Y'all be careful with this - I predict it will come out there was some creative editing to make it seem as if Milo was defending man-boy love. Just my opinion but these kinds of things seem to eventually end up that way lately where conservatives are concerned.
Don't get me wrong - I find Milo's lifestyle abhorrent, personally. I just *really* don't like the liberal double-standard where Milo is a complete scumbag because he was abused as a teen and he is OK with it, but Roman Polanski is a hero of the left. It's the left trying to shove acceptance of these alternative lifestyles down our throats, but they howl with horror at Milo recounting his story of abuse and his acceptance, and some might say, embracing, of it. I believe his political positions have a lot more to do with the outrage rather than the substance of what he said on this one subject.
Don't get me wrong - I find Milo's lifestyle abhorrent, personally. I just *really* don't like the liberal double-standard where Milo is a complete scumbag because he was abused as a teen and he is OK with it, but Roman Polanski is a hero of the left. It's the left trying to shove acceptance of these alternative lifestyles down our throats, but they howl with horror at Milo recounting his story of abuse and his acceptance, and some might say, embracing, of it. I believe his political positions have a lot more to do with the outrage rather than the substance of what he said on this one subject.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
I find it ironic that the left, who never even acknowledged NAMBLA, is leading the lynch mob now.
I know we all read too fast but I didn't say that. Please read twice before writing a condemnation. Milo was talking about older gay men mentoring younger gay men. Based on stuff I read, the British aristocracy all too often turned a blind eye to this. You disagree with this?
They're leading the lynch mob because they attack and try to ruin people on the basis of their politics.
Well, since I'm not part of the British aristocracy and not gay, I can't say for sure. However, I haven't seen any evidence of it and an curious as to what your evidence is.
Attachments
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/...licity-With-the-Savile-Sex-Abuse-Scandal.html
In many cases, investigation by the authorities was deliberately deflected. Nowhere is this truer than at Britain’s top “public schools,” as the private secondary, usually boarding, schools are known. In these, a culture of bullying and sexualized violence has been understood for more than a century as part of the process of training young men to be leaders. Teachers at 130 of these schools have been implicated; several schools are under criminal investigation by the police.
The author Edward St. Aubyn has written scathingly about how child rape and a culture of emotional sadism were tolerated, even enabled, within aristocratic families like his own. The journalist Alex Renton told me, “That’s how you get the elite we’ve ended up with,” in discussing his own experience of sexual abuse in what he calls the “platonic forcing house of great Englishmen.”
Meanwhile the left sets out on it's crusade to unknowingly reconstruct Milo's image:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368549.php
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368549.php
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
