Berkeley riot organizer = insane idealogue

DrMom

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:32 am

marina wrote:

This professor is off her rocker and of course she is wrong.

That said, your sympathies are misplaced. Milo is a vile human being, using that term loosely. Here's an example of his views and anyone who claims to follow him or thinks he is "pure class all the way," should really look deep inside or talk to a therapist: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/.....razy/

A woman who kills her husband after he rapes their child is wrong. She has committed a crime and should pay the consequences. But my sympathies do not extend to the child rapist.

And here, I have exactly zero sympathy for the batshit crazy Milo.

1. The interviewee is a public middle school teacher, not a professor. Which -- assuming her radical philosophy infects her teaching -- is more disturbing because (a) middle school is mandatory whereas college is voluntary; (b) middle school students have less power to choose their particular teachers; (c) middle school students are minors.

2. The article you posted was obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

3. The bolded paragraph above has nothing to do with the article you linked.

4. Even if you find Milo to be disagreeable, he still has a First Amendment right to speak in public when invited to do so at a public university. This woman has used and continued to advocate using physical violence to shut up anyone with whom she disagrees. Her excuse? "Oh well, they are fascists." I guess they don't teach irony in the middle school where she teaches.

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:08 am

Fox wrote:

In a previous thread, Marina argued that Milo's birth control op-ed might lead overwhelmed or unprepared women to forego birth control. I argued that I didn't believe most women take into account Milo's opinion when making birth control decisions.

Different women consider a whole host of things when deciding whether to take birth control and I can assure you that yes, many do worry about men viewing them as fat, ugly, slutty, hormonal, etc.

Here's another SUPER FUNNY article from Milo, hopefully you will all find it hillarious:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/.....ence/

Quote:

My view, of course, is that if you are obese, you should hate yourself. At least until you get better. Because fatness is a health problem, and shame works.

Although the media loves to mollycoddle the obese, I see anecdotal evidence in favour of fat-shaming all the time. Stories about people being called fat, being bullied, and being inspired to change their lives as a result. Here’s a trove of them.

Today, I’m going to show you the substance behind those claims, so that you, dear reader, can go out into the world armed with the facts. And also armed with the knowledge that you can hurl all manner of abuse at fat people with a clean conscience — really, you’ll genuinely be helping them!

Firstly, if people feel **** about themselves, they’re more likely to change. A landmark study by obesity experts in 2014 found that a “desire to improve self-worth” was one of the most important motivating factors encouraging people to lose weight. What does this tell us? That encouraging fatties to “love themselves,” as the fat acceptance movement does, is the worst possible message you could send people if you want them to lose weight.

The same study found that obese people were more likely to lose weight around “life transitions,” like starting high school. In other words, people start to worry about how others will see them, especially when they need to make a good first impression. Fear of social judgement is key. So keep judging them.

A study from UCLA’s dedicated eating research institute concurred, explicitly recommending social pressure on the overweight as a remedy to America’s obesity crisis. Sorry Lindy West, but the experts agree: fat-shaming is good for you.

There’s another danger in our society’s perennial niceness and reluctance to offend. You see, if a fatty isn’t shamed immediately, it’s likely that the hambeast’s self-destructive behaviour might spread to its friends.

Why? Because people change their health and dietary habits to mimic that of their friends and loved ones, especially if they spend lots of time around them. Peer pressure encourages people to look like the people they admire and whose company they enjoy. Unless there’s a more powerful source of social pressure (say, fat shaming) from the rest of society, of course.

There is only one serious study, from University College London, that suggests fat-shaming doesn’t work, and it’s hopelessly flawed. Firstly, it’s based on survey data — relying on fat people to be honest about their weight and diets. Pardon the pun, but … fat chance!

This is a group that thinks anything ending in “salad” is health food. A pound of taco beef and a huge scoop of guac? It’s fine as long as it’s called a “taco salad”! Greens smothered in 700 calories of oily dressing? SOD OFF YOU STICK INSECT, IT’S A SALAD!

Moreover, the study defines “weight discrimination” much like feminists define “misogyny,” extending it to a dubiously wide range of behaviours, including “being treated poorly in shops.” The study also takes survey answers from 50-year olds and tries to apply them to all adults. But in what world do 20-year-olds behave the same way as older people?

I expect we’ll see more of these pseudo-studies, and not just because academics tend to be lefties. Like climate scientists before them, I suspect a substantial number of “fat researchers” will simply choose to follow the political winds, and the grant money that follows them, rather than seeking the truth.

And the truth is, we shame fat people for a reason. It’s not just cruelty; it’s for their benefit, our benefit, and the good of the species. In 2007, a team of researchers from the University of British Columbia found that fatness can trigger feelings of disgust and nausea in healthy people — age-old evolutionary signals of a threat to human health, like bacteria, viruses, or illnesses. The same instincts that protect us from plagues protect us from lardbuckets too.

The reverse is also true. Just being around attractive women raises a man’s testosterone. (Even mine! Probably.) The same is also true for women who gaze at attractive men. We know that testosterone is health-promoting, energizing, and generally good.

Though it would be to un-PC to conduct an experiment proving it, it stands to reason that looking at fat, ugly people depresses testosterone. This is certainly how any red-blooded man feels when looking at a hamplanet.

Depressed testosterone is associated with many negative health outcomes, and thus the mere presence of fat people is actively harming the population’s health — particularly men’s, since we’re more visual. We ban public smoking based on the minuscule effects of “passive” intake, so why aren’t the same lefty, public-health aware politicians clamouring for a ban on fat people being seen in public?

Not to mention how offensively repellent fat people look in the gym and in Starbucks.

Instead, the same lefties who want to stop us having fags or drinking too much in public (and even alcoholics and chain smokers are healthier than the obese) are the same ones urging the authorities to treat “fat-shaming” as a crime and investigate it. Insane!

Why are we fine with shaming and peer pressuring smokers, deluging them with ads and facts about smoking-related illnesses, when obesity is just as deadly, if not more so? Why is it OK to show cancerous lungs on fag packets, but not an enlarged heart on a carton of ice cream?

Not only that, but smokers are forced to pay higher insurance premiums to offset the cost of their health problems. Smokers sometimes have to pay up to 50 per cent more than normal for health coverage. Yet fatties, despite being more prone to health problems than smokers, get a pass. The rest of us have to subsidize their poor lifestyle choices.

Much like smoking, it is important to cut off the unhealthy behaviours early in life. A 50 year old fatty has done a lot of damage to themselves and will find it harder to become thin — that’s another reason why the UCL study, which focused on the over-50s, just isn’t good enough.

A 20-year-old has their entire life ahead of them, and those are the people we should focus on shaming into shape. They’re precisely the people feminists are telling to gain weight if they want to.

As shown in that 2014 study, young people in particular are concerned about what their peers think about them, especially when they start high school. That’s why it’s so critical to let them know that their instincts are correct, and that they can’t be “healthy at any size.”

And no, Twitter. Every size is not beautiful and feminism makes women ugly.

Daniel Callahan, president emeritus of America’s oldest bioethics research institute, agrees with me. “Safe and slow incrementalism that strives never to stigmatise obesity has not and cannot do the necessary work,” wrote Callahan, a former smoker, in 2014. “The force of being shamed and beat upon socially was as persuasive for me to stop smoking as the threats to my health.”

With a little effort, we can help fat people help themselves. But first we have to make sure that “fat acceptance,” perhaps the most alarming and irresponsible idea to come out of leftist victimhood and grievancean politics, is given the heart attack it deserves.

Again, this is the person you defend.

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:14 am

DrMom wrote:

What does that mean? Tongue in cheek? You think he's kidding? He's not. What is the humorous or sarcastic message that you think Milo is trying to get across to his audience?

The rapist analogy is meant to point out how a criminal can be wrong and worthy of punishment (wife who killed rapist ---> analogy to crazy teacher) and yet we don't feel bad for the so-called victim of the crime (rapist ----> analogy to crazy Milo).

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:17 am

Are we talking about the same Milo who is in favor of "cross generational" relationships between "younger boys and older men," and explains that z3xual relations or attraction to a 13 year old isn't pedophilia, because the boy has working z3xual organs, and how helpful these relationships are to young gay boys.

http://shoebat.com/2017/02/19/.....boys/

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:28 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Quote:

However, it's maddening to see how many times quotes are taken out of context or a subsequent clarifying question/answer is omitted to create a damning profile. Right now, he's fighting off charges that he condones pedophilia based on a clip from an interview several years ago. Of course, if you listened to the whole interview, you know that he explicitly stated that he was not referring to s-x with underage young people and that he was responding to a question about his own experiences when he was younger. But there are people who really don't want him speaking at CPAC, so they're circulating this.

Yeah, Fox. No. In that video, he says he's not promoting relations with children who have not hit puberty, but he's all in favor of "younger boys" and "older men." And he's not in favor of the concept of consent.

You can just listen for yourself. As long as you've reached puberty, you're good to be s-xually assaulted by older men. It will be enriching and life-affirming.

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:30 am

enjoy. I almost feel bad not posting a trigger warning, but hey, that's only for special snowflake liberals.

DrMom

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 2:54 am

marina wrote:

Again, this is the person you defend.

Correct. People who sometimes say offensive things are also covered by the First Amendment.

Aren't you an attorney?

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 9:32 am

DrMom wrote:

Correct. People who sometimes say offensive things are also covered by the First Amendment.

Aren't you an attorney?

The fact that you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should. Nor does it mean that I have the obligation to defend you or your statements. BDS has the absolute right to protest on campus, to claim that Israel has no right to exist, etc. But I don't have to defend that right.

Rabbi Avi Weiss was invited to speak at an Amit conference in Deerfield Beach. The shul at which the conference was to be held informed Amit that it would not allow Rabbi Weiss to speak there, although no specific reason was given. Where's your outrage? Where are all the threads defending Rabbi Weiss?

No. People here would rather spend their time defending a man who demeans women and defends older men having z3x with z3xually mature adolescents. And notwithstanding his attempted rationizations, there can be no question that's what he said. I'll post the vile transcript in a moment.

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 9:44 am

The transcript

Quote:

Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have relations with an adult, probably…” The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are s-xually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a s-xual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is s-xually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning relations organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys they can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

"Cross-generational" z3x, between older men and post-pubescent adolescents, are important, enriching, life affirming, and hugely positive.

Having z3x with older men provides adolescent boys with "security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents."

THAT is what you are defending.

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 9:49 am

My last comment for now.

You know what this all reminds me of? The grade school bully.

You're fat and ugly and no one likes you and why don't you just go kill yourself now.

Who, me? It was a joke. Everyone laughed. You don't think I really meant that. She really needs to stop taking everything so seriously.

FranticFrummie

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 10:26 am

Now, if Milo's mom had raised him to be a nice Jewish boy, instead of letting his paternal grandparents raise him Catholic, none of this would have happened!

Let this be a warning to others. If you fail as a mother, you are raising the next generation of Milos. How's THAT for a Jewish mother's guilt? Twisted Evil

Iymnok

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 10:49 am

Wow. With my filtered internet I haven't heard much from him, but he has the perfect description of the roman ideal 2000 years ago. What made their armies strong.
Each unit had young soldiers with their older lover/mentors. They would want to do well to impress them.

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 10:59 am

marina wrote:

Again, this is the person you defend.

Your quote from Milo's fat shaming article didn't follow when I quoted you, but I can't help but wonder what a world it would be if, if people were shamed they would change all sorts of truly negative behaviors. Maybe not shaming, but some level of disapproval.

I have yet to actually hear Milo but I've seen enough to know I'm not about to become a fan.
And if this was tongue in cheek, I'll stick to Dave Barry for humor.

Last edited by PinkFridge on Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total

scrltfr

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 10:59 am

SixOfWands wrote:

It was in a young israel and the National Council who for years have had issues with rabbi weiss asked them not to host him.

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:05 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Having z3x with older men provides adolescent boys with "security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents."

THAT is what you are defending.

Not you, Six, but Milo. (BTW, I should mention that Dave Barry is sufficiently off-color that people might wonder about trusting my judgment but I digress.)
I wonder what Milo would have said, if he has a straight sister, if someone would have suggested this relationship model for his young teen sister.

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:25 am

scrltfr wrote:

It was in a young israel and the National Council who for years have had issues with rabbi weiss asked them not to host him.

Why are Rabbi Weiss' First Amendment rights less important than Milo Yiannopoulis' rights? Why are the interests of Young Israel (and I'm not sure you're correct; I read that no reason was given, but its not relevant here) more important than those of any college or other organization that objects to Yiannopoulis speaking? If we have thread after thread after thread about how horrible the Left is for objecting to Yiannopoulis' speaking, why not the same number supporting Rabbi Weiss? Why is free speech only valued when its from Breitbart or the far right?

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:30 am

SixOfWands wrote:

You could say that both the YI and the university object on the grounds that the speaker is subversive to their mission statements. But until recently, universities were theoretically spaces where all sorts of ideas could be shared. And, if the listeners disagreed, vigorous and energizing debate ensued. The climate on college campuses these days is very different and while, as an observant Jew, I appreciate the concept of ona'as devarim as much as anyone, it seems to be employed in a very one-sided way, by and large.

I say, let Milo speak and let some students elegantly wipe the floor with him. Though I don't how many would actually be up to the job.

wondergirl

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:38 am

SixOfWands wrote:

The transcript

Quote:

This is what Milo posted on facebook in response to this "scandal":

Quote:

A note for idiots (UPDATED):
I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.
If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.
Some facts to consider:
1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.
(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/
(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/
(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/
2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/
3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.
4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical s-xual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.
5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.
6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.
7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.
8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.
9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.
10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were s-xually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way.

33055

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:44 am

SixOfWands wrote:

My last comment for now.

You know what this all reminds me of? The grade school bully.
:
You're fat and ugly and no one likes you and why don't you just go kill yourself now.

Who, me? It was a joke. Everyone laughed. You don't think I really meant that. She really needs to stop taking everything so seriously.

And slapping someone and kicking and going after them with a stick doesn't remind you of said grade school bully?

wondergirl

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:56 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Both Rabbi Weiss and Milo have the same free speech rights. Their free speech rights is protected at public institutions but not necessarily at private institutions who are not bound by free speech in the same way that public universities are. That's the difference. Milo was prevented from speaking at a public university which is a violation of free speech while Rabbi Weiss was prevented from speaking at a religious institution who has the right to not allow him to speak there so his free speech rights weren't violated. If you want to protest that then you are saying that you want to remove the laws that enable religious/private institutions to determine who does or doesn't speak at their facilities. Is that the case?