Yeah the problem is that it was a load of fluff and flitting from one topic to another. Milo only works when he has time to explain, if he can only deliver one liners then he will just make jokes and look a fool.
Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Yeah the problem is that it was a load of fluff and flitting from one topic to another. Milo only works when he has time to explain, if he can only deliver one liners then he will just make jokes and look a fool.
I think he was making a crude joke... and since he was the victim in that instance he's got every right to make a dark joke about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,345
He had the opportunity to make valid points and chose instead to call the other guest stupid. I'm sure all Milo fans celebrated and all non fans still hate him, I just feel the people in the middle curious as to what his viewpoints actually were would have been hugely turned off with his approach.
Sure the Bill Maher show isn't the ideal platform for this, but I feel he wasted the chance he had and chose to engage in ad hominem and his typical outrage tactics. He's better than that, or at least has been in the past.
How dare liberals no-platform and censor Milo? What about his free speech?
Oh, wait, it's conservative conferences and publisher imprints disassociating themselves with him now? Why do conservatives hate free speech so much?
Indeed. Good people whether they be left or right wing, stand up to fascism and paedophile apologists, unfortunately posters here prioritise free speech over doing the right thing. Cowardly.
Soldato
I guess they only defend free speech when it's aimed at black people, gays, Muslims, immigrants, trans people etc
I find it amazing that's it was his own conservatives that tore him a new one rather than lubrals.
Have you listened to what you're giving your opinion on?
Caporegime
Surely they were taking the mick anyway? Inviting Milo to the Gaylord National Resort...
Soldato
Gramsci, laid it out long ago?
Gramsci, called for cultural marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions."
I guess they only defend free speech when it's aimed at black people, gays, Muslims, immigrants, trans people etc
I find it amazing that's it was his own conservatives that tore him a new one rather than lubrals.
Lol at this dude who thinks that paedophile apologists and Nazi sympathisers are the equivlent to ethnic minorities and the lgbt community.
Yea free speech is the problem here, clearly.
Soldato
Championing free speech IS doing the right thing. If you suppress free speech, then you create the perfect conditions for actual fascism to thrive in.
And he's hardly a pedophile apologist. Someone chopped up some video clips and edited them to make it look incriminating. He has since explained the context behind his remarks. He doesn't come across as a pedophile apologist - he's a victim of pedophilia. The worst crime you can really pin on him in this case is poor phrasing and typical Milo-esque edgelord trolling.
Edit: wait, I just realised, this post makes me a pedophile apologist apologist.
Last edited:
Championing free speech IS doing the right thing. If you suppress free speech, then you create the perfect conditions for actual fascism to thrive in.
And he's hardly a pedophile apologist. Someone chopped up some video clips and edited them to make it look incriminating. He has since explained the context behind his remarks. He doesn't come across as a pedophile apologist - he's a victim of pedophilia. The worst crime you can really pin on him in this case is poor phrasing and typical Milo-esque edgelord trolling.
Edit: wait, I just realised, this post makes me a pedophile apologist apologist.
You're getting there, his comments were off and creepy - no matter how you slice it, in that very Facebook post he says children can give consent under the legal age, even though they are going to be a bundle of hormones who make irrational and rash decisions. I don't understand this obsession with people defending their idols for every controversial comments they make, you can agree with them on some points and disagree on others.
The real story isn't that Milo is a paedophile (unlikely) but that many of his supporters were only prepared to defend his right to free speech as long as he said things that they agreed with.
As soon as Milo talked about underage gay sex, that was it for them. He was uninvited from conservative conferences and got his book deal ripped up.
It's hard to feel sorry for him though. He's probably loving the extra attention.
Soldato
He's not my idol, I just think this whole thing is overblown. Where's the bit about children being able to give consent? I'm re-reading it, and I can't see it.
Edit: found it, it's at the end. To be honest, even that bit is hard to outright condemn, because he didn't say what you say he said. He's just saying some people mature more quickly than others. That's not creepy, it's reality. I don't think he said anywhere that it's therefore okay to sleep with underage people. That would be crossing the line.
Last edited:
Aye, that would be my first thought.
See in bold, and that comment was to people in general - they feel to be so invested, that they have to defend every aspect of their statements - It's stupid.
Soldato
Pretty much this. I don't feel particularly sorry for him either. He emerged from the Berkley riots stronger and more popular than ever, and I expect he'll do the same here. It's a shame about the book though. Now it's been squashed, I'm more curious than ever to read what was in it. Hopefully another publisher will pick it up.
I edited my previous post after I found it. The bit in bold - I do not think it says what you think it says. He's saying some people mature more quickly than others. That's not creepy, or at least it shouldn't be, because it's true. That does NOT mean it's therefore okay to sleep with the precocious ones, and I don't think Milo has ever said it was. If he did, then I would agree he crossed the line.
Again you continue to defend those comments, other than it being ILLEGAL for anyone under 16 to give consent for sex, that does not rule out them making irrational decisions again I quote for having hormones rushing through their body. So.. yes it is creepy, incredibly so - he is using his own experiences as a justification for this stance on that matter. No such thing as 'maturing quickly' you can have perfectly operable sexual organs from age 11, would you consider someone 'mature then'? Maybe clarify what the hell you mean by that.
Soldato
What's there to clarify? People mature at different rates, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Do you think that's not the case? Or is it just uncomfortable to acknowledge? That has no bearing on the law - of course a line has to be drawn somewhere.
The line is already drawn - a person under 16 cannot give consent. No more debate required. Call it arbitrary, call it what you want, but most are barely out of puberty at that age.
Last edited: