![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
AV Club front page said:
I enjoy those words.
Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I enjoy those words.
Soldato
I agree.
The quote that took it over the edge is basically a joke about his abuse by a priest when he was younger. It then degenerated into him pointing out the presenter was incorrect with the term paedophile.
It appears though that there other comments made about the subject that were more below the line, but for some reason they have hardly been reported. They may have been from a different interview however.
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.
It is interesting that there do appear to be things that are below the line. I guess perhaps because it hurts their ultra conservative sensibilities?
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.
hang on... check out the location of the resort in that picture
The legal limit is an arbitrary age based on the what law makers think in that jurisdiction. That legal age varies around the globe, and can also vary significantly based on the age of the two people in question. It has to be arbitrary or it would be a nightmare to enforce, that doesn't mean that all people under that age are unable to make an informed and rational decision on sex however (just as it doesn't mean everyone OVER that age can make an informed and rational decision on sex) - which is what he's saying. For example is a 17 year old in some parts of the US less emotionally and physically mature than a 16 year old in the UK? The law "thinks" so.
The law is designed (and needed) to stop people being taken advantage of by those older/maturer than them, but doesn't really say that anyone beneath that age cannot make an informed decision on sex, or personally consent to sex. It does however say in the eyes of the law they cannot legally consent and having sex with someone under that age is illegal.
No one in their right mind is going to prosecute a case of two 15 year olds in a "long" term relationship having "consensual" sex, but the law can quite happily be used to prosecute a 50 year old having sex with another 15 year old*. Considering around half the population lose their virginity before the age of consent in the UK it would be a bun fight if the law was seen as that black and white.
What you're basically saying there is Milo is lying to himself about whether he was ready to (personally) consent to sex, before the legal age. You're basically saying you know him better than he knows himself.
He doesn't appear to be saying the law is wrong, or that the law should be changed. He just seems to be saying that while people cannot legally consent to sex, they may well happily go into it with their eyes wide open, and not regret it after.
Basically you need to realise there is a difference between emotionally mature and physically mature, and also personal consent and legal consent.
He's an arse, and has some nasty views, but lets call him out on what he's actually saying, rather than what you want him to be saying.
*Yet if that same 50 year old waited (say) a week and had sex with the same person the day of their 16th birthday then the law would be quite happy with that. Morally I'm not happy with that, but legally I can see why it is the case.
** It's also worth noting that the age of homosexual consent has been revised down twice in the last 25 years, from 21 before 1994, to 18 after, and then subsequently to 16 after 2000. Depending on his age he may well have not legally been able to consent to sex at the time he was having it, but subsequent legal changes could have meant if he was born even a year later he could legally have consented to sex at the same age. (assuming he was having gay sex, rather than heterosexual sex at that age)
Last edited:
Soldato
This perfectly summarises my thoughts whenever Milo is the topic of the day. These moral panics distract from more incisive criticisms.
So something i guess is directly relevant to this thread that most people probily arnt aware of and is possibly a sign of things to come
Its frankly ridiculous,these antifa folk are just engaging in witchhunts and going out of their way to be 'offended' over things
Its frankly ridiculous,these antifa folk are just engaging in witchhunts and going out of their way to be 'offended' over things
Yes, I'm mainly talking about adults having sexual relations with children under the age of 16 as was the case with Milo (he was 14 and the priest was 29), maybe he rationalised so it wasn't abuse because he consented. But the simple matter is that how grooming works, they are warmed up to the idea, and is thus normalised to them.
He just told a joke about it AFAIK
That's not the part you quoted or were discussing though.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart-pedophilia-comments said:
That is far more concerning, but at the same time he is drawing from his own experiences. He was pretty clear he wasn't against the law or advocating changing it, but was saying that in some cases the protection it gives may not necessarily be for the best and/or needed. Hence the point about emotional maturity being variable and unrelated to the legal age of consent.
He is also coming from a position of being gay, where even 15-20 years ago (well, and even now) people are very hesitant to talk to family members and peers about their feelings.
He later clarified:
You're right, there may certainly be an element of grooming in that (which is why the law is there), but at the same time this is coming from someone with a lot of adult experience looking back at his own history, not the 14 year old being abused.
One thing we could take from this is just how isolated many young gay people feel when they are exploring their sexuality. Which is kind of ironic coming from a very conservative person, that writes for a conservative newspaper consumed by a lot of people that would quite happily admonish his sexuality and try and stem it's teaching in schools. That of course would help create the situation he found himself in at the age of 14.
Lol at this thread.
Got some posters that would probably argue the freedom of speech of NAMBLA was more important than the boys they were involved in raping. Incredible. Really gives you an insight into how people think.
It's to the point where some people are expecting others to argue for the freedom of speech by people who are out to hurt them. Incredible. At a guess I am assuming that some of the more libertarian posters are so insulated from any harm in their day to day lives they don't have a problem with "speech".
Got some posters that would probably argue the freedom of speech of NAMBLA was more important than the boys they were involved in raping. Incredible. Really gives you an insight into how people think.
It's to the point where some people are expecting others to argue for the freedom of speech by people who are out to hurt them. Incredible. At a guess I am assuming that some of the more libertarian posters are so insulated from any harm in their day to day lives they don't have a problem with "speech".
Man of Honour
Yes. The videos have, unsurprisingly, been "creatively edited" to make it look as though he was referring to 13 as an old enough age. In reality, two different things he said were spliced together. 13 was his age when he was abused. 17 was the age he stated as being old enough. Add in some straightforward lies (hurfdurf provides a good example - an advocate of murder to suppress disagreement with ruthless authoritarianism falsely accusing someone of advocating child abuse and apparently thinking that's OK) and you get what's happening.
Milo's statement gives his actual position:
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/852600161544547?_fb_noscript=1
Of course, politics isn't necessarily based on truth. Especially when the target is a deliberately offensive attention-seeker who speaks against people with power.
Lol good! Smash all Nazi sympathisers and those that glorify them.
Look at the liberals in this thread
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/threads/marduk-nazi.176512/
People with these views don't deserve music.
Man of Honour
Do you realise that none of what you write is true? Besides, you publically advocate murder and false accusation as the best way to deal with people who disagree with your favoured brand of authoritarianism. If you're trying to be an attention-seeking edgelord like Milo, you're going too far. He'd never be that offensive.
Or, you know you can actually read what he said and realise what he's trying to say instead of making up a story about him advocating child rape...
George Takei openly talking about his experiences as a gay 13 yr old... 
https://youtu.be/P2nZcCRRj8c?t=207
(warning swear near start of video, have used a timestamped link to the relevant bits, possibly more swearing later)
https://youtu.be/P2nZcCRRj8c?t=207
(warning swear near start of video, have used a timestamped link to the relevant bits, possibly more swearing later)
What's funny is I do completely understand what he has said and completely agree what he has said isn't that off colour when it's taken into the context he has described it as, especially as a victim himself, it seems to be his way of coping and I respect that.
The problem is is that he has been hoisted by his own patard. If you put a camera on anyone for long enough they are going to crack and make a mistake in speaking, or do something silly, or make a joke that doesn't land correctly. He wanted the exposure and over exposed himself. Now if he was a comedian he could completely brush all this off, how ever he wants to have his cake and eat it, he wants to be taken seriously as a political commentator and use his edge lord views for exposure, and then fall back on "oh I was just kidding" when he over steps. You can't do both. He is either an entertainer or a serious operative, and it would seem that the serious side of his work has decided it doesn't like the entertaining side anymore.
George Takei openly talking about his experiences as a gay 13 yr old...
https://youtu.be/P2nZcCRRj8c?t=207
(warning swear near start of video, have used a timestamped link to the relevant bits, possibly more swearing later)
Context is king, a comedian/entertainer on Howard Stern (If I'm hearing correctly) can speak that way, and so can Milo on the JRE, but then niether can expect to be invited to talk at CPAC LOL!
Edit. And just gone back to finish the video. Correct me if I'm wrong buy Takei joking about what happened to him is certainly not Takei saying that what happened to him was ok, and that it should be legal for what happened to him to happen... also the host who has edited it used the term Meme Lord unironically and you thought it appropriate to link him, how embarrassing for you.
well neither has Milo... Milo jokes about what happened to him and George joked about what happened to him...
I'm not interested in the host, I linked to it with a time stamp to show the clip.