Berkeley riot organizer = insane idealogue

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 8:40 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But every time I bring up facts, the right wing here tells me they don't care about them. And ignores what people -- and particularly 45 -- actually say, in favor of what they wish they said.

But go on. Keep making excuses for this vile human being. I cannot believe that this is what the right-wing has come to. The Lindsey Grahams and William Kristols of the right must be crying themselves to sleep every night.

I wanted to quote your post (this is from p. 4), it started with what I thought I'd read, that he was if not endorsing or advocating, at least condoning - and not at all reluctantly - underage sx.

Here's the thing: it could be that had I encountered Milo at the right point - maybe he wasn't so edgy, maybe he was genuinely funny - and I'd followed him and grown with him, I'd be cutting him slack, I'd feel like I "got" him and knew when to take him with a grain/truckload of salt. It's akin to the principle of how to avoid lashon hara: if you work on liking someone, of really feeling like s/he's family, you won't want to hurt them.

Frankly, this is the only way I can countenance people I generally like defending him.

I, however, have no history with Milo. I think my revulsion's coming through loud and clear.

Fox

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 8:58 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I quoted the entire interview, including what you claim is exculpatory.

Actually, let's be honest: you quoted about 4 minutes of a conversation of 2 hours and 47 minutes.

Obviously, most of it was not relevant to this issue, but there is plenty of context for the conversation. In other words, it is obvious from listening to the actual interview that this was not some formal statement of belief; it was a bunch of guys talking. You may still find it disturbing, but that's very different from a public speech or formal presentation. It's only fair to make that clear.

SixOfWands wrote:

You just don't want to admit that your hero believes that a its fine for a 40 year old man to get a high school kid to give him a BJ.

Could you cite when Milo or anyone has said this. In fact, Milo has said specifically in the past that he is referring to an age gap of approximately 10 years.

He has also clarified the roles in such a relationship. I won't go into details, but it is a far cry from what you describe.

SixOfWands wrote:

And you want to pretend that the entire "gay world" is seedy. Trust me, its not. Any more than every priest molests kids, or every right wing Rabbi does.

You're the one who came up with the seedy example -- not me. I can't quite figure out if you simply don't believe that such lover/mentor relationships exist; whether you just disapprove of them; or whether you believe that every relationship with a significant age difference is by definition exploitative.

In fact, instead of your 40-year-old with a high school kid, let's use a far more common scenario: 17- or 18-year-old goes away to college and tentatively "comes out." After a few bad experiences, he finds his first real boyfriend, who is 25-28. Boyfriend is a little more responsible; he's working and/or pursuing a career. He encourages the 18-year-old not to drink excessively or get caught up in drugs; he keeps potentially destructive people away; he may even administer a little tough love at times. They may stay together permanently or they may not, but the younger man has avoided some potential pitfalls.

Needless to say, all of us pray that our sons and other male loved ones will never have reason to contemplate any of this. But the fact that it doesn't concur with our laws and moral codes doesn't make it the equivalent of pedophilia or make it exploitative.

SixOfWands wrote:

I've quoted the interview time and time again. I give up. YOu don't care what he said.

Well, yes, you keep quoting the same thing and insisting that it be understood a particular way.

On the other hand, I listened to the whole ridiculous stream of consciousness a year or so ago when it came out. As I said upthread, everyone knew about this conversation and similar ones ages ago. I mean, I knew about it, and I'm not exactly the most wired individual out there.

This is news for one reason only: there was a coalition opposed to having Milo address CPAC. Honestly, how many of us (including me) follow what CPAC thinks or does? Most conservatives joke about how CPAC is trying to figure out if the Constitution actually requires the President be alive -- otherwise Reagan could run again!

I certainly don't consider Milo a hero; even people in the Milosphere consider him brilliant and interesting but a bit of a personal mess who's perpetually looking for a replacement for the mother who didn't love him enough (see FF's comment upthread). There are few public figures who wear so much pain on their sleeves.

His book has been pulled by S & S, and a huge battle is raging at Breitbart over whether to fire him. All of it is political, at one level or another. Everyone knows this: even Ben Shapiro is refraining from gloating.

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 9:57 pm

wondergirl wrote:

Being religious does not make you a person of color nor does your national origin. But if you want to conflate it all and pretend that there are no differences between them then that is your prerogative.
However, can you bring a case in a court of law without classifying it to be religion, race, national origin, etc? How would you classify a Chinese American in the event of a discrimination lawsuit? How about Muslims or a Jews who are not religious or openly religious?

1. When you come to court to sue someone, it has to be based on a law or civil right of action. You cannot just show up and say I was harmed. It always has to be "I was harmed and our civil laws consider this a violation, entitle me to a remedy etc."

2. The Constitution prohibits government entities from discriminating against a person because of their race, ethnicity, skin color, religion, gender, nationality, family status, etc.

3. Federal laws such as Title VI and Title IX also prohibit similar discrimination by government funded agencies.

4. If a Chinese American would bring a lawsuit, he or she would say, I was discriminated against based on my nationality and ethnicity in violation of the Constitution and Title VI.

5. Muslims and Jews can bring the same claim but it would have to be phrased a bit differently and rely on a different federal section of law, but Constitutional issue would be same.

Last edited by marina on Tue, Feb 21 2017, 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:42 pm

Fox wrote:

I've no interest in psychoanalyzing Yiannopoulis. If I did, I'd guess that much of it is a feigned persona, calculated outrageousness, designed to get him headlines. Successfully. If he really isn't the hurt little boy you suggest, I hope he gets help. But its still no justification for the things he says.

But at this point, I feel like you're about the only one continuing to defend him. Go back. Rewatch the tape. Watch his interview with -- I can't remember who, but its on YouTube (ignore the silly captions, trying to suggest he's saying things he's not) -- where he discusses his relationship with Father Mike, when he was 14. Its clear there, again, that he supports the idea of older men being with adolescent boys in a z3xual manner. And believes that the idea of "consent" is a false, leftist construct. This wasn't a one-time comment.

And, again,remember, this is all coming from the right. Maybe not your right. Maybe right that you laugh at. But this isn't the left attacking him. Its his own base. Including, at this point, Breitbart.

33055

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 12:30 am

SixOfWands wrote:

I asked her how she would feel if people spoke to her the way she spoke to Maya. And we have our answer. You thought it went beyond decency. Perhaps she should apologize to Maya.

Stop twisting things. You tried to shame her by referencing the thread where she is baring her soul. Don't take your comment out of context. You are fully aware she is going through a crisis now. You brought that up to make a point on this thread. Shame on you.

Maya waltzed into this discussion with both guns blasting. She is a big girl and can take care of herself. Maya may or may not have been aware of FF's vulnerability now; however, she is a decent person and would use that against someone.

You owe FF an apology.

ora_43

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 7:49 am

marina wrote:

I just don't get it. Don't you have a preteen or teen child? I have a daughter who will be 14 and no, that would be rape. She can't consent.

This is something you want to debate here? Really?

Please don't take this as "oooh, Milo is the bestest, how dare you," but - that's really not what he said.

IMO it was crystal clear that he was talking about how the age of consent isn't a magic number, and *some* people are capable of giving consent before that. Not legally capable - and he was clear that he thinks the law is good and should be respected - but emotionally and mentally capable.

Saying that *some* people could, theoretically, if it weren't illegal, consent at age 16 or 17 is not AT ALL the same as saying that all adults have a green light to try to seduce 14-year-olds.

FTR I don't think this is just a gay community thing. I know a few couples who got together when one was 16-17 and the other was 22-25 years old. Unusual? Yeah. Rape? Not even close. A relationship between a 25-year-old and a 16-year-old *could* be exploitative - which is why the law is right to prevent it! - but from there to saying it's always exploitative... not the same thing.

eta - also just FTR, Dan Savage said the same thing AGES ago. He also argued for allowing bestiality in some circumstances. I don't recall it affecting his book deal.

Last edited by ora_43 on Tue, Feb 21 2017, 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total

ora_43

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 8:02 am

The defense of Milo here is because this is such a perfect example of the speech repression that we're seeing from this generation's version of the Moral Majority.

Fox explained it perfectly on page 1 of this conversation. It's the transition from "that's an awful thing to say" to "the speaker represents a harmful political ideology" to "the speaker poses a threat to public safety and nobody should listen to him/her." And sometimes, like here, to "therefore I have the right to stop him/her from speaking by any means necessary." That's what's disturbing.

So many people here seem to be saying "oh, so you're saying it WASN'T an awful thing to say??" - well, in this particular case, yeah, I kind of am, but in general, that's not the point.

FTR I don't see this as a left vs right thing entirely. There are plenty of people on the political right who use the same "I'm offended = it's dangerous" logic. (Like, imagine the reactions if a Muslim preacher had said what Milo did, but about men and teenage girls. I'm sure there are people who would use that as proof that Islam as a whole is dangerous, not just that that one person said something they find morally offensive.)

The difference is only that in America, at this particular point in time, it's mostly one side of the political spectrum using/justifying violence to prevent people from speaking.

marina

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 9:45 am

DrMom wrote:

I find this thread to be an excellent microcosm of the American political scene.

Someone brings to light an example of extreme leftist fascism -- fascism that includes physical violence being used to shut down speech they find offensive -- and leftists retort, "yeah, but the victim deserved it because once he said something that I find offensive!" and then ramp up a smear campaign against the victim.

Because the victim is a conservative, and to the modern Left, rights only apply to Leftists.

I don't think he deserves violence, because he hasn't been physically violent towards any of these people, as far as I know.

But was he actually the victim of violence? Was he personally assaulted? I don't know that he was. So your analogy doesn't really work.

And although I don't think he deserves violence, I also don't think he deserves our sympathy or the defense that some mounted here. People here I have spoken very positively of him, almost treating him as a role model. That's appalling

DrMom

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 10:00 am

marina wrote:

No, Milo was not physically assaulted. He didn't even get to attend the event to which he was invited to speak.

The Leftist fascists who were "triggered" here were even more extreme:

People were physically assaulted just for *wanting* to listen to him.

In their minds, speech with which they disagree must be shut down by any means necessary.

Last edited by DrMom on Tue, Feb 21 2017, 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total

marina

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 10:00 am

ora_43 wrote:

I wasn't really responding to his comments. I was responding to a poster praising a different post that was listing 13 as age of consent in many countries and she seem to be talking about that as a positive social development

So it was hard for me to imagine how someone with a teen or preteen child could see that as a positive, could see the age of consent in some countries being puberty as a good thing

ora_43

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 10:17 am

marina wrote:

And although I don't think he deserves violence, I also don't think he deserves our sympathy or the defense that some mounted here. People here I have spoken very positively of him, almost treating him as a role model. That's appalling

Could you give an example of what you're talking about? I don't remember anyone saying anything more positive than "I don't always agree with him, but he is definitely not violent."

It's entirely possible I forgot/missed other posts. But it would help to understand what exactly you're appalled by (people saying Milo isn't a pedophile? people saying he makes some good points? etc).

In general, I think it's possible and even not-uncommon for public figures to be positive in some ways, and appalling in others. I can think of several politicians I admire for their intellectual honesty and class, despite disagreeing with them on key issues.

marina

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 10:19 am

DrMom wrote:

I really don't think this is anything new. I think people have always - throughout the generations - protested, sometimes violently and destructively, against speech and conduct they disagree with. And although violent protests are wrong in my opinion, they've been happening forever. I really don't see what the big differences here and why all the drama about liberals and the Big Bad Left.

It's not like the original Tea Party was a peaceful protest. Right?