Is Offensive Political Violence Ever Justified?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

I'm sorry but what's this hissyfit about?

The left has always criticized this guy and can't stand him. This comment to me is pretty on par with his other bullshit, no more and no less really.

The right is now banning him from CPAC - shouldn't your beef/outrage be with them? Aren't they the ones "fucking research" in favour of soundbytes?

Edited the post to make clear what I meant by referencing McMullen - the right wing establishment decided to go with the "gay man/pedophilia" connection once again, and it's pretty disgusting

That said, is your contention that, since the Left has always criticized Milo, my "beef/outrage" shouldn't be with them for jumping on the bandwagon with the Right here, because I should just expect them to not care about research since it's well known that they hate him?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Edited the post to make clear what I meant by referencing McMullen - the right wing establishment decided to go with the "gay man/pedophilia" connection once again, and it's pretty disgusting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

it is.

seems the right is still A-OK with white supremacy.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

That said, is your contention that, since the Left has always criticized Milo, my "beef/outrage" shouldn't be with them for jumping on the bandwagon with the Right here, because I should just expect them to not care about research since its well known that they hate him?

what would you like "the Left" to do in this situation? this seems like "the Right's" domestic dispute.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Edited the post to make clear what I meant by referencing McMullen - the right wing establishment decided to go with the "gay man/pedophilia" connection once again, and it's pretty disgusting

That said, is your contention that, since the Left has always criticized Milo, my "beef/outrage" shouldn't be with them for jumping on the bandwagon with the Right here, because I should just expect them to not care about research since its well known that they hate him?

Ah ok, that makes more sense then.

You just need to spend 5 mins at a cesspool like Free Republic to see that many of these people who are Alt-Right glorified Milo so long as the left was protesting him but now a good chunk/majority have reverted back to the "he's a pervert normalizing homos" line of thinking.

The GOP is going to have massive problems with fracturing. They are lucky they have held on so far - the visceral hatred of Obama kept them going and now they are drunk on victory juice. But the chickens will come home to roost eventually.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what would you like "the Left" to do in this situation? this seems like "the Right's" domestic dispute.

Exactly.

[DaveC]

there's a video of him literally advocating pederasty in his own words, and he himself has admitted to saying those words, but nope.

all media spin. don't worry about the pederast, he didn't do anything wrong, everyone else is just out to get him cause they don't like him. nothing to see here, folks.

interesting to see we've got forum members here who seem inclined to rush to defend teenage-rape fans.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what would you like "the Left" to do in this situation? this seems like "the Right's" domestic dispute.

Do a modicum of research before publishing slanderous article after article accusing a man who was a victim of child molestation of supporting pedophilia?

I didn't come in here bashing the left for this, I was just confused as to why I was questioned regarding which side of the political aisle I was criticizing - if they're both being dishonest and I'm criticizing said dishonesty, does it really need to be a Left/Right ordeal?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

there's a video of him literally defending pederasty in his own words, and he himself has admitted to saying those words, but nope.

all media spin. don't worry about the pederast, he didn't do anything wrong, everyone else is just out to get him. nothing to see here, folks.

glad to see we've got forum members who rush to defend advocates of the rape of teenagers.

I'm fully aware (and have been for at least a year - this is not new information) of all interviews that clips have been circulated from and am willing to debate you regarding whether he supports raping teenagers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Do a modicum of research before publishing slanderous article after article accusing a man who was a victim of child molestation of supporting pedophilia?

I didn't come in here bashing the left for this, I was just confused as to why I was questioned regarding which side of the political aisle I was criticizing - if they're both being dishonest and I'm criticizing said dishonesty, does it really need to be a Left/Right ordeal?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

CPAC should do a "modicum" of research? absolutely.

the only reason Milo was invited to speak was because Berkeley hippies protested him.

seems they chose the wrong martyr.

i don't see any dishonesty on "the Left." he's disliked for many, many, many other reasons.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I'm fully aware (and have been for at least a year

So you're a fan of his then? I mean why else follow every one of this turd's diarrheas for so long?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

CPAC should do a "modicum" of research? absolutely.



the only reason Milo was invited to speak was because Berkeley hippies protested him.



seems they chose the wrong martyr.



i don't see any dishonesty on "the Left." he's disliked for many, many, many other reasons.

I'm kind of bored with debunking the idea that Milo's a white nationalist, an antisemite, or a Nazi. That dishonesty coming from the Left is ceasing to warrant my time.

That said, innumerable left-leaning outlets (think: Salon, Huffpo, etc) have jumped on the "Milo supports pedophiles/is a pedophile" bandwagon. One need only look.

That said, sure - fuck CPAC too of course, as they're the source of this particular stand of bullshit this time.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I'm fully aware (and have been for at least a year - this is not new information) of all interviews that clips have been circulated from and am willing to debate you regarding whether he supports raping teenagers.

“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 sort of rock,” Yiannopoulos said.

his own fucking words.

can't wait to read the explanations trying to justify how this is somehow an okay sentence for any person on earth to speak...

[anitram]

But yeah, we're all dishonest when we call him a misogynist.

“Most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads. Imagine how much worse they’re going to get when the passive aggressive manipulation tactics stop working because the guy can get himself off with a thinner, hotter robot any time he wants to. They’re going to go mental. In the West, women are surging ahead into positions of dominance in the media, the arts, academia, politics, you name it. Some people will find this offensive, but: matriarchy is a problem for the rest of us. As feminist critic Camilla Paglia so memorably put it, if civilisation had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts. When men start checking out en masse, as is already happening, you can say good-bye to all of society’s best astrophysicists, mathematicians, philosophers, composers and chess players. Scientific progress will effectively stall, because men are just as happy beating a video game as they are solving the riddles of the universe — and they’ll take the entertainment option if they have no interest in impressing women. Women will not take men’s places in these disciplines, because there simply aren’t enough women with IQs over 120. Again, sorry if you find that offensive, but it’s just a fact. IQ isn’t a perfect measure, by any means, but it’s the best gauge we have of whether someone can perform the higher-level functions needed to be a game-changing scientist or transcendently brilliant artist.”

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

So you're a fan of his then? I mean why else follow every one of this turd's diarrheas for so long?

I'm a fan of Milo, certainly. That isn't to say I agree with everything he says, but honestly, it's rather apparent that neither does he. His schtick is a little deeper than that, as far as I can tell.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

his own fucking words.

can't wait to read the explanations trying to justify how this is somehow an okay sentence for any person on earth to speak...

His first relationship was with a 29 year old when he was 17. A large age gap, but a legal one in Britain.

He claims to regret the word choice, saying that in gay culture, it isn't uncommon to refer to younger, more submissive partners as "boys," even when they're consenting adults.

Next up


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I'm kind of bored with debunking the idea that Milo's a white nationalist, an antisemite, or a Nazi. That dishonesty coming from the Left is ceasing to warrant my time.

That said, innumerable left-leaning outlets (think: Salon, Huffpo, etc) have jumped on the "Milo supports pedophiles/is a pedophile" bandwagon. One need only look.

That said, sure - fuck CPAC too of course, as they're the source of this particular stand of bullshit this time.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

ok, well, this is pretty lazy. Salon! Huffpo! you expect a higher degree of virtue out of the Left, then?

i looked, and found this on HuffPo, seems pretty fair:

Yiannopoulos’ racism, xenophobia, sexism and transphobia have been well-documented for quite some time. In 2016, he subjected Leslie Jones to a horrific tirade of abuse that resulted in him being permanently banned from Twitter. That same year he compared Black Lives Matter to the KKK. Just last year he claimed trans people are “confused” about their “sexual identity” and are “disproportionately involved” in sex crimes. He is openly anti-Muslim and misogynistic. (Even as I attempt to type this list, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer mass of horrible and bigoted examples to choose from.)

But it was his seeming defense of pedophilia that went too far for his far-right base ― an idea that seems nauseatingly close to the classically ancient conservative, homophobic myth that gay people are pedophiles.

The reasons why it took this long to actually bring down Milo are complicated, but also obvious. Yiannopoulos, like other homonationalistic white gay men who are now troublingly the face of gay conservatism, have become props and tools for conservatives. And these men are happy to oblige, in return for the power that this position begets.

The very fact that they are men who have sex with men gives them a permissibility to be more outrageous and more incendiary in their language and ideas. They are given more space to push the boundaries of racist, problematic language because they occupy a unique position in the conservative contingent ― one of minimal disenfranchisement while still embodying all the markers of power and privilege.

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.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

But yeah, we're all dishonest when we call him a misogynist.

You're taking this in the way you would take it if a politician had said it, rather than a performance artist/provocateur.

Do you not think this reads as, to some degree, tongue in cheek, or do you think some subjects just can't be tackled in a lighthearted manner?

Re: the IQ distribution - honestly this is just a fact. There're more men on the higher ends of the IQ range, just as there're more men on the lower end of the IQ range. As a rule of thumb - purely statistically speaking, not saying that individual exceptions don't abound - it appears that men are more around the edges of the IQ spectrum while women congregate in the middle.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

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.

Thanks for mansplaining that to us dumb broads here at FYM in language that we can understand.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

His first relationship was with a 29 year old when he was 17. A large age gap, but a legal one in Britain.

He claims to regret the word choice, saying that in gay culture, it isn't uncommon to refer to younger, more submissive partners as "boys," even when they're consenting adults.

Next up

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 (aka "stuck my dick in a 14 year old, but they seemed sexually mature to me so it's okay!"). he's splitting hairs on the technical definition of a 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??

edit: after a bit of thought, i'll retract the implication i made in this post as it wasn't called for or justified. it was typed out in haste. i apologize.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

Thanks for mansplaining that to us dumb broads here at FYM in language that we can understand.

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. I have no doubt that, considering your career success, you're a more intelligent person than I -- I'm not trying to insult you here. Do me the kindness of engaging with me in the good faith that I'm attempting to engage with you in.