Is Offensive Political Violence Ever Justified?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

If you can understand how he takes a controversial but true statistic and spins it in the most troll-y, triggering and outrageous way humanly possible (with tongue firmly in cheek), you'll have grasped the performance art show on display.

so he's like that friend who says, "you look fat and ugly today."

"JUST KIDDING! OH MY GOD I WAS JOKING WHY ARE YOU SO DEFENSIVE? CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE?"

i know several self-hating gays like this.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Come now, we were having a seemingly intelligent back-and-forth -- debate my points or don't, but playing the "I'm not being taken serious bc vagina even though this vagina allows me to read these words more clearly than your penis would allow you to!" is below you.

Am I disrespecting your intellect in this exchange? I don't believe that I am, as I've long considered you easily one of the top 5 smartest posters on this forum. Do me the kindness of engaging with me in the good faith that I'm attempting to engage with you in.

Frankly I don't want to engage with you on this.

You started off the post by telling me why I feel the way I do - please stop telling people you don't know why they are reacting to things a certain way. It's irritating to put politely.

Then you explained how men have higher IQs statistically (maybe it would be good to enter a discussion of how women were precluded from higher education for hundreds of years by men, or how most of the women in this world to this day do not have the rights that their male counterparts do, or how religion is used almost universally to oppress women even to this day). And to you this is all kind of ha-ha funny, oh isn't Milo tongue-in-cheek hilariously here trolling us?

You don't have to live in our shoes. We put up with bullshit every day because we are women. I am in one of the most woman unfriendly industries, a highly educated professional and I've seen more than my fair share of obnoxiousness from men who think it's all ha-ha funny. Nevermind all the women who aren't privileged like I am.

But sure, you keep on laughing at how he's spinning statistics which reflect millenia of oppression of half the world's population. And then politely demand that we comply in discussing this with you.

Fuck this asshole Milo. Find a better cause to take up.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

maybe you should actually watch the video? obviously you haven't if that's your take on this. and then you go on to whine about "media spin", that's fucking rich.

"pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody is 13 years old who is sexually mature. pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty, pedophilia is attraction to people who don't have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty, who are too young to be able to understand their bodies - that is not what we're talking about here."

the obvious and easy implication here is that above the age of 13, or "sexual maturity", teenagers are fair game. he's splitting hairs on the technical definition of the word to justify an adult sleeping with teenagers, point blank.

this isn't a "regret the word choice" moment, kellyanne. this is him spending five and a half full fucking minutes going on about the potential benefits to teenage boys from being raped by priests or older men.

how can you possibly be defending this?? i gotta say it's raising some seriously gross red flags in my mind about you caleb, if i'm being perfectly honest.

If you sound out the words on the screen (Phonics | Reading Rockets) you'll notice that that definition of pedophilia is correct, and isn't putting forth a moral judgment on the matter. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to fuck 13 year olds - it just means that there's a different word for that. In the very same interview, Milo goes on to say that the current age of consent is "just about right." Should you, then, perhaps be the one to watch the video?

I don't quite understand how you can't see that it's possible that the quote you posted just now and the quote you posted first are separate thoughts. That is my current understanding - if I'm wrong, I'll recant that.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

Frankly I don't want to engage with you on this.

You started off the post by telling me why I feel the way I do - please stop telling people you don't know why they are reacting to things a certain way. It's irritating to put politely.

Then you explained how men have higher IQs statistically (maybe it would be good to enter a discussion of how women were precluded from higher education for hundreds of years by men, or how most of the women in this world to this day do not have the rights that their male counterparts do, or how religion is used almost universally to oppress women even to this day). And to you this is all kind of ha-ha funny, oh isn't Milo tongue-in-cheek hilariously here trolling us?

You don't have to live in our shoes. We put up with bullshit every day because we are women. I am in one of the most woman unfriendly industries, a highly educated professional and I've seen more than my fair share of obnoxiousness from men who think it's all ha-ha funny. Nevermind all the women who aren't privileged like I am.

But sure, you keep on laughing at how he's spinning statistics which reflect millenia of oppression of half the world's population. And then politely demand that we comply in discussing this with you.

Fuck this asshole Milo. Find a better cause to take up.

Nowhere did I say men have higher IQ's statistically - this is mathematically untrue, and I spoke very precisely on purpose. I stand by what I said, but I don't stand by what you're now claiming I said.

You needn't discuss it with me if you don't want to, but it seems reasonable for me to assume you wanted to since you... brought it up. Your reaction to my acquiescing to discussing a topic /you/ brought up is actually kind of humorous, now.

That said, I will point out how vacuous a rebuttal "mansplaining" is each and every time

[PhilsFan]

Milo is a huge piece of shit and you are a fool for defending him.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

If you sound out the words on the screen (Phonics | Reading Rockets) you'll notice that that definition of pedophilia is correct. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to fuck 13 year olds - it just means that there's a different word for that.

fuck off with your condescending phonics bullshit.

yes, i'm aware that the technical term for attraction to post-pubescent minors is actually "hebephilia" and not "pedophilia" (one of the other speakers says that in the video actually - again, i really don't think you've even actually watched what you're defending). i don't give a shit. they're both child sexual assault because the victim cannot consent as a minor. it is as equally despicable for an adult to have sex with a 15 year old as it is for them to do the same to a 5 year old.

do you disagree with any of that?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Milo is a huge piece of shit and you are a fool for defending him.

Entirely possible, and if that's the case, I want to be corrected as soon as possible. I don't want to go around saying things that will embarrass me later on, of course not.

FYM has changed my mind on topics in my younger years - gay marriage, for instance. I am entirely open to changing my mind when given reason to.

In a way, I sort of like being proven wrong; it means I'm now smarter than I was beforehand.

That said, I like being proven wrong - not declared wrong.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

fuck off with your condescending phonics bullshit.

yes, i'm aware that the technical term for attraction to post-pubescent minors is actually "hebephilia" and not "pedophilia" (one of the other speakers says that in the video actually - again, i really don't think you've even actually watched what you're defending). i don't give a shit. they're both child sexual assault because the victim cannot consent as a minor. it is as equally despicable for an adult to have sex with a 15 year old as it is for them to do the same to a 5 year old.

do you disagree with any of that?

You somehow took my points and decided they implied I, too, support pedophilia. At that point, it becomes reasonable for me to assume a degree of condescension from me may be necessary in order for us to communicate.


Now onto your question: nope

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Nope

do you think blatant pro-pederasty and pro-hebephilia statements and ideas should be legally protected as valid expressions of free speech?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

You needn't discuss it with me if you don't want to, but it seems reasonable for me to assume you wanted to since you... brought it up. Your reaction to my acquiescing to discussing a topic /you/ brought up is actually kind of humorous, now.

Yeah, lots of things appear to be funny to you.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Entirely possible, and if that's the case, I want to be corrected as soon as possible. I don't want to go around saying things that will embarrass me later on, of course not.

FYM has changed my mind on topics in my younger years - gay marriage, for instance. I am entirely open to changing my mind when given reason to.

In a way, I sort of like being proven wrong; it means I'm now smarter than I was beforehand.

That said, I like being proven wrong - not declared wrong.

I respect this sentiment, but it's a little hard to take seriously when you insist the problem is that Milo is just misunderstood. That the media is blowing up minor things and taking things out of context. That's just not what is happening here.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

You somehow took my points and decided they implied I, too, support pedophilia.

after a bit of thought, i'll retract the implication i made with the last sentence of that post as it wasn't called for or justified. it was typed out in haste. i edited it out of the post and i apologize.

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I respect this sentiment, but it's a little hard to take seriously when you insist the problem is that Milo is just misunderstood. That the media is blowing up minor things and taking things out of context. That's just not what is happening here.

i can't wait to start hearing about how this is all "just locker room talk".

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

do you think blatant pro-pederasty and pro-hebephilia statements and ideas should be legally protected as valid expressions of free speech?

Apology accepted, Dave. My condescension was out of line, too. I think we can both discuss this respectfully.

Now onto your question:

Well, yes actually. But quite frankly, you'll be hard pressed to find any non-call-to-action speech that I don't think qualifies as free speech. Are you now contending that Milo should be jailed over a Drunk Peasants livestream?

That said, I don't consider what happened on that livestream to be pro-pederasty and pro-hebephilia. Let's look at the transcript:

Not Milo: “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 sexually active younger"

Now, if he were encouraging pedophilia, why would he support the current age of consent?

Regarding his idea that a one-size-fits-all age is not necessarily true for everyone, that's debatable. One can have that discussion.

But is it not clear that, coming from a man who was molested as a young teen, this is a none-too-subtle coping mechanism to deal with that trauma, claiming that while that rule is a good rule for everyone else, maybe he was an exception?

How do you read "go fuk all the children" into this?

Originally Posted by anitram

Yeah, lots of things appear to be funny to you.

I cannot deny this. Humor is a wonderful weapon to bridge gaps and touch on subjects that can become prickly when dealt with using to much sincerity - friends poking fun at one another build bonds rather than break them.

To me, humor is the sugar that allows truth's cough syrup to go down a bit more smoothly.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I respect this sentiment, but it's a little hard to take seriously when you insist the problem is that Milo is just misunderstood. That the media is blowing up minor things and taking things out of context. That's just not what is happening here.

I said I wouldn't discuss it anymore, but the fact that Milo is STILL to this day characterized as a White Nationalist is proof, to me, that there is misrepresentation afoot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmd8kR-AmI

Things like this strike me as strange principles for a White Nationalist to put forth.

Will you concede that, even if you think Milo does hold reprehensible views, certain sections of the media allow themselves to get a bit ahead of themselves, on occasion?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the only reason Milo is anywhere is because 1) Bannon, 2) Berkeley protests, 3) being able to point to a gay, Jewish writer/speaker seems to deflect, at least in the minds of supporters, the absolutely fair criticisms of white supremacy leveled at Breitbart and the swamp from which Trump crawled out of.



seems it's blown up in their faces.

Here's why I can't get too work up over Milo. I don't believe him, I don't believe a word he says, he's just a character so that Breitbart and the alt-right can say, see? Not homophobic, anti-Semitic, or white nationalist.

Those that defend him are just part of the con, they can feel warm and fuzzy hearing the bigotry coming out of his mouth because it's not coming from a straight white Christian.

[trojanchick99]

Milo is a vile troll who obviously has major issues. Do I believe he believes everything he says? No. In that regard he reminds me of a young Rush Limbaugh. In general I try to ignore trolls. However, he's on occasion gone over the line. In one talk he outed a transgender student, which could have endangered them. He's also egged on his groupies to harass people online, again, NOT acceptable.

Is Milo a white nationalist? No. But he does align himself with the "alt-right" which is a bloc of white nationalist assholes, so he gets to wear that label, especially working for an organization like Breitbart.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Well, yes actually. But quite frankly, you'll be hard pressed to find any non-call-to-action speech that I don't think qualifies as free speech.

someone's "right" to talk about sexually abusing minors outweighs the right of those minors to not be in danger of being sexually abused? really?

That said, I don't consider what happened on that livestream to be pro-pederasty and pro-hebephilia. Let's look at the transcript:

Now, if he were encouraging pedophilia, why would he support the current age of consent?

but he's not encouraging pedophilia. he's encouraging hebephilia. see? i can split hairs needlessly, too.

in any case, why exactly is it that you seem ready at the drop of a hat to accept this part of his statements at face value, but all the rest of it is spin, media, misunderstood, taken out of context? everything else is just bullshit except this one tiny part? come on.

Regarding his idea that a one-size-fits-all age is not necessarily true for everyone, that's debatable. One can have that discussion.

But is it not clear that, coming from a man who was molested as a young teen, this is a none-too-subtle coping mechanism to deal with that trauma, claiming that while that rule is a good rule for everyone else, maybe he was an exception?

How do you read "go fuk all the children" into this?

of course it's partly a coping mechanism for him to minimize or excuse what happened to him. but it's also an open endorsement of pederasty. there's no way around that. it's extremely frustrating to watch your efforts to minimize that fact away under all these flimsy excuses. his words here are indefensible to any moral person.

i agree he does clearly have a whole raft of mental health issues going on. i'm not heartless, i've dealt with mental health problems of my own in the past (tho not nearly to the extent that milo appears to have) so i do feel some empathy for him in that sense. i do hope this leads to him getting help, and that the issues he is dealing with are treatable. i won't hold my breath for him having any kind of "come to jesus" moment and suddenly being a great guy but hopefully someone can help him realize that constantly making a negative spectacle of himself for attention isn't healthy and that he just goes away and lives the rest of his life in content healthy obscurity.

[Irvine511]

let's not forget that the person who hired Milo is the most influential person in the White House.

besides Putin.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Milo

STATEMENT DELIVERED AT PRESS CONFERENCE 2/21/07
I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.
My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.
Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.
A few years ago I realised it was time to do something good with my life. I started focusing on work. But the black comedy, gallows humor and love of shock value I developed in my 20s did not go away.
I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I do say some things on the tapes that I do not mean and which do not reflect my views.
My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I am horrified by that impression.
I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics.
And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. I was also the first journalist in the UK to ask after Jimmy Savile’s death whether the real story of his rampant child abuse would ever be told. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that the videos you have seen, even though some of them were deceptively edited, paint a different picture. I am partly to blame.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is "about right." I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error. 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.
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.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly. To repeat: I do not support pedophilia. It is a disgusting crime of which I have personally been a victim.
The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences. I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions.
But I am sorry to other abuse victims if my own personal way of dealing with what happened to me has hurt you.
I will never stop making jokes about taboo subjects. Go into any drag bar or gay club and you will see performers cracking jokes about clerical sexual abuse. I am not afforded that same freedom, because the media chooses to selectively define me as a political figure in some circumstances, and a comedian in others.
But I said some things on those internet live streams that were simply wrong.
My employer Breitbart News has stood by me when others caved. They have allowed me to carry conservative and libertarian ideas to communities that would otherwise never have heard them. They have been a significant factor in my success. I’m grateful for that freedom and for the friendships I forged there.
I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting, which is why today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.
When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them. For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.
My book, Dangerous, has received interest from publishers after my previous publisher Simon and Schuster informed me they no longer wished to release it. The book will come out this year as planned. I will be donating 10 per cent of my royalties to child sex abuse charities.
I haven’t ever apologized before. Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But to be a victim of child abuse and for the media to call me an apologist for child abuse is absurd.
I regret the things I said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything in my whole life. This isn't how I wanted my parents to find out about this.
But let's be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.
I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.
I started my career as a technology reporter who wrote about politics but I have since become something else. I am a performer with millions of fans in America and beyond. I’m grateful for the tens of thousands of messages of support I’ve received and I look forward to making you all laugh, cry and think for many decades to come.
My full focus is now going to be on entertaining and educating everyone, left, right and otherwise. If you want to brand or stereotype me, good luck with that.
Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want. America has a colossal free speech problem. The land of the First Amendment has some of the most oppressive social restrictions on free expression anywhere in the western world. I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression.
I want everyone in America, the greatest country in the history of human civilisation, to be able to be, do, read and say anything. I will never stop fighting for your right to do that.
Thank you. I will take 5 questions.

.

[Irvine511]

It's hard to hold back the eye rolls.

Poor Milo. Such a victim!