Berkeley riot organizer = insane idealogue

FranticFrummie

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:03 pm

wondergirl 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?

Well put.

By liberal "logic", Milo should be allowed to speak at your synagogue next week - or that no one should be allowed to speak anywhere, ever. *I'm so confused.*

In either case, sharpen your sticks!

33055

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:04 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

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?

I missed the news where school teachers were assaulting his supportors, rioting, and setting fires.

It is the blatant disrespect and violence the left employs to shut down dissent.

Fox

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:11 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

"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.

This interview is old news. He's talked about this in a number of interviews over the years. It's only being promoted right now because people are trying to prevent him from speaking at CPAC.

As for his actual point, Milo said a few minutes later in this interview as well as the others that he's not talking about underage boys, enormous age differences, or exploitative situations.

He's talking about a reality in the gay world, one that can be corroborated by virtually anyone who knows it: young men tend to do better if they have a slightly more experienced lover/mentor who can keep them from doing really stupid, self-destructive things. Most young men make their first foray into gay culture through bars, nightclubs, and dating apps, where they will be exposed to alcohol, drugs, and potentially dangerous s-x. The risks are enormous.

Now, that may offend you. There is plenty in the real-life gay world that would cause most of us to recoil. It's not all Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka looking all cute and domestic with their kids.

But people discussing Milo's reflections on gay life always arrive at a conclusion: a great deal of LGBT acceptance has been predicated on presenting a sanitized version of gay life. No one wants to talk about the less-savory elements lest they be used as grounds for discrimination. Entirely understandable, but Milo isn't going to play along nicely, given his regular complaint that, "Hell is other gays!"

Now, onto the fat-shaming.

I've talked with a lot of people about this both online and IRL, including Imamothers through PMs and a woman who's part of the Milosphere. Sure, it stings a little, since I'm fat. But I find the underlying ideas very interesting.

* The body positivity movement started as a way to encourage women to accept their real-life, un-Photoshopped bodies -- not as a defense of obesity. Has it gone too far?

* The reality is that most men are not as attracted to young women who are obese. Period. That may be wrong, but you can't force people to be attracted to you. Is the "beautiful at any size" philosophy setting up girls for disappointment?

* Obesity during childhood through early adulthood is strongly connected with the most extreme health risks (as opposed to women who gain weight after childbearing or people who gain weight in middle age). These are specifically the people Milo is talking to, and perhaps the message should be different for them.

* Social feedback obviously motivates a lot of our behavior. How can we harness that to improve behavior, and what are the limits/drawbacks?

These are conversations that weren't happening before Milo, and that's why many people appreciate him, even when he does or says outrageous things. So, yes, there are plenty of people who find him vile or at least insufferable. But there are also a lot of very smart people out there talking about topics he's raised.

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:28 pm

Fox wrote:

Perhaps that's what you wish he had said, but it clearly isn't. He defined pedophilia which he opposes, as z3x with children who are to s-xually mature. He goes on to defend other relationships between older men and younger men, saying that many boys are able to give consent well before the law allows, and defending older men having z3xual relations with such underage boys.

There's no other reasonable reading of what he says.

You're OK with that? Your choice. But let's not whitewash it into a pretty little, gee, he's talking about helping poor confused gay boys. He's not. He's talking about grown men getting 14 and 15 year old boys to give them bj's.

33055

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:45 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

He said pedophilia is s£x with children not zexually mature. He had a point in the law must draw a bright line when things are allowed and when things aren't allowed. Not everyone fits exactly that line. The day before your 18th birthday (or whatever the line is) you are not mature enough to have s£x but the day after you are. It is fiction - but necessary fiction.

I can't even pretend to understand the world of gay s£x.

Fox

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:53 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

He defined pedophilia which he opposes, as z3x with children who are not s-xually mature.

Well, isn't that what pedophilia is?

The fact that one or both participants in a s-xual relationship is underage is obviously not something any of us would condone, but that is a far cry from pedophilia. The 18-year-old who is involved with a 15-year-old is committing a crime and is probably a cad, but he's not a pedophile.

SixOfWands wrote:

He goes on to defend other relationships between older men and younger men, saying that many boys are able to give consent well before the law allows, and defending older men having z3xual relations with such underage boys.

You're OK with that? Your choice. But let's not whitewash it into a pretty little, gee, he's talking about helping poor confused gay boys. He's not. He's talking about grown men getting 14 and 15 year old boys to give them bj's.

The comments about age of consent and relationships between older men and younger men are at two different points in the conversation. I have also heard him define "older" as no more than 5-10 years older.

I really think you have to listen to the entire interview as well as his comments on the topic in other interviews.

Whether you and I approve or not, barely-legal and not-quite-legal boys are a hot property in certain corners of the gay world, and there are predators on both side of the equation. It may be loathsome, but it's not pedophilia. And somehow I doubt that our input will be requested.

Last edited by Fox on Mon, Feb 20 2017, 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

wondergirl

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:10 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Ok, but he still seems to be advocating for relationships with minors. There is a big difference between prepubescent and 17 almost 18 technically underage but borderline.
(And while I didn't "like" that post - I guess I don't know and like Milo well enough to be dlkz - I did like how you explained the public and private institution dichotomy."

He clearly says that he is was not talking about anything illegal or pre-pubescent minors. Then he says that the age of consent in his country is 16 which is different than the legal consent age in America. Where do you see him say that he advocates for the illegal relationships with minors?

As for the consent age, in Judaism, a father can give consent for his daughter to have relations at the age of 3 while a girl has to be 12 and a boy, 13 to legally consent on their own. Of course, if we go by the laws of the country we live in then it would be different in every country ranging from age 10-21 so Milo isn't saying anything outrageous based on that.

http://www.angelfire.com/bug/a.....3.htm

http://www.ageofconsent.com/co.....e.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....urope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....._Asia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....erica

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

DrMom

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:30 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

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.

Nobody is defending the *content* of every word Milo Yiannopolis ever said.

I am defending his *right* to speak when invited to do so at a *public* university.

And I am condemning those who used violence to shut down his First Amendment rights.

All these discussions about pedophilia and Rabbi Weiss are red herrings.

FranticFrummie

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 1:50 pm

Fun fact: My mom got married at 16, to my 19yo father.

DH was 24 when he married his barely 17yo first wife.

Now, who wants to discuss Rivka Imeinu? Most sources say she was 3, but others say she was 14. For my own comfort level, I'm going with the latter.

A few years ago, Egypt tried to pass a law making the age of consent for a girl to marry to be NINE years old! (Fortunately the law was opposed, so the age stands at 11.) I remember it clearly, because DD was 9 at the time, and we were discussing this. She thought it was horrible, because "boys are icky".

Oh my, the difference a few years can make in a pubescent kid! She's 13 now, and has crushes on actors who are 15 years older than her. What teenage girl hasn't?

I have to address ectomorph's comment. I understand your feelings from a halachic point, but you cannot compare what two consenting adults over the age of 18 do with each other, to someone who is a predator of small children. You just can't.

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 2:28 pm

wondergirl wrote:

I will confess that I didn't listen, am just snipping from quotes from this thread.
Prepubescent is not the same as minor. A minor can be pubescent at 14ish - surely not the age of consent, in any country.
Bringing up halacha is a straw man. We are talking about civil laws that are being enforced today, 2017, in healthy first world countries. I have no idea where the age of consent is 10. The next time the halachos you bring up will apply, the world will be an entirely world a la the second half of Aleinu. We can talk then, b'ezras Hashem very soon!

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 2:30 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Is this consent or "consent"?

wondergirl

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 2:46 pm

sequoia wrote:

Several things:

1. Lots of cultures value pale skin. Not just Asians. Lots of cultures equate pale skin with class, wealth, worth, or a high caste.

That doesn't mean that they ARE white. It just means that they value pale skin.

2. "Whiteness" is a social construct. It used to only apply to WASPs. Gradually, grudgingly, to some extent and in some circumstances, it extended to Jews, Italians, and Irishmen.

Asians definitely do not possess whiteness. Asians are people of color.

3. In America, thank G-d, race is not included in any official documents. So I am assuming your last question was rhetorical.

My question was not rhetorical because race is a huge topic in America. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against people based on race, religion, s-x, and national origin. There are other statutes that focus on them as well- http://civilrights.findlaw.com......html

Then there are court rulings that determine who can be protected by the statutes listed above. For example, there is a case about Jews in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Jews are a protected class even if they are considered "white" under the current social construct. https://supreme.justia.com/cas......html

So I will ask again, are there any statutes or court rulings that would designate Chinese people as colored instead of white in America? Because if not, then it would be wrong to call them colored considering that they prefer to be white in their own country and consider colored people to be second class citizens so we would not want to offend them by calling them colored.

PinkFridge

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 2:48 pm

wondergirl wrote:

I'm not being facetious with this question: is the greater good that they not be discriminated against? Because as a minority in America they might have more advantages so they might welcome the term, or once they understand the nuances, they wouldn't care either way.