Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC slot amid tape controversy

Do you honestly believe that Milo seriously advocates for pedophiles and supports child rape? I don't understand how any reasonably intelligent or intellectually honest person could based on the full context.

Yeah, he has a crude and often vile sense of humor, it's not my kind of humor but I don't support lying about him with it to insinuate he advocates for child rape. I'm not interested in going to his talks, I'm not going to buy his book, I just don't like how the media gets away with doing these hit jobs on people who don't have the means to defend themselves from the onslaught. This just happened with the YouTuber PewDiePie; it has become a trend and I think it's toxic.

But ultimately, this is the absurd hypocrisy of all of this. When the Bill Cosby scandal came out, people had a field day making rape jokes at the expense of the victims; pretty much all of these jokes made light of rape and many crossed the line by trying to be edgy to the point of "condoning" or "normalizing" what Cosby did. No they weren't actually condoning or normalizing rape, they were making jokes and being outrageous and offensive. What is being done to Milo now is like people being called rape supporters for their jokes about the victims and actions of Cosby. It's absurd.

 

Conservative Pederasts Against Consent #CPAC

 

Just another race baiting thread.

How this became a racial issue I'll never, oh wait I know why!

 

Pretty much. The liberal folk thought this was their opportunity to libel someone they fear. Seen this tactic before. One of the posters on the thread is remarkably similar to the tactics used on the old Maher board, but unlikely is the same poster. But, Rainy, if it's you, come out come out wherever you are....

 

Probably the only thing worse than the CPAC keynote speaker promoting child molestation would be the President admitting to sexual assault on tape.

 

Or boldly lying to the nation about your sexual hijinks with a White House subordinate (which is the very definition of sexual assault and harassment, if feminists like Hillary are to be believed).

 

Right wing Milo's remarks speak for themselves.

 

So, after his worst two days ever, is Milo taking the red pill or the blue pill?

 

My honest evaluation of the two is there is not a notable difference between the liberal there, here or anywhere. Ideologically they are carbon copies! At least with todays conservatives you can get them to bend or at least consider difference of opinion and idea's, but that's not even possible with todays liberals, well that I have seen anyway!

 

Really? There is always hypocrisy oozing out of both ends of the political spectrum. (The modern left is certainly guilty of banning free speech at many Universities, hence the micro-aggression and hate speech bans.)

I do not see that Milo Yiannapoulos' political views have anything to do with his acknowledgment of the realities of sexual relationships. I am pretty sure the CPAC people also know that the two things have nothing to do with each other.

I do however, see how people often ignore the content and merits of political viewpoints, and focus instead on real or perceived (or manufactured) moral failings as a way to discount the speaker, and by association, discount the idea.

For example, your first sentence does this. You make an accusation of racism to imply justification of a moral judgment, and then use the ad hominem attack to bypass any consideration of Milo's ideas' merits. Once you and your audience agree that Milo is evil, you feel no need to interrogate the argument, consider the ideas, or even acknowledge that Milo has ideas.

What I find most interesting is that one does not need even marginally to support the ad hominem attack. Certainly, your accusations of racism are unsupported. Near as I can tell from reading his work and watching countless speeches and interviews on YouTube, Milo is not racist, definitely not anti-Black, and I think examination of his ideas and social life bear this out very clearly.

Moreover, I am sure the CPAC organizers know that people (both leftists and conservatives) have this tendency to parrot moral judgments (substantiated or not) and ignore logic and substance of ideas. It is predictable that Milo's ideas would be largely ignored at the conference, so there is no reason to continue the invitation for him to speak, especially given the following realities.

• Pedophilia is universally abhorred in our society.
• Most people will not bother actually to listen to the interview in question in order to determine what Milo actually does and does not say about men and boys.
• Many people are actually stupid enough to misinterpret an absence of condemnation as approbation.
• People are generally more interested in the titillation of moral judgment and scandal than they are in ideas and logic, or examination of facts.
• Milo would probably have to spend his entire timeslot defending himself against accusations of suborning pedophilia, and would never get a chance to address conservative political ideas.

Disinviting Milo from speaking at CPAC 2017 does not necessarily have anything to do with freedom of speech, or appreciation of his ideas. More likely it results from an acknowledgment that too many people would ignore his ideas, and instead fan the flames of judgment and sexual controversy. By disinviting Milo Yiannapoulos, the subject of conservative political ideology will not be sidetracked by people predictably protesting pedophilia.

 

I do not know where you came up with the word ALL , nor do I see why you would assume that something Milo acknowledged as common is only "a sickening stereotype perpetuated by homophobia." Are you suggesting that Milo Yiannapoulos is homophobic?Certainly there is nothing to suggest these relationships are standard, but they are definitely common enough.

While I would not say it is in any way prevalent for there to be relationships between older gay men and adolescent gay boys, it is common enough to warrant acknowledgment. I have known a lot of gay men who had similar experiences during adolescence. Most often my friends described the relationships as sexual, but not always.

Where do you think the word protégé came from? Commonly rich Roman men would take beautiful and talented boys under their wings, mentor them, introduce them to advantageous society, and bugger them.

 

You guys are SOO funny.

(Don't quit your day jobs)

 

Nice dodge and weave...

 

I listened to Milo once for about 30 seconds. His honey badger schtick didn't settle with me. I relegated him to the likes of madonna, Miley Cyrus, and Amy schumer.

 

Blue pill

 

Milo is a comedian.

The kind of guy who should be making $1000/week opening for Andrew Dice Clay.

I just approach every word coming out of his mouth as some sort of camp comedy.

I think he'd be great as the Emcee in Cabaret

 

While Clinton did discuss his sexual affair on tape with Lewinsky that would fall under sexual harassment in tbe workplace creating a hostile work environment. His assault on Jones was not recorded at the time but the depositions in the lawsuits were. Neither were minors at the time.

So which President are talking about?

 

Some of the icons of the LGBT movement have been supporters of NAMBLA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Ginsberg#Association_with_NAMBLA

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

To my knowledge, neither of these two homosexual communists were ever disavowed by the left in any meaningful way. Harry Hay is still considered to be the "godfather of gay liberation". Ginsberg's works are still celebrated, and he actually had a tearful "goodbye" phone call with celebrities like Johnny Depp right before he died.

We also have the issue of Roman Polanski drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl and then fleeing to Europe to avoid prosecution. Meryl Streep gave him a standing ovation not too many years after this happened.

Child sex abuse isn't enough to cause the left to disown someone. It is on the right. Even the justification of it is enough on the right, like this story shows. That's why I call it a left-wing issue. If Milo had been a left-wing gay rights activist and not a firebrand rightwinger, he would have never been shunned like this.

 

The political establishment is motivated by money over ideology.

“A pillar of famously liberal Silicon Valley is underwriting Washington’s biggest gathering of conservatives.

Sources with direct knowledge of the matter tell The Daily Beast that Facebook made a six-figure contribution to CPAC … This isn’t the first year it has sponsored CPAC.” THE DAILY BEAST, Why Is Facebook Helping Fund CPAC?, BY BETSY WOODRUFF, 02.21.17.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/21/why-is-facebook-helping-fund-cpac.html

 

Name the specific person you claim he admitted to sexually assaulting and quote it.

Back up your fabrication.

 

The fact that the alt right championed this sad, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up boy from England who can't stop talking about dick?

 

Shocking isn't it?

 

It would seem that there are two types of people in this world:

The first group consists of sane, rational people who recognize that it is not acceptable for full grown adults to have sex with 13-year olds.

The second group consists of this POS Milo (whatever his name is) and A LOT of Trump supporters who think that it is acceptable for adults to have sex with 13-year old children.

Now, I'm not saying that ALL Trump supporters are okay with adults having sex with children but the ones who don't think it is okay are ominously silent in this thread.

 

https://stream.org/milo-yiannopoulo...m=original content&utm_content=miloyhypocrisy

 

Perhaps you could put into words why you think your link is relevant to my comment.