CPAC follows Berkeley in violating free speech of man endorsing pedophilia.

[JFK 546]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html

 

I am totally not at all surprised outraged at this conservative hypocrisy liberal censorship.

 

We need to tell people when to fuck off respect all the opposing views of insecure con artists men who publicly advocate for grown men to molest little boys and we shouldn't silence them because it is absolutely fucking horrifying hurts our feelings. It's funny how its conservatives these days that only cite freedom of speech when its convenient for them are the only ones that respect freedom of speech while its everyone else that's not insane or doesn't a political vestment the "tolerant" leftists that have a shred of empathy are quick to silence and ridicule those who disagree with them.

 

I hope this hypocritical conservative leftist group loses all of its funding as though it's a shame for the other 70 or so speakers that don't shockingly endorse pedophilia and had nothing to do with this man, it should teach these problem snowflakes who throw fits online about the rights of vulnerable children that they can't just silence people that have different views.

 

At the very least I hope in the future, conservative liberals come to realize they only care about freedom of speech for stances they agree with need to handle these situations better and not just cite freedom of speech as a shield against criticism give in to the cry babies which results in people being silenced because their alternative opinions on cross-generational relationships are wrongfully attacked by everyone that's not into pedophilia the mainstream media.

[Iherdcows 3419]

I want to say, before I post this, I haven't watched the video, nor have I looked into anything hes saying. My opinion is private therefor you shouldn't decide what my opinion is based on what im posting. I Just like to make sure both sides are represented so people can make an informed opinion. This is milo's response

Forums apparently auto embed facebook posts. Press see more to read everything hes saying.

 

[Ironic 2278]

I don't know exactly what's going on, because to be honest I haven't been keeping up to date on whatever this is, but from the video, I didn't see much of anything about Milo saying he is okay with "child molesting". Pretty sure he was talking about two consenting people, and even though the law can get involved if one of the consenting humans is under 18, it didn't sound like to me he was saying children being molested by adults is okay.

Also, the end about him giving head was obviously a joke, or at least it seemed like it.

Just my thoughts.

[Moosin 92]

I feel like there's some subliminal messaging in your post...

[Rootbeer 1293]

6 minutes ago, Ironic said:

Also, the end about him giving head was obviously a joke, or at least it seemed like it.

 

It was definitely a joke. Who hasn't made a priest molestation joke before? Fuck this guy especially for doing so; he's even more disgusting for using his own experience of being molested as the joke.

 

He makes a good point with the high school kids and their hot female teachers. Anytime I see a news report about a female teacher having sex with a kid, I always see a "that poor kid!" comment, as if the teacher had this evil, sick plan to become a high school teacher just prey on her young students. His "Let's see if I can fuck this hot math teacher." comment is spot on, even going so far as calling the kid the predator in this case. Honestly it's absolutely stupid that we're at the point where that's called preying on a woman -- kid's just trying to get some ass like every other dude in his class, he just doesn't know the backlash that could come out if people knew about that ass belonging to his teacher.

 

Milo starts explaining the difference between pedophilia and hebophilia: pedo meaning getting attracted to children who haven't reached puberty and hebo meaning getting attracted to teenagers who have reached it and are still growing -- I commonly hear girls in this phase as "budding". The article nitpicks at this for some dumb reason, saying "well hurrdurr hebo's still like children", as if he's defending them when he's simply trying to explain the common misunderstanding between the two. The whole point of explaining the differences was so that he could input his own experience of giving consent (which was the topic at hand) at that age. Milo's just using his personal experience to address the misconception that anyone under the age of consent are absolutely retarded and don't know how to give consent (when he wasn't and he did) and the article spins it off as "he condones sexual relations with boys as young as 13." Shitty author tbh, putting words in his mouth.

[Necrophenia 435]

Relevant video, maybe its overthinking it a little but I think its a valid point

 

 

 

Basically this guy (Sargon of Akkad), seems to know Milo pretty well personally. He says that given Milo's past, he would have a warped view on child abuse.

He doesn't want to be seen as a victim and his controversial statement could be a coping mechanism for him. 

[Eddy 3887]

I gotta love how this now somehow makes what happened at berkely (clear violation of freedom of speech) an acceptable thing. 

 

Regardless of your views or opinions, everyone should have the right to speak their piece.

 

I'm not going to defend milo, he said some stuff that seemed very "trolly" but in all honestly I cannot agree with what he said. I don't care about the sexual maturity of a human being, if you're a child you're a child and any adult who attempts to have sexual relations with a child should be arrested.  I would like to point out though that he did say that the age of consent laws currently in place are good laws and he supports them.

 

At the end of the day it was kind of a confusing podcast, he said some shit that like no one other than a child molester would accept and then kind of took it back with other things that he said like supporting the age of consent law.

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

This is being blown way out of proportion. The guy is a troll. He's literally just there to rile people up. He's a smug son of a bitch, and some of his political views are awful, but the dude is largely trying to PISS everyone off around him. 

[ples 209]

4 minutes ago, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

This is being blown way out of proportion. The guy is a troll. He's literally just there to rile people up. He's a smug son of a bitch, and some of his political views are awful, but the dude is largely trying to PISS everyone off around him. 

Milo's political views are interesting that's for sure. Ben Shapiro hates the dude xd

[JFK 546]

Putting the over the top snarkiness in my opening post aside, I'll state this. It should not be difficult to set your politics aside for this and not make excuses for accepting pedophilic behavior. It's utterly abhorrent no matter who you are. End of discussion.

 

It's to be expected to have disagreements over things like political and economic policy. That's common sense. However, to whitewash someone condoning pedophilia and even argue over the semantics of whether or not its technically pedophilia because you like them or agree with them politically when you would normally ostracize them for it is completely unacceptable. This should be the furthest thing from a 50/50 partisan discussion.

 

Anyone who watched the videos without a personal stake in the guy knows he was rationalizing gay children in their early as young as 13 getting into sexual relationships with much older men who are in a much greater position of power. Not only did he tolerate this, but had the audacity to encourage it and dared to suggest it even helps develop their character. He implies its acceptable for fully grown adults to have sex with underage individuals and astonishly enough, paints the people whose mental capacities are immature as the real predators and even absolves the adults of responsibility.

 

I'm not exactly sure what to tell anyone who buys into this because you like their politics outside of this incident.

[Rune 2783]

1 hour ago, JFK said:

Putting the over the top snarkiness in my opening post aside, I'll state this. It should not be difficult to set your politics aside for this and not make excuses for accepting pedophilic behavior. It's utterly abhorrent no matter who you are. End of discussion.

 

It's to be expected to have disagreements over things like political and economic policy. That's common sense. However, to whitewash someone condoning pedophilia and even argue over the semantics of whether or not its technically pedophilia because you like them or agree with them politically when you would normally ostracize them for it is completely unacceptable. This should be the furthest thing from a 50/50 partisan discussion.

 

Anyone who watched the videos without a personal stake in the guy knows he was rationalizing gay children in their early as young as 13 getting into sexual relationships with much older men who are in a much greater position of power. Not only did he tolerate this, but had the audacity to encourage it and dared to suggest it even helps develop their character. He implies its acceptable for fully grown adults to have sex with underage individuals and astonishly enough, paints the people whose mental capacities are immature as the real predators and even absolves the adults of responsibility.

 

I'm not exactly sure what to tell anyone who buys into this because you like their politics outside of this incident.

 

Did you even read his facebook post, or are you just going to sit there and express blind rage at something you only know half the story of.

 

The only real reason you have to get mad in the first place is him joking about his experience in the matter. Never once did he say pedophilia was acceptable.

 

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual 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.

 

Otherwise, he states he used the term "boy" and never referred to an age at all. Not even going to watch the video because I'm sure it's compiled garbage to tie the fact that he joked about pedophilia once and his use of the term "boy" refers to kids under a certain age. Knowing the nature of media, I'm sure the entire video is misleading and attempts to voice over everything to try and rationalize their side of the story in this respect.

 

Unless you can actually give me a time frame where he said, "Pedophilia is ok" or some reiteration, I'm guessing it never happened.

 

Never the less, the dude is a troll that had been banned in multiple places because he's a retard. Anyone who has heard about him probably knows this.

[JFK 546]

3 hours ago, Rune said:

Did you even read his facebook post, or are you just going to sit there and express blind rage at something you only know half the story of.

 

I read his Facebook post yesterday shortly after it was posted It doesn’t at all erase anything he said in the two podcasts. It doesn’t matter if he has prosecuted other pedophiles when he is openly being an apologist for pedophiles because they’re affiliated with the Catholic Church. Hell, the CPAC outright released a statement that his Facebook post was insufficient likely because his Facebook apology doesn’t add up with what he’s claiming in the podcasts.

 

He either had two separate hallucinatory episodes and wasn’t in control of his own speech, or he's backing down from his original claims because his rise to fame is obviously in danger of going up in smoke. Considering Milo’s history of bending the truth and just being a liar in general, it’s likely the ladder. He’s also, outright lying about the two videos being selectively edited when they’ve been on YouTube for nearly a year now.

 

3 hours ago, Rune said:

The only real reason you have to get mad in the first place is him joking about his experience in the matter. Never once did he say pedophilia was acceptable.

 

Part of the reason I’m frustrated is not only because what of what he said, but now because of people are rushing to his defense and claiming that he’s not really normalizing or making light of pedophilia while refusing to even watch the videos where he unquestionably does so. Like I said earlier, if we were talking about anyone that wasn’t a celebrity with a massive following, no one would hesitate to call this person an enabler of pedophilia.

3 hours ago, Rune said:

Otherwise, he states he used the term "boy" and never referred to an age at all. Not even going to watch the video because I'm sure it's compiled garbage to tie the fact that he joked about pedophilia once and his use of the term "boy" refers to kids under a certain age. Knowing the nature of media, I'm sure the entire video is misleading and attempts to voice over everything to try and rationalize their side of the story in this respect.

 

You really can't say I know only half the story when you refuse watch the material without even knowing what it really is and only are taking Milo’s word for it. It’s understandable if you don’t want to spend the time watching it as its long, though that also means you have no grounds to defend him on. This compiled garbage are unedited Joe Rogan and Drunken Peasants podcasts nearly a year old. You would know this if you weren’t insistent on refusing to even watch the material.

3 hours ago, Rune said:

Unless you can actually give me a time frame where he said, "Pedophilia is ok" or some reiteration, I'm guessing it never happened.

Done. The full context of the Drunk Peasants podcast where he dives into semantic games with the meaning of pedophilia. He argues it’s not really pedophilia because they are 13 years old so it’s fine. Again, you shouldn’t have to play semantic games to justify older men having relations with teenagers who have just come of age. I’m really not sure what to tell you or anyone else who honestly believe what he is condoning here is acceptable on any level.

He insists in the Joe Rogan podcast that when he was 14 years old, he had entered into a completely consensual relationship with a priest that he admired. Tell me this is not pedophilic behavior on the priest’s part because Milo wants to pretend that this isn’t. Vulnerable young teenagers entering into a sexual relationship that they believe to be consensual, but were really subtly encouraged into entering would be classified as sexual assault by anyone that doesn't have some stake in Milo.

 

He tries to normalize what occurred soon after by questioning Rogan if he ever found 15 year old girls attractive when he was 25 or 30. Rogan obviously denies it yet Milo is reluctant to believe him.

 

Additionally, he's outright lying on his Facebook page when he claimed he never claimed it was okay for 13 year olds to be in a cross-generational relationship. He very specifically cites 13 year olds entering relationships with people that are 25 and 28 as fair and consensual relationships. This is where he claims it’s the adults with fully developed mental capacities as the victims and the recently turned teenagers as the aggressors. He outright states that sexual attraction to “sexually mature” 13-year-olds is not pedophilia and that sexual relationships between young boys and older men can be “hugely positive.”

 

3 hours ago, Rune said:

Never the less, the dude is a troll that had been banned in multiple places because he's a retard. Anyone who has heard about him probably knows this.

 

If Milo wants to spend more time being a troll than a human being with convictions and beliefs of his own outside of agitating as many people as possible, he’s not "pretending" to be an bigoted asshole. He really is a bigoted asshole at that point. When you're more often than not being a troll in public, the thing you're pretending to be is who you are. 

 

Additionally, Milo is public personality that has affected political discourse and has recently gained a significant foothold in the media. He is someone that affects how of hundreds of thousands, if not more, shape their political opinions. Of course he's obviously a real life troll, but he's no longer only a harmless one that shitposts on forums or 4chan. He’s finding out the hard way that troll antics don’t quite work well in the real world when there’s a face behind them. 

 

Of course I’ll give him that he’s a victim of being indoctrinated by the Catholic Church into hating his own sexuality and for being molested by a man he looked up to. I feel pity for him in that regard. Though for obvious reasons, I can't really feel sorry for him beyond that considering what he's done with his adult life.

[Dakota 4722]

Off topic: Pedophila is a chemical inbalance in the brain. They need help. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. 

 

Inb4 leftist mentality

[trav 6834]

I suggest you guys watch the documentary Capturing the Friedmans. Made by the same director who did The Jinx (HBO). 

 

 

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

Off topic: Pedophila is a chemical inbalance in the brain. They need help. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. 

 

Inb4 leftist mentality

This is actually true. 

Some people are actually born with a predisposition for loving kids. They do need help. But if they act on their instincts even a little bit, throw em in jail and lose the key.

[Dakota 4722]

This is actually true. 
Some people are actually born with a predisposition for loving kids. They do need help. But if they act on their instincts even a little bit, throw em in jail and lose the key.

From what I understand it's less of "born liking kids" and more of the feeling of liking another child while you're still a child doesn't turn into thinking kids are just cute in a normal sense as you age. The attraction never stops and the brain never develops the conversion towards being sexually attracted to similar ages.

Again. Child molesters bad, pedophiles weird, creepy, stigmatized people who can never seek help or get beaten up and outed from communities.

[Rune 2783]

8 hours ago, JFK said:

Snip

 

The video is literally nearly 3 hours long. I thought I made it extremely, painfully obvious that I don't like Milo at all. I'm sure your points are somewhat true, but I'm also not sifting through 3 hours of a video on someone I don't like to see if it's actually true. Watched the second video with Joe Rogan's podcast and it definitely seems like he's trying to rationalize it. He gave an age and that's what I asked for. Fair enough.

 

The reason I was calling you out in the first place is because it definitely seems like you're making arguments without addressing his side of the story at all. Definitely looked like a one sided argument.

 

Again, I'm not watching the 3 hour video, but I believe you that he referred being 13 at this point. I don't give a shit because this topic and the person behind it mean nothing to me. He'll be irrelevant by the time this all simmers down anyway. If that annoys you and whatever, I don't really care to be honest. Myself, like others, have other things to worry about than crucifying some moron that already hurts himself on the daily.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Well from the looks of it breitbart made him resign.  The fact a guy who builds his career on trying to be offensive for the sake of it has a job at all baffles me. To those defending him. His own people wouldn't have cut him loose if they thought they could make a case for him. The guy is garbage 

[Dakota 4722]

Jesus. This dude is using defending pedophile as a defense mechanism. Dude was sexually abused by a priest and is trying to say that he was the predator. I suddenly feel bad for Milo. Doesn't excuse for the bullshit he typically spews but it certainly explains a few things.

[Yunki 2197]

First 8 minutes is his statement and then he does a Q&A

[Yunki 2197]

Post from ODL:

" Milo has stepped down as Tech Editor at Breitbart.

 

Make no mistake: this was not about pedophilia, pedophiliac remarks or anything of the sort.

 

Just a few months ago, the NYT and Salon were doing their level best to to normalize pedophilia, and Salon scrubbed the articles by an actual pedophile advocating it off of their website yesterday.

This was a witch-hunt, pure and simple. He could not be brought down with false accusations of being racist, xenophobic, not-really-gay, anti-women, or any number of other things. He could not be censored, save for at a few colleges, sometimes with violence, and he only got bigger.

 

It took an insidious character assassination attack conducted from both the Left and Right that called a victim of child abuse (Milo) an advocate thereof.

If Milo had been on the Left in the slightest, this never would have happened. If Milo had not been so provocative, this never would have happened. If Milo had not been so right, this never would have happened.

 

Child abuse is beyond the pale, and evil at its core. I believe this entirely. But just as with the Duke Lacrosse Case, this is a railroading. And this time, rather than just some random athletes, they went after a powerful Voice of Free Speech.

 

I do not agree with all of Milo's points; in fact I disagree on several of them. I find him to be at least slightly hypocritical on the issues of gay men vs. gay women (though to be fair, I may just not entirely understand some of the dynamics, given that I am straight).

 

Milo will not go quietly into that good night, and he must not. He has exposed the incestuous intertwining of the Left and the Elite of Higher Education.

He is starting some new venture, it is each individual's choice whether to support him.

 

Regardless of what everyone else does, #IStandWithMilo

~SF
(His full remarks are in the link).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/21/full-remarks-milo-delivers-speech-press-conference-amid-video-scandal/ "

 

Another argument brought from the right in this whole debate - George Takei and his response to having a sexual encounter with a 19-year old counselor when he was 14

 

Story starts at 2:20

[fps_trucka 1715]

One less troll in the media. 

[Gormo 2]

On 2/22/2017 at 7:00 AM, Yunki said:

If Milo had been on the Left in the slightest, this never would have happened. If Milo had not been so provocative, this never would have happened. If Milo had not been so right, this never would have happened.

 

Please explain how this works. After watching the videos, it has become painfully obvious he at the very least does not seem to think there is anything wrong with these kinds of relationships, even describing them as something positive, even ""loving"". Typically, victims harbor feelings of suicide or a desire to kill the rapist, so it is safe to say they are, typically, immensely damaging.

 

The other problem is that apparently he knows some of the perpetrators, but refuses to name them, potentially enabling them to continue destroying lives. If anything he encourages it.

 

You're arguing that if Milo was left leaning that this would somehow be acceptable? I'm sorry, but this sounds insane to me.

 

You're right about one thing though. Milo did this to himself. His modus operandi has been to trivialize the suffering of others and call it a ""harmless joke"", so this kind of outcome where he is undone by his own words shouldn't be terribly surprising.

 

 

 

 

[Yunki 2197]

43 minutes ago, Gormo said:

 

Please explain how this works. After watching the videos, it has become painfully obvious he at the very least does not seem to think there is anything wrong with these kinds of relationships, even describing them as something positive, even ""loving"". Typically, victims harbor feelings of suicide or a desire to kill the rapist, so it is safe to say they are, typically, immensely damaging.

 

The other problem is that apparently he knows some of the perpetrators, but refuses to name them, potentially enabling them to continue destroying lives. If anything he encourages it.

 

You're arguing that if Milo was left leaning that this would somehow be acceptable? I'm sorry, but this sounds insane to me.

 

You're right about one thing though. Milo did this to himself. His modus operandi has been to trivialize the suffering of others and call it a ""harmless joke"", so this kind of outcome where he is undone by his own words shouldn't be terribly surprising.

 

 

 

 

I posted a quote from a page regarding the issue, it's not necessarily my opinion. 

 

That being said, I'll try my best to defend it anyway to keep a conversation going. --

 

In that same post I showed a video where loved liberal actor George Takei gives his story with his first sexual experience with a 19 year old when he was only 14. He was laughing and talking about how great of an experience it was, neither him or the radio hosts calling it pedophilia or child abuse (this is all from memory and I hope I'm not wrong here). 

Milo said more or less the same thing, how older gay men can help comfort a young gay teens with affection and comfort they have trouble finding in other places. 

Also, Lena Dunham has admitted to taking advantage of her younger sister in sexual ways and she is not outcasted (as far as I can tell) by her left-wing peers.

Lastly, a left-wing news website made an article a few months back trying to humanize pedophile, claiming that pedophile doesn't automatically equate to child molesters (which I agree with). And when this entire incident happened that news outlet deleted the story and has not received criticism for the article even after this Milo incident.

 

 

Typed this one my phone so I probably had a few typos through autocorrect, hopefully not too many.

 

Again, I'm playing half devil's advocate and half my actual opinion.

[JFK 546]

I'm sorry Yunki, but anyone defending Milo by resorting to whataboutism and creating false equivalences is the same as admitting there's really no way to defend what Milo said. Even if they weren't false equivalences, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Milo and Takei described what happened to them and that they enjoyed it. That's where the similarities end. If we're seriously bringing up Lena Dunham as if she's some relevant figure, she was a 7 year old child when she did gross creepy things with her sister's vagina and obviously had less understanding of what she was doing than the grown adults Milo refers to. Additionally, no one should feel better about Milo condoning pedophilia because a 14 year old and 7 year old they don't like as adults did something kinda similar, but not really.

 

The whataboutism argument fails not just because whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique used to deflect criticism, but because Takei, Lena Dunham, or whatever name that can be remotely associated with liberalism never went so far as to state grown adults having sex with thirteen year olds can be okay. Takei or Dunham never talk about how when a teen has reached puberty, it's not pedophila anymore. They never retort that it's kids that are commonly the predators while the adults are the victims, like Milo did. Neither of the two went on a fifteen minute rant in two separate videos to conclude that cross generational relationships with boys and men can not only be consensual, but good as well.

 

Finally, I'm not exactly sure why George Takei and Lena Dunham's names are being thrown out by alt-right communities as if it's some shocking evidence that this dilemma is about the left being no better than the right. No one touts any of those two up as liberal heroes while Milo has an entire cult of personality behind him and is touted as the father of the alt-right for young adults.

 

I'll give you that Salon shouldn't have deleted their articles on how pedophiles won't always take action on their impulses. There's a reason why I don't use them as a source of information.