If They Take Milo Down, You’re Next

*I’ve spent the last day and a half in dread, looking at the coordinated attack on Milo, and the debacle on the right.  As someone who was never-Trump before it was cool, and who only capitulated because she was never-Hillary more, and an anti-communist from the time she could understand the word, I felt divided when people piled on on never-trumpers.  But this is ridiculous and has passed all bounds of civilized behavior.

The charges against Milo are contrived from a) video editing and b) rumor and innuendo and c) pretending no one ever used the word “boy” to mean man, thereby meaning playboy is for 10 year olds and “playing with the big boys” means middle schoolers.
IF the attack on Milo were about, say how outrageous he got before the election (he’s been walking it back since.  I suspect he gets a little battle mad as I tend to.) I’d shrug and say “whatever”.  However this is a contrived and false attack and one that apparently came from the right but is teaching the left the way to take every one of us down.  You might not like Milo or his lifestyle, but you should not under any circumstances, applaud this means of taking him down.  And if you do, I hope you experience likewise and get to experience what you like so much.  There is a good chance you will.  They’ve tasted blood with Milo.  We’re next.
Links: the full unedited thing
The other full unedited thing
Milo’s press conference.
Possible McMullin involvement
Milo fighting pedophiles: here, here and here.  And now, what I have to say.*

If You Let Them “Get” Milo, You’re Next


Look guys, this is where Sarah takes her gloves off, turns the picture of Heinlein to the wall to spare him the worst of the rant, puts her hands on her hips and gives you the blunt and painful truth.  I swear you’re not going to like it and I swear to you that you need to hear it.

So, this kerfuffle with Milo Yannopolis, let’s be frank: have you seen the non-edited videos?  Have you been to his page?  No?  Then shut up.

He might have used infelicitous terms, but not all that infelicitous.  He might have got caught in explaining too far – as someone who used to write for Classical Values, the blog devoted to overthinking it, I can’t complain –  but he’s always been a bit more intellectual than the rest of the right and VERY intellectual for a shock-Jockey.  But that is it.

Yes, he used “boys” when he meant men.  So do you, every fricking day.  No?  Then what’s with Playboy, “one of the boys”, “playing with the big boys.”  Unless you mean kids under the age of 12, you too used boys to mean men.

Second he talked about relationships between younger men and older men as nurturing, comfortable.  Yeah, and?  He also said that he thinks the age of consent is about where it should be.  And for the US he is right.

The US, you say?  What does that have to do with it?

Well, dear heart, if you think that the age of consent being 18 (it’s actually 16 in most states, but never mind) is a law of nature, you should perhaps meditate on George Bernard Shaw’s dictum: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

This is where Milo got into overthinking, when he started discussing how strictly speaking pedophiles are attracted to those people who haven’t undergone puberty (or are undergoing puberty.)  He’s absolutely right, but he was perhaps over-intellectualizing.  The truth is that laws of consent usually slice the do no harm/prevent harm very finely indeed, and are set when most of the population of the country can be assumed to have passed through and undergone puberty.

For instance the age of consent in Portugal is 14.  By 11 I had undergone menarche.  My best friend, OTOH, didn’t go through it till 16.  However hers was very late, and doctors were involved.  Most people got it at 12. So 14 seems like a fairly safe age of consent.

You’re not going to prevent people who go through it earlier from having sex (OTOH I found an interest in physics and electronics prevented me pretty effectively till much, much older.)  But you want to discourage outright predators.  So 14 is about right for Portugal.

Do I mean girls of 14 (or boys for that matter) know what they’re doing?  No.  But I also don’t think they know what they’re doing at 18.  Left to me, I’d set the age of consent at thirty, and human population would plummet.

You can have an unequal relationship at any age, one that scars you and breaks you for life.  You can’t really legislate those.  The best you can do is stand by to pick people up when they fall.  And the best you can do as a parent is make sure your kids know how complicated a decision it is, and how many ramifications sex can have that they don’t understand.  (I keep telling my kids “Wait till 45!”  I don’t think they’re listening.)

The best you can do as a legislator is keep people from making decisions when their bodies are still not working right and they know nothing of life.

No Milo was about right and the law of consent in the US of about 16 in most states and 18 in some is about right.  It’s just about protecting kids who are still not physically adult.  It’s all the law can do. the rest falls to parents.

Now leaving that aside, and returning to this.  Milo has busted three pedophiles.  He is vocal in saying that pedophilia can’t be condoned.  BUT an unholy alliance of left and right  edited a video of him talking and did away with his book deal and removed him from Breitbart.

And idiotic socons are piling on, telling us that “Milo doesn’t belong on the right” and that his (rather effective, frankly) talks about his private life are “disgusting.”

Maybe they are, but if you’re going to kick out everyone who isn’t middle class US, blond, Southern Baptist, you’re never again going to hold power in this country.  Which is exactly what the left wants, and what you’re preparing.

Because NONE of you are clean.  It is possible to demonize all of us, with ridiculous things NO ONE should believe.  I’m sure somewhere or other (often) I made a joke about “Mediterraenan people uber alas” usually when people accuse me of being racist or white supremacist.  It wouldn’t take much to plaster those everywhere and have some idiots say I don’t belong on the right, either.  The fact that I’ve been accused of being a White Supremacist is proof to you that the left SMEARS.  It’s what they do.

For years, in publishing and in the arts, if you weren’t a hundred percent behind them, the whisper campaign started: “She’s white supremacist.” “She’s racist.” “She’s an homophobe.” (Yes, I have been accused of that.  By the left AND the right.)

And if the right buys into this, denounces and piles on, it just gives power to the left.  Do you see them distancing themselves from irresponsible, economically corrupt Hillary? No.  But you self-righteous little goody two shoes can’t wait to distance yourselves from Milo.

And his is how you give the left the rope to hang you with.

Milo is taking fire, because he can communicate with college students; because he’s getting a following; because his VERY EXISTENCE denies the stereotype that the right is racist/sexist/homophobic.  The left HAS to destroy Milo.

And if you cooperate in his destruction, you are next.

You can tell them “you took that out of context, and you should be ashamed of yourself for rushing to judgement.”  You can mock them with the Shaw quote.  You can call them the judgmental prudes they are.

Or you can let Milo be taken down and cower in the dark, waiting for the knock on your door.  It WILL come.




815 thoughts on “If They Take Milo Down, You’re Next

      1. Regardless of what you’ve been drinking, you’re right. In politics you don’t have the option of associating only with the savory, nor are you required to endorse every position expressed by your associates. And in a culture war the primary considerata are a) is he firing in the right direction and b) is he firing in the right direction?

        I don’t have to agree with what Milo said about the age of consent (BTW – let’s ask those getting their knickers knotted over this about their positions on school teachers violating their heightened duty toward their charges) and pedophilia (although when I look at what he has actually said rather than what the people whinging “He said a bad thing” “believe” he said …) to observe the lynch mob mentality being stoked.

        My reflexes are to face the mob, not run with it, and especially when the mob is cyber (actual mobs, carrying rakes, pitchforks, torches and the like tend to encourage me to take a lower profile, I admit.) I don’t doubt Milo’s made enemies aplenty at Breitbart, many of whom are more than happy to slide the shiv into him now that Brutus and Cassius have struck; I do not take their complaints seriously. Given the advance orders on his book I would be surprised if no other publisher makes him an offer, unless he decides going direct on Amazon is the best option.

        So a person whose modus operandi is making inflammatory statements said something inflammatory. Big Effing Deal. Next thing I know they’ll be complaining about the way Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Chris Dodd (who must be right at home out as a Hollywood lobbyist) treat women. It ain’t as if Milo was running a gay prostitution ring out of a Congressional office, after all, or profiting from the sale of body parts from humans slain in the womb.

        1. Regarding the book, I know that Vox Day has offered to publish it through Castallia House, and IIRC another publisher, friendly to non-leftist authors, has mentioned on FB the possibility of picking it up.

          1. So Milo really is to be associated with the Vox Day alt-right? If true, then my original disinclination to cheer Milo on in anything he did still stands. I find the John C Calhoun descendents abhorrent to true American conservativism, and if Milo is to be ‘disinvited’ then I wont cry over it.

            Im serious. I hate the John C Calhoun types. They are NOT conservative.

            1. It is not necessary to support Milo to support his rights — in fact, when we make the latter contingent on the former we are denying his rights.

              CPAC has a sordid history of inviting people it shouldn’t have, and then disinviting them for the wrong reasons. I think they would have been better served to keep the invitation but make it clear that Milo needed to address the topic and repent.

              That is one of the great things about sin — if you sincerely* repent you can be forgiven.

              *Sincerity in side-view mirror may seem greater than it is; always proceed with caution. YMMV.

              1. Not once have I advocated the “removal of his rights.” I agree with Amy when she said that CPAC wasnt obligated to keep him on. Breitbart must have had a serious reason to agree to let him go. Its true that CPAC has a reputation for all sorts of things. But everyone went into it with clear eyes. No ones rights have been infringed. And Im not criticizing Milo for his lifestyle…yet. Im criticizing the lack of clarity on his part when it was badly needed…and how he failed to make it clear…apparently with a sense of British black humor at that…something the young man should have already been aware does not always fly in America. Brits can scorn this part of American “sense of humor” all they want, but I guarantee you some on here, in a week, are going to be making fun of Trump for not being more “British” when he visits the Queen. Milo had a reputation and he was a loose canon.

                Its probably a deep holdover from the Clinton years, but I am very sensitive to parsing. He parses his words when he speaks of reviewing the disputed tapes. All i can think is he either KNOWS what he said or he doesnt…and if he doesnt then he failed to make himself clear, and Im sorry, you do NOT joke about pedophilia, even if you have been a stalwart opponent of it. Either Milo needed to a clear standard fo American conservativism, (not British!!) or he ends up with some lumps.

                Need to verify from someone: has he been closely tied with the Vox Day version of the alt-right?

                1. Not once have I accused anyone here of wanting to abrogate Milo’s rights. I simply think the distinction between deploring what he said and respecting his right to say it cannot be emphasized too much.

                  As for his “black humour” — I assure you it is not one whit blacker than mine and I am as American as baseball. Unless you are going to say that being Jewish makes me unAmerican — because my sense of the absurd which inflates my humour is deeply rooted in awareness of the bleakness of my Faith’s history. There is no topic too dark to joke about, because joking is the only way to handle the worst of Humanity’s sins. There remains a distinction between dark humour and glibness which I do not think Milo transgressed.

                  In nearly a half century of observing Politics in America I have yet to see one other with a significant portion of Ronald Reagan’s ability to express himself — and even <I<he proved susceptible to misrepresentation.

                  I am all for waiting, as I have said, for Divine Judgement because I know I lack the perception. Of course, I am sufficiently dark to have expressed the hope of meeting Hitler in Heaven — because I <I<want him to have truly and deeply repented, something which I believe more painful than all the torments of the Inferno.

                  1. I second the statement that black humor is common in America.

                    Heck, I spent most of my life being directly affected by the vagaries of the weather, the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats, and the enthusiasms of futures markets speculators.
                    How would it even be possible for me not to understand and sympathize with gallows humor?

                2. Need to verify from someone: has he been closely tied with the Vox Day version of the alt-right?

                  By his own admission, Milo does NOT consider himself to be alt-right, BUT he and Vox are friends. Not sure if that makes him pure enough for your sensibilities or not.

                  BTW, Vox (Castalia House) also publishes Peter Grant’s western series, so I suspect you’ll run screaming from Peter too. Oh, and hope you don’t like John C. Wright, or There Will Be War, or Nick Cole, or …

                  1. Mr. Beale the politician is alt-right. I do not agree with him on some fairly important subjects.

                    Mr. Beale the fiction editor is a man of unexceptionable taste, promoting a rather traditional and centrist view of literature.

                    Every man has his virtues. If we find one in someone, even in an enemy, we should probably encourage it.

                    (Heck, Stalin was a murderous dictator, but he had genuine good taste in movies. If only he had gone to Hollywood and become a power-mad dictatorial producer, instead.)

                  2. Vox refers to himself as Alt-West as in pro Western Civilization. The white supremacists as Alt-Right. He calls Milo Alt-Lite. Sort of in the neighborhood but not true blue. He also will not shoot someone he kinda sorta agrees with who is at least shooting in the right direction. Absolutely against circular firing squads.

                    1. While VD is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, he’s not nearly as dumb as most of the professional right.
                      OTOH his alt-west is based on moldbug’s philosophies and ENTIRELY against the individual and self-government. Which means he’s like my cryptonite. And yet, yes, I stood with him against SFWA. Why? Because your professional association status should not be dependent on whether or not you offended a darling of the left. The left offends me with every breath they take because it fuels the Marxist thoughts in their heads. And yet I would not deprive them of Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, or even SFWA membership.
                      Sometimes I think I walk on this tight wire alone, and bogdamnit, I’m getting TIRED.

                    2. Sarah,

                      Not alone. My impression is that you and I agree a very great deal (not everything, but then I don’t agree with myself on everything) on politics.

                      So, no, you do not walk that tightrope alone.

                    3. Freedom of Speech means nothing if it only applies to speech with which we agree, nor for speakers with whom we agree.

                      Again I cite the 1977-78 attempt by Nazis to marched in Skokie, Illinois — a right argued for by Alan Dershowitz, a man who no one would imagine supported the Nazi agenda.

                      Any support of “Free Speech” which only supports “agreeable” speech from “agreeable” people is NO support for Free Speech at all.

                      When they came for …

                    4. I’ll add in Churchill’s comment that “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” If you substitute the Left for Hitler (not a big or difficult stretch, given the similarities), I think the case for supporting Milo against a slander campaign is a strong one in the best traditions of Western history, even if one doesn’t agree with the man’s lifestyle choices.

                3. So, someone doesn’t exactly parse their words right on a long interview and says something that can be misinterpreted, even though they have a history that clearly shows that they are being misinterpreted and you’re all for throwing them to the wolves.

                  THAT is what is WRONG with the people who call themselves conservatives. They will cut and run at the first sign of blood. And it’s why the Alt-Right is now far more successful that ‘conservatives’ have been in the last forty years.

                  You may not like Vox Day, and you may hate the Alt-Right, but I used to work for conservatives, I was a party member, and I was one of those people you used to see out there on the front lines fighting the good fight. And I have to say this: Vox is right.

                  I saw what they did to him.
                  I saw what they did to his dad.
                  I’ve known who he was long before any of you ever heard of him, same for his father.
                  I was so active in conservative politics that I was put under federal investigation by the Clinton Whitehouse and it affected my ability to find a job in my chosen profession for a decade and led to me being re-investigated after 9/11 because everyone questionable had to be given another look.

                  So yeah, grow a spine, shoot left, and stop looking to sell out the people who are on your side because you don’t like some small minor thing about them.

                  1. > I was so active in conservative politics that I was put under
                    > federal investigation by the Clinton Whitehouse and it affected
                    > my ability to find a job in my chosen profession for a decade

                    I would like to hear more about this.

                    Because I’m *quite* certain that the Clintons would never, ever, in a MILLION BILLION YEARS do something like that.

                    1. If I need to put a /sarc tag on there then I’m going back and bitch-slapping every english teacher I ever had.

                4. I don’t often comment here, but I do read the comment threads (yep… all the way to the end… y’all can *talk*!)

                  But I had to respond to this: “All i can think is he either KNOWS what he said or he doesnt…and if he doesnt then he failed to make himself clear, and Im sorry, you do NOT joke about pedophilia, even if you have been a stalwart opponent of it. ”

                  As an abuse survivor myself, I can say emphatically, that Yes, You Do. Joking about one’s own molestation is an important way to integrate the simple fact that it happened into one’s own conception of oneself. It’s a way of hitting that sore spot hard enough to make it immune to the pain that it caused you. It’s a way to empower yourself in your own healing, to defuse that trigger. It’s a way of owning the You that you are now, and allowing the hurt child within yourself to grow up so that the abuse does not define you. Tammy Bruce does it, Milo does it, I do it.

                  I have frequently joked, in the privacy of my own life, that “I wouldn’t *recommend* abuse for a child, but it sure did make me stronger.” Fortunately, my family *gets* it, and nobody has created videos of my words, screwing up the context, then posting them on-line for the world to rip me apart.

                  Milo’s parsing apology was meant for people like me. Abuse survivors. He doesn’t want to apologize to anyone else. He’s apologizing for the potential for having his choice of words add injury to those who have already been hurt. Survivors, who, if they pay attention to the context of what he said, will absolutely recognized what’s gone on here. This is a man who has refused to be a victim to his abuse, who has refused to carry the pain, who has refused to spend his entire life *reacting*, who has become stronger from that which did not kill him, who has acknowledged, allowed, and even embraced the way that he has been deeply affected by the abuse.

                  This is not Advocacy for abuse. On his part or mine. This is encouraging abuse victims to become survivors who define their lives on their own terms rather than crying over their triggers forever.

                    1. Kathy F. isn’t the only one – and I agree with her wholeheartedly.
                      It is *very* hard (and perhaps impossible) for someone that hasn’t been there to truly understand.

                  1. > you do NOT joke about pedophilia, even if you have been a
                    > stalwart opponent of it.

                    The hell you say?

                    Comedy is Tragedy + Time.

                    Once enough time has passed it’s open season on *anything*.

                    1. “I’ve found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much . . . because it’s the only thing that’ll make it stop hurting.” Michael Valentine Smith in Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land.”

                      There is no such thing as “too serious to joke about” because the more serious it is, the more some people need to be able to joke to be able to deal with it at all.

                    2. Oh yes. When I could joke about “it’s the handsome ones you have to watch out for,” I knew I had passed from victim to survivor.

                    3. I’m still at the “If I ever find the guy, I’ll cut his balls off and stuff them down his throat” stage.

                      But it’s only been 43 years so there’s still time.

                  2. As an abuse survivor myself, I can say emphatically, that Yes, You Do.

                    Damn straight.

                    This holds true even for little abuses– for a sizable group, it’s how you can tell someone is actually going to be OK. They can joke about it– some folks, that’s HOW they get around it.

                5. I’m sure Breitbart’s reason for letting Milo go were purely financial. Too many know-nothings were choosing to boycott them because they heard the Media Herd first.

                  1. Milo Yiannopoulos said the decision was his and his alone. He choose to resign rather than allow himself to be used as a means for others to attack an organization he respects.

                    1. Of course it was voluntary….. Just like Brandon Eich.

                      Your level of naive is charming in my 4 year old niece. In an “adult”… /smh

                    2. He choose to resign rather than allow himself to be used as a means for others to attack an organization he respects.

                      Which was an impressively honorable thing to do.

                      Guy’s on the mainstream side of sexually acceptable behavior, but given time I think he might change his mind. He’s got a good core.

                6. Maybe a minor quibble, but I think it’s important nonetheless: Breitbart did *not* “let Milo go” for any reason, serious or otherwise. He resigned of his own free will. He says he was not “pushed out” and I see no reason to disbelieve his statement. Also, no, Milo is *not* “alt-right” and neither is Peter Grant (he’s published by Castalia House. So if being published by CCastalia House makes you an “eeeeeviiiil Alt-right” member, then that includes him. And I’m preeetty sure Mr. Grant doesn’t consider himself a member of the Alt-right.) he’s not explicitly a conservative, but he’s also explicitly *not* a part of the “Alt-right”.

                  1. Drat, it appears that I was ninjaed. (Someone pointed out that Milo resigned before I commented. I didn’t see the reply, because “WordPress delenda est”) oh well. Heh.

              2. As for forgiveness, you are correct…and he should go and sin no more. That IS the part you were thinking of too when you reminded me of my Christian duty, right?

                Thing is, its hard to believe someone WANTS to be forgiven if they start their apologies out by calling even part of their audience idiots and Never Trumpers. I voted for Trump because I was persuaded that he could choose real conservative leaders that would stop the Obamanation. It insults my intelligence to be told Im an idiot for calling into question a person that might otherwise have unique but loosely-defined methods.

                1. Your Christian Duty? No, I would never presume to imagine what anybody else’s Christian Duty ought be. That is between you and Him.

                  I do not see any great chasm between Milo repenting and believing himself unfairly maligned. As I’ve noted elsewhere this page, in any argument it is possible for all participants to have done wrong. I am quite confident that any crowd, especially that of a lynch mob, contains idiots. Why, I even suspect that at least three members of the Supreme Court qualify as that … and would not speculate what percentage of the House and Senate to include beyond imagining it upward of 50% in each chamber.

                2. Depends on what “sin” you’re talking about.

                  He is getting hammered for the “sin” of contradicting, in a flamboyant and aggressive manner, the media and political consensus on feminism and free speech.

                  That ain’t no sin in my eyes.

                  If you’re talking about the “sin” of being a pole smoker, do you REALLY think the media gives a hoot about that?

                  And are you *really* going to say, in this day and age with all we know about the human mind, and how much we really DO NOT know, that this particular sin is something he can help?

                  Oh, and if you think it a sin, do you eat pork? Lobster? Shrimp Cocktail? Cheese burgers? Do you know why that question is relevant?

                  1. Your parting shot might have a bit more oomph if your notion of the motivation was more accurate:

                    More plainly– you just did the “conservatives don’t support welfare because they hate black people” shtick. It might make you feel better, but it isn’t going to do anything else good, and will likely do a lot of harm.

                    1. No, I did not do the “conservatives…black people” schtick. I did the “stop and think about why you’re condemning someone” schtick and the “Don’t be throwin stones when you live in a glass house” schtick.

                      “While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.”

                      There are large parts of Leviticus that *are* about what to do for ceremonies (like not burning honey, but *requiring* salt etc.) but those I listed included dietary laws that are not “ceremonial”, they are rules for living. If you’re going to tell me it’s now ok to eat pork but not engage in specific sexual practices you’re going to have to do more than handwave.

                      Which may be (other than ignorance) why so many people DO quote leviticus, and not some of the other passages–because then they just get the whine about something that makes them uncomfortable, and not about something that they, their friends, kids and co-workers are doing.

                      If you get to pick and choose along some arbitrary line, so does everyone else.

                    2. You made an ignorant– both in terms of the person you were attacking, and of the long theological tradition in general– accusation based on your at the very least mostly false notion about why people hold a belief which did absolutely nothing to refute the reasons people actually hold that belief, but did an impressive job of demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the topic.

                      IE, same as the “conservatives don’t support welfare because they hate black people” thing.

                    3. Peter… the sheet with all the unclean animals that he was COMMANDED to eat… Paul in several cases. Might want to do a solid re-read of your new testament. You seem to have missed a few points. And on the one with Peter, one of his objections to going to the Centurion in question is the meals that he would be served (and required to eat) would contain things a Jew, by Jewish law could NOT eat and it would be a grave breech of the hospitality that would damage what he was going there for. You’re comparing apples and bricks.

                  2. Oh, and if you think it a sin, do you eat pork? Lobster? Shrimp Cocktail? Cheese burgers? Do you know why that question is relevant?

                    Yes, I do know why that question is relevant, and I also know why it is irrelevant as well. Since you appear not to know the latter, I’ll explain, briefly. In the early years of Christianity, there was a big debate about whether non-Jews should be required to keep the Law of Moses: diet, feast days, sexual morality, the whole thing. The Bible gives us a summary of that debate and its conclusion in Acts chapter 15, where the non-Jewish Christians were NOT required to keep the Law of Moses, but were asked four things: “to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” (Acts 15:20, if you want to verify that for yourself). “Food polluted by idols”, and the meat of strangled animals, are non-issues these days, and blood is mostly a non-issue, though in certain cultures where it’s a common food ingredient, Christians sometimes have to wrestle with that question. But sexual morality is still required of Christians, even those of us who are not Jews and therefore NOT required to keep the kosher rules.

                    There: that’s the SUPER brief version of why your question is actually irrelevant, even if it looks relevant at first glance.

                  3. At points in the unedited pod casts Yiannopoulos himself, when called on to explain considering himself Catholic while openly and actively homosexual, expressed the difference between having an impulse or desire and acting upon it — and his ongoing self-indulgence.

                3. I scrolled back to reread that to which you were responding.

                  … I think they would have been better served to keep the invitation but make it clear that Milo needed to address the topic and repent.

                  That is one of the great things about sin — if you sincerely* repent you can be forgiven.

                  The poster made suggestions regarding CPAC and Milo Yiannopoulos’ possible actions.

                  Man does not grant forgiveness of sin, that is a gift given by the grace of G-d. When Jesus told someone that He forgave sin people tried to stone Him — for it was understood that in doing so He claimed He was equivalent to G-d.

                  The admonition of forgiving those who have done harm to you is for your own sake, that you may be freed of the self destructive bitterness and resentment that comes with harboring hurt.

                  1. The admonition of forgiving those who have done harm to you is for your own sake, that you may be freed of the self destructive bitterness and resentment that comes with harboring hurt.

                    Well… it was also given when the norm was that you’d try to balance the scales yourself, as a matter of course. (and not doing it was a sign of weakness, which could get you killed….)

                    Which makes it a much more impressive order– “you wronged ME, the Maker Of All, and I forgive you when asked; you better be willing to let go of Getting Back At someone who asked you to forgive them.”

                    Instead of the usual five paragraphs of “no saying sorry doesn’t mean you don’t go to jail as a serial killer,” here’s an article:

            2. If being published by a specific publisher makes them part and parcel of that publisher’s politics, then does that mean that David Weber and John C Wright, both of whom have works published by Tor, are anti-Sad Puppy? Particularly in the latter case that would be amusing given that he was nominated for the Hugos by the SP campaign.

              (TTBOMK Weber hasn’t said anything publicly about Sad Puppies or the Hugos in general.)

                1. If you’ve listened to Milo’s YouTube videos, he gets VERY snarky when addressing the claim he represents the alt-right. Of course, if you look at what the alt-right movement is accused of believing, having its’ primary spokesperson be a man who has a Jewish grandmother (and therefore categorizes himself as Jewish from time to time) and is not just gay but flamboyantly gay with an expressed sexual preference for black men is objectively insane.

                  1. For sure, it would fall under a house divided against itself. Still, Momma always said, ‘Politic makes strange bedfellows.’ 😉

        2. This is just another internet lynch mob being stoked up, only this time with the apparent collusion of some of the larger media establishments — like Salon.
          This is the same thing they did to Paula Deen (for being a lady of a certain age and from the south and using a word used all the time in rap lyrics.) This is what they did to the scientist with the sci-fi babes on his shirt, to that British cancer researcher … and I’ve lost count of the others. A news station edited Zimmerman’s 911 call so that he seemed to have said something that he didn’t.

          I don’t do lynch mobs, and I have gotten very tired of this.

          1. What they did to Paula Dean is even more remarkable because there exists a WTOC interview with a friend and next door neighbor who happens to be black who knows first hand she is not a racist. One of those things that gets edited out.

            How this sort of thing works is through intimidation. Companies licensing Paula Dean feared loosing customers if they didn’t kow tow to the lynch mob. Not knowing much about the Milo business, that would be all it would take for Breitbart to ditch him.

            Notice that this sort of thing is only done by the left toward anyone they suspect of not worshiping their brass jackass. Bill and Hillary get a free pass. So does Roman Polanski. And I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting to see them apply the measure they hold Republicans to their own ranks. Ain’t gonna happen.

            1. Don’t forget those Salon articles that recently, “mysteriously” disappeared.

              Virtues are only there to hammer US. They hate us, they don’t really care about virtue, and you can find several honest enough to admit it.

          1. Mobs are a good reason to understand how to make your own area effects…which is why I want to get to know the Huns and Hoydens better 🙂

          2. No, you don’t want to go prone, not unless you’re on a rooftop above them. What you’re looking for are the people on cell phones who are taking orders from elsewhere and directing the mob, and the rabble-rousing leaders. Take out the first, and you break the link between the funders and the mob, harming the ability to coordinate and whip up future mobs. Take out the second, and the mob rapidly breaks down into individuals who have somewhere else they really want to be.

            (Though you have to take out the funders/organizers/coordinators first, because as soon as the violence starts, they’re gone and claiming their hands are clean – if they’re not whipping out press credentials and claiming they’re uninvolved bystanders after filming everything for propoganda uses.)

            1. Well, I’m a mountain-raised boy, so elevation is a given.

              Your second admonishment is well taken, though. Sometimes I forget to think strategically before acting tactically…

        3. let’s ask those getting their knickers knotted over this about their positions on school teachers violating their heightened duty toward their charges

          Forget that, ask their opinion on girls below the age of consent being able to get abortions without providing info on who is the father. Every single one of them will defend that excusing of pedophiles.

          1. Notice that’s also perverting the course of justice by destroying DNA evidence, and many of the people involved are mandatory reporters.

        4. although when I look at what he has actually said rather than what the people whinging “He said a bad thing” “believe” he said …

          Did it kinda jump out at you that he’s more conservative than a lot of people who are head-hunting for him?

          I mean, hardly a shock that CMR disagrees with him– Catholic blog, short version being sex outside of marriage is a no-go– but the folks who don’t want prosecution for college age folks and US-illegal teens are pissy at him for saying he thinks the legal limit is right?

          1. either that or they are sacrificing him for appeasement, which should result in the same respond

              1. It’s not so much hoping the crocodile eats them last. The American Left in its present state is rather fond of offending ineffectual milksops, even directly employing some for the purpose. Most of those involved are in no danger of being eaten. They’re either part of the crocodile collective, or the preening birds upon its back that are looking forward to some scraps.

                An effective resistance, though, is a direct threat to both.

                It was a real eye opener a when the republican party showed its base that it would fight hard and dirty against them, in a way it never had against democrats.

                1. Yep. I saw that with the TEA party. They are still going after TEA party types who got into office in the last few years. Note the reluctance of the Illinois Republican establishment to defend Steve Balich who won a spot on the Will County Board and is under attack from “feminist’ SJW’s.

        1. “Crocs eat us last.” This seems the most logical answer. I agree.

          But, it’s also possible that we’re dealing with people who simply prefer to lose honorably — according to their own morals.

          Milo is an outlandish gay guy who fronts an inflammatory persona. I know more than a few social conservatives (in Utah especially) who would never, ever allow themselves to be a fellow traveler with that kind of person.

          Even if it means the life of the ship.

          Better — by their lights — to cast the offender overboard, then stand nobly on the aft deck, toasting their own virtue, while the vessel goes down, and everybody drowns.

          “God will judge me,” they sniff. “Not men.”

          I know my people. I know of what I speak.

          I am going to bet this is precisely McMullin’s attitude, in funding and running the anti-Milo takedown. He doesn’t care that he’s carried water for the other team. He doesn’t care that he’s enabled the very kind of power-hungry Left-wing people who sent millions to the gulags of Soviet Russia.

          He just knows that Milo was bad, and somebody had to do something about Milo. Because reasons, and stuff. Because McMullin wants a “pure” team to play for. No “bad” people allowed.

          I understand the sentiment, because I live around this sentiment every day.

          But, having myself been made the target of the same Inquisition that just scorched Milo, I think McMullin and the so-called “battalion” are being tools.

          1. That, or they think that having guys like Yiannopolous on their “side” is detrimental to the potential future success.
            Which might make them clueless, but not snooty. Or cowards.

          2. He just knows that Milo was bad, and somebody had to do something about Milo.

            I would buy this if they ever displayed half the effort to so something about people who aren’t at least their nominal allies.

            If your moral preening only takes out your brother but never the thief I don’t find it all that moral.

              1. We defended them from attacks even as we had issues with some of their pet projects. Compassionate conservatism? Pfagh. I held my nose and voted McLame, despite him siding with that waste of air Ghramnesty

                In retrospect doing anything but busting the place up and leaving, “mission accomplished” with a promise to be back if they didn’t behave, was dumb, but I still defended it.

                Have they showed us loyalty in return? What have they conserved? Gun rights?

                That wasn’t exactly establishment GOP that pushed those cases, if I recall.

                1. It seems odd to jump on those on the right who decided Milo wasn’t pure enough and then literally name call others that you’ve decided aren’t sufficiently ideologically pure.

                  1. It’s not so much that McCain is “insufficiently pure”. It’s that he enjoys being the Left’s favorite Republican. He loved being the “maverick”, of being a frequent guest on Jon Stewart’s show.
                    And when he ran for President, and when his friends in the press turned on him, he never really learned who his friends really are, or who is enemies are.

                    1. It’s not so much that McCain is “insufficiently pure”. It’s that he enjoys being the Left’s favorite Republican.

                      This…I attack McCain because he seems to keep losing his knife in my back. Even then I still voted for him over Obama.

                      I have never attacked Bush.

                    2. McCain is NOT the Left’s bottom.

                      Bottoms have more self-respect than that and generally safeword at the end of their pleasure (submissives will tend to safeword at safety to insure their Top’s pleasure).

                  2. Shorter Bjorn: Mooooom, he hit me back first.

                    Lots of us held our nose…. and then his campaign staff bragged about how they took out Sarah Palin with McCain’s silent approval. Just how much of a track record for dishonesty will you tolerate?

                  3. Excuse me? Are we to never question and walk in lock step with what our leaders, the party and our ‘betters’ tell us?


                    I think for myself. I would prefer it if other’s did the same, i.e., think for themselves. (I know, that is a pipe dream to expect it will actually occur.) I have never in my life been offered a candidate for office with whom I entirely agreed. I don’t expect it.

    1. No. She’s just pissed off.

      Rightfully so, I think.

      (FWIW, I view homosexual couplings as abnormal behavior. Most of the time, the abnormality of it does not concern you or I. It also does not preclude sanity from the pair outside of their sexuality.)

      1. Personally, I don’t see how anyone who believes in the full acceptance of homosexual behavior think that reinforcing the notion that gay men like to screw teenage boys is going to help normalize homosexuality. But I’m apparently just a pussy, so what do I know?

          1. As a general guideline it is best to avoid taking what is said in the heat of argument too much to heart. Especially from people you deeply respect.

            It is always likely that neither you nor they expressed thoughts, or interpreted what was said, clearly.

            This is especially so when discussing topics which affect you as emotionally as these, given your stated “issues” due to having friends who’ve been adversely affected.

            1. As I’ve seen someone somewhere say about Trump, perhaps the same applies here: He (Milo) should be taken seriously, though not necessarily literally.

          2. I rather doubt that you know who I am, so you must be talking about someone else.

            Do you, for some reason, believe that there are no heterosexual men that like to screw teenage girls?

            If you do believe that there *are* some heterosexual men that like to screw teenage girls, do you believe that their doing so was a horrible blow to normalizing heterosexuality?

            (Just to make things clear, when I was a teenage male, I wasn’t screwing any teenage girls. Nor have I ever screwed a teenage anything. Ever.)

            1. I think that we look at grown men who want to have sex with girls just past the age of consent as creepy and predatory. You’ll notice the serious men’s rights activists like Helen Smith are*not* defending that “some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships” are between teenage girls and men old enough to be their fathers.
              One of the stereotypes that gay men have fought for a long time is that they’re sexual predators who seduce young boys into homosexuality. Having a well-known gay man say, “Oh yeah, man-boy love is great so long as the boy is 16” suggests that the stereotype wasn’t as inaccurate as a generation of gay rights activists have claimed.

              1. The ‘grown men’ and teenage girls thing needs, I think, to be taken case-by-case. Also, motive and intentions needs to be accounted for. My maternal grandmother was eighteen when she married my grandfather, who was about seven years older than she was. Likewise, Grandma’s mother was seventeen when she married my great-grandfather, who was also about seven years older than she was. It seems to me that there needs to be an accounting for the difference between love and intentions of marriage (both couples reached their 50th wedding anniversary; my grandparents made it to their 60th anniversary), and, as other’s have put it up there, ‘screwing.’

              2. You may view men who have sex with teenagers just past the age of consent as predatory or creepy, but guess what?
                Most men don’t. Otherwise it wouldn’t happen so much.

                And saying that a young man at the age of consent is the same as a per-pubescent child is comparing apples and ladders. They’re not even on the same page, much less even distinctly related. Pedophilia is rightly understood as per-pubescent children, though as Sarah said above, we set age limits based on having to draw the line somewhere, and that line varies. I’ve known women who got married and started having children at 14. Personally known. In the 1970’s. Even in California where the age of consent is 18 (but you can get married younger if your parents and a judge consent).

                For some teen aged girls, and yes, teen aged boys (over the age of consent of course) having a relationship with a much older man is good for them. Or with a much older woman. Funny isn’t it how no one is speaking of the other side of that coin.

                1. It seems to be a bit less common (older woman younger man), likely due to relative ages of fertility. My husband and I are 8 years apart with myself being the elder, and we seem to be an exception. Especially with the distance of the age gap.

                  1. Somewhat that (fertility). But also the realities of economics. A male at 16 was, normally, not established enough to support a family. A female at 16 was, normally, trained enough to raise a family.

                    That this is changing now is the result of changes in the economics (first world nations, please note). Of course, the higher ages of consent are a recognition in a way that neither males or females these days are able to either support or raise a family at the younger ages.

                    1. And, of course, one reason why the male has to support the family is that the female’s fertile years could not be wasted waiting for her to be able.

                2. Or with a much older woman. Funny isn’t it how no one is speaking of the other side of that coin.

                  If you really think nobody is pointing out the predatory females, you really need to get out more.
                  It’s there.
                  And adult women who go after much younger men are considered pathetic— rather like decent folks consider the fully adult men who go hunting for young, vulnerable targets.

                    1. *nod* My late grandmother was so horrified that people might now she was *14 months* older than her husband that she had a whole pile of traffic tickets due to having scribbled out her birth-year on her ID.

                  1. Define “much older.” My first complete experience was with a 30 year old woman at the age of 19. I was active duty, she was civilian and in another profession entirely. (Not that profession. Mind. Gutter. Out.)

                    1. If I felt like derailing the thread by trying to define the exact thing that got Milo in trouble, rather than point out that a claimed sexist bias was not supported, I would’ve gone into the detail required for it….

                3. I personally know a man who had his first kid at 15. With his same age range girlfriend. He took on a man’s responsibilities and began working. He and his wife are still together; and they have had more children since.

                  I also knew a 14 almost 15 year old girl who got pregnant by her 16 year old boyfriend; who did not abandon her or push for abortion. The reason why he was not at the basic childcare course was because he was working. He and the girl told their parents together; and their determination to set aside childish things for adult responsibilities won them support.

                  1. I alluded up higher to a different philosophy about sex being involved…there’s a massive difference between a married couple where at least one is just barely legal, and the hookup version. That statement doesn’t mix well with the folks who…well, don’t seem to want to deal with the predator problem, for lack of a better way of putting it. IE, going “Oh, so old enough to get married, but not to have sex?!” totally ignoring that people can lie and marriage prevents most of the problems involved.

                    1. Notably, the Left is COMPLETELY OKAY with girls as young as 13 getting abortions; even with the sting setup that the pregnancy is caused by incest, with the ‘father’ standing next to the girl.

                      Remember that one? That sting operation where the abortion clinic / Planned Parenthood had a woman pretend to be a pregnant 13 year old, and the guy with her pretending to be the ‘dad’, and the woman was saying that it was ‘her father’ who got her pregnant, and the workers were all, oh don’t worry, you can have an abortion, it’ll be ALL OKAY.

                      Hypocrisy. Iron-clan, invincible hypocrisy. Which they weaponize against us in double standards. Standards they hold everyone but themselves to.

                  2. My maternal grandparents were married when he was 16 and she was 14. Granddaddy had left school to start farming when he was 15 and was established when he married Granny. They had their first child a little over a year after they married. They ended up with 16 kids. At one time in 1957, Granny was pregnant with her last child, Mom was pregnant with my brother, and two of her sisters were pregnant, one with her 4th and the other with her first kid.

                    1. We ought acknowledge that a few generations ago 16 and 14 were more mature than they are today.

                      Heck, not only were the average 14 and 16 year olds prior to the Baby Boomers* more mature than today’s college students, the average First-grader was more mature than today’s college student.

                      *Possibly so called because of their prolonged infancy?

                    2. Kids tend to mature faster when they have responsibility– but it has to be real responsibility. You can do make-work for little kids, with “Do this or you’ll face MY consequences,” but that’s not enough to mature kids all the way.

                      Given that there’s a heck of a lot more damage a dumb 14 year old me could’ve done in a city, surrounded by people and property, vs a dumb 14 year old me on an inverter, this isn’t a black and white situation…. Obviously, I am trying to figure out a way to have responsibility without mass casualties, though.

        1. I think this is plausibly a motivation for some of the responses. The stuff’s been said many times before, by many people. If things are breaking for the right, socially liberal sorts might not want anything to have too high a profile that might reopen the question of ‘born gay or made gay by gay sex’.

  1. Saw online some folk, nominally “right” who were quite willing to throw Milo under the bus because “Homosexuality is immoral therefore…”

    All that hope for the future I’d been banking? Yeah, so much for that.

        1. If my only choice is the a-holes on the Right and the a-holes on the Left, I know with which a-holes I will stand. Given the dispersion of a-holes there is no choice to stand without them.

          The “No a-hole” wing has a lack of feathers.

        2. Where are we to go? I’m more suspect on the left among my own type of non-standard than I am on the right for being non-standard.

              1. That is a simply silly argument. Everybody should know that Diana Ross, Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson were chocolate, not white.

                Shame, shame on anybody claiming they were white.

              2. Heh. You know, they really don’t like it when they accuse me of whiteness and I give them a huge grin and say “Aw, thanks! I work hard at passing as white, so I’m so glad to know you think I do!”

                1. I’ve been trying to think of a snarky reply like:

                  “I prefer to judge people by their character not color of their skin–ooooh, I can see why you want to be judged by skin color.” 😉

      1. That post on Resistance? This is another part of it. Some time ago the “antibiotic of last resort” was vancomycin and it got used when everything else failed. And now we have vanco-resistant enterococci. Ain’t that wonderful? (NOT!)

        This? All the -isms, -ists, and -phobes aren’t working, so now it’s pedo- as the vanco. And what will eventually happen? The claim of pedophilia will become another resisted thing – only this time with truly nasty consequences as the misuse will trivialize the claim even in those cases where it is true. Yeah, having racist and sexist and even phobist jerks around doesn’t help anyone, but this? This will permit genuine damage to those least able to exert self-defense.

        Short version: The lying scumbastages accusing Milo are pedophile-enablers and deserve to be called such loudly and often. This might just be the ONE time it’s not moronic to suggest people “think of the children.”

        1. That post on Resistance?

          No, this was a conversation on Facebook. I saw somebody posting on the Milo issue. I was going to comment but then I scanned through the comments, saw those and…I just couldn’t take it.

          Sorry. I usually take the rabble-rouser role but even I have limits on what I can deal with.

          1. No, no. I was referring to that thing I wrote, posted a week or so ago now – and expanding upon how this.. incident.. is a ‘stepping up’ that will cause damage.

        2. See rape, Rolling Stone, Jackie, and Samantha Erdely.

          He said / she said is not going to fly in the jury box.

        3. The problem is that we’ve already conflated pedophile and sexual predator. The man who impregnated Lina Medina at age 4.5 wasn’t technically a pedophile — she had fully developed breasts and had menarche at age 8 months — but he was still a predator and a rapist.
          Sure, as the youngest mother on record, she was a living reduction ad absurdum, but her experiences make the point that pedophilia isn’t the only kind of sexual predation on minors. Balls dropping or a red flower blooming don’t automatically make a child able to consent, so the defense of “it’s not pedophilia” is the equivalent argument of “Arabs aren’t anti-Semites because they are Semites.”

      2. The left has no monopoly on intellectual dishonesty. (I say this with sadness, but to me being a conservative means especially recognizing human nature, and human fallibility for what they are.)

    1. Oh, it’s still there. The assholes shall always be with us. And this will bite the McMullinites and the left hard. BUT… We must not cave to the idiots, no matter how much noise they make.

      1. The problem is that it won’t. Not nearly hard enough to deter them. Because they figure they can stay at the trough as token opposition.

        I’m tired and depressed. I’m going to bed.

      2. I am still trying to figure what Evan McMullen’s endgame is. He cannot hope that he would be seriously considered for higher office after what he has pulled lately. The knives would come out for him from those who he has insulted one too many times, and the lefties he currently is helping would gleefully join in.

        1. What did those promoting him in the general election have to gain from doing so?
          The explanations were always transparent nonsense on stilts.

          I’m not saying it’s intentional sabotage. But I certainly can’t rule that out, either.

          1. I would disagree with you on that middle sentence. It basically boiled down to “I think I should vote, but all the main choices stink, because the two big parties have nominated New York liberals, the Greens are insane, and Gary Johnson is a blithering twit. So, this guy.”

            I wouldn’t be surprised if some people weren’t trying for intentional sabotage, but I wouldn’t say that was the main motivation.

            1. I could buy that.

              From someone who hadn’t demanded I support Romney. Whose positions and history were well to the Left of Trump.

              And who hadn’t sketched out a wildly improbable conspiracy theory where McMuffin was somehow going to prevent either side from being a majority (because Utah. Which i don’t believe any of them had ever even visited. But the numbers didn’t add up, anyway.) And that the House was going to save us all by giving him the office in direct contravention to the wishes of their constituents.

              But since nearly every NeverTrump pundit was guilty of at least one of those, I can safely rule out that position existing among the nomenklatura of the Right.

              1. I’ve got to question your contentions regarding the relative leftism of Romney and Trump.
                But yeah. Anyone who thought McMullen was going to be POTUS was deluding themselves.

            2. That was basically me, except I would have voted for Johnson had he been a libertarian blithering twit. But he wasn’t, so I couldn’t bring myself to trust him.

              Now I wish I went ahead and voted for Johnson anyway.

              I’m not sympathetic towards Milo’s remarks — and thus, I understand CPAC dropping him — but I don’t understand Breitbart dropping him too — and the fact that McMullen seems to be a force behind this annoys me to no end: anyone even marginally conservative already has enemies galore trying to destroy us. We don’t need to spend resources going after our own.

              And Salon deleting their attempts to normalize pedophilia just so they could go after Milo is a special kind of squick. The best that can be said of this mess is that it set back Salon’s efforts to normalize such evil by at least a few months, and hopefully years….

          2. I was pretty much at the desperate place, and after the election I eventually decided I must’ve been a little bit nuts.

            At this point between his CIA background and the other recent political activities of the CIA there may be a chance of a deeper game.

        2. He is part of the “if I can’t be in charge of it then I’ll burn it all down” right which would rather be second to leftists than to other right wingers.

          1. It’s also far easier to make noises like you’re putting up a fight, and “honorably” caving, instead of actually taking risks and putting up a fight.

    2. While I consider homosexuality (at least during child-bearing years) to be immoral, I don’t consider that a God given right to throw them under the bus. Probably half my friends (and at least 5% to 10% of my relatives) are sexual deviants of some sort; most of whom are extremely entertaining people to be around, so I’d probably enjoy talking to Milo on a personal basis.

      When it comes to sex, I think a modification of the Hippocratic Oath should hold. Not in “do no harm”, but in “Do more good than harm”; which really ought to apply to everything we do anyway.

      1. While I consider homosexuality (at least during child-bearing years) to be immoral,

        I am very curious, would you care on elaborating on the parenthetical part? Do you consider it only immoral for women? Are you saying only before puberty? If by “child bearing” you mean able to be a parent do you find lesbians over above 50 acceptable but gay men not until 80ish?

        None of these are meant to be inflammatory, but just very interested.

        1. Pardon me if this seems a bit long and roundabout. I want to make sure I establish the basis for this; and provide enough for objective criticisms. And I’m sorry if this causes anyone emotional distress. but I don’t apologize for having an opinion different from others.

          You ever get to the point where morality as dictated by Authority isn’t a good enough reason to justify it? Doesn’t matter if the authority is God, the Pope, Mohammed, or Mom and Dad; at some point you have to take it apart and figure it out for yourself when you’re ready to start acting like an adult. Then you need to actually know why.

          Part of this started years ago when I read Robert Heinlein’s 1973 Address to Midshipmen at Annapolis. More precisely, the second half as it applies to patriotism. His basis for what is moral behavior is, “behavior that tends toward survival.” You can read the rest of his hierarchy of moral behavior in the article. a shortened version can be found here: Robert A. Heinlein on patriotism, https://philebersole.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/robert-a-heinlein-on-patriotism/, 23 Feb 2017.

          Now consider several trends in population demographics in Western Europe, the United States, and other countries that have embraced both feminism and (nearly) complete sexual or gender freedom. Subtract out population changes due to immigration, and you’ll find in almost every instance, the total population is decreasing. We do not find that decrease in countries where women have few to no rights, or in countries where the standard binary two-gender human sexual practice is virtually mandatory and all others are prohibited (making allowances for population changes due to famines, epidemics, etc.)

          The logical conclusion is that there is a certain tipping point where the percentage of the population that engages in sexual deviancies (including homosexuality) pushes replacement rates into the negative. This means that family numbers decrease, communities shrink, nations down-size. It is a given in social courses that a one of the measures of a nation’s power and wealth is its population; those with less are less powerful than those with larger ones. Decreases in size of your population are therefore a threat to your national security, and your survival. When it happens to communities, they become ghost towns. When it happens to families, they go extinct.

          Extinction is as anti-survival as it gets. Which means social trends that lead to anti-survival behavior under Heinleinian definition would be considered immoral. I’m not saying that Robert Heinlein is the prophet of God; but the man made sense. Heinlein didn’t invoke God in his definition of morality; so you can label this as a humanist basis of morality.

          Look at it from a religious filter now. Why was homosexuality against the laws of most religions? Homosexuals almost never reproduced. Which means beyond being a shock troop in combat to save the reproductives, or a greater hunter, gatherer, farmer, they expended resources and brought no benefit of survival to their group. Those religions codified a behavior which led to the greater opportunity for survival. It’s a case where both religion, and humanism are in agreement on a basis of morality.

          Homosexuality isn’t immoral only for women. It takes two to tango; and both men and women contribute both genes and cellular material that can increase (or decrease) a child’s chances for survival. Sex, homo or hetero, before puberty is a waste, potentially dangerous, and children aren’t physically developed for it. All this being good justification for pedophilia to be vehemently opposed by moral people. Homosexuality after child-bearing years has little to no effect on replacement rates for a population. While men can still father children later in life, their viability rates drop considerably, fertility and fetal survival rates also drop. So it really doesn’t matter if it’s two greybeards doing the down low, or two old grannies going the lesbian way; they’re no longer building new population, and at that point, their diddling doesn’t affect their ability to contribute to the rest of the group’s survival.

          I will say that the GBLTQ population did commit a nationally immoral act by sabotaging our nation’s response to the AIDS epidemic by destroying any means of quarantining or identifying carriers of the virus. Their fundamental selfishness led to far more death and suffering, including of innocent children, than would have otherwise occurred. I can’t hold most of the gays today at fault for that; most of those who obfuscated public health efforts to contain the epidemic are dead from it.

          So I tolerate homosexuality. I consider it a chronic mental health condition. Except in rare instances, it can be overcome (consider the numbers of gay men and women who married and had kids as part of their cover.) I accept that it happens, and that it is a part of human nature. I do not accept it as a moral right, just as I would not accept someone being bipolar, schizophrenic, or in a homicidal rage as being their right. I certainly don’t advocate or embrace it; but I don’t have a problem giving my gay or lesbian cousins a hug every time I see them. They’re people too.

          Does this adequately answer your question?

          1. Hmmm…so reading your argument I would say your statement is perhaps too limited. Could it be expanded to:

            “Exclusive homosexuality during childbearing years without having already produced living children at replacement rate (2.1 so round up to 3) is immoral”

            and meet the “behavior that promotes survival” measure?

            BTW, that is an interesting and well thought out argument.

            1. “Could it be expanded…”

              I don’t think so. You see, much of human reproduction, even in the U.S. in this day and age, occurs more by accident than by specific intent. The more often a man and a woman have sex, the more kids they produce in the long run. It’s a matter of quantity of opportunity, not necessarily quality.

              There failing to be records, reliable or otherwise, showing the number of gay people in heterosexual married relationships; it’s even harder to identify how many kids, if any, they managed to have. The couples I do know of had only 1 and 2 children, which is below replacement level.

              Further confusing the issue (no pun intended), most homosexuals I know, and even some heterosexuals I know, have not been exclusively one way or the other in their couplings. My FIL, being a homosexual and a preferred hebephile, nonetheless would tumble a nice looking gal when the opportunity presented itself. (Yes, he and my wife’s mom did not stay married long.)

              So the non-standard sexual behavior stays as immoral in the pre- and reproductive years.

          2. Deviancy is not nearly the biggest problem. Feminism as practiced today is, forever looking for micro aggressions/hate of male.
            Homosexuality happens in all the great apes. We don’t know why. There was a study some years ago (and by some, before I was on the nets) that said that chimp bands with “homosexuality preferring” (note they’re all… everything) apes survived better. Partly because chimps could meet without killing another band, partly through the “nephew/niece” effect. We know this worked in human cultures, too, in the past. I.e. non-reproducing members be they celibate or gay (usually celibate) helped the reproducing family members raise more kids.
            What I mean is: it’s not as clearcut as you believe. Not so black and white.
            Heinlein never meant it that way either. Note going and dying in a war without reproducing would then be objectively bad. Except it allows your genes/culture to survive.

            1. You’re quite right, it’s not clear cut. Like climate change, we don’t know all the parameters. Heck, we probably don’t know what the equation is in the first place.

              I’m willing to admit that a 3 to 10% rate of homosexuality in humans may confer a survival benefit on the entire population similar to sickle cell anemia. Point to remember is that 25% die without it from malaria, 25% die when they get the gene from both parents. Only the 50% with one gene get the benefit, and there are detriments that accompany that.

              Should we stamp out all same sex activity ala Nazi Germany? Hell No! And I’m 50% German (well, Bohemian ancestry.) Should we actively promote it as my local high school appears to be doing? Uh, no. Especially not with my tax dollars.

              1. PRECISELY.
                BTW I forgive you being partly German, though it’s difficult. I had to study the language for 8 years and worked in it for a while. Mercifully, it’s left my mind 😉

                  1. Double pffffttttttt! Mozart’s Requiem! Bach’s Brandenburg Concerti! And Mendelssohn! And, and, and … (wanders off muttering to put on CD of Max Bruch…)

                1. Heh. German I can handle. French I mangled so bad my wife rolls on the floor laughing so hard at my pronunciation. Arabic, Korean, and Japanese I can order food, say please and thank you, and read street signs, but that’s about it. Portuguese gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it. My hat’s off to you for your multilinguisticality!

          3. Wow. Great perspective – I even mostly agree (with over 600 comments, I don’t think anyone cares about my quibbles).

            Based my older gay friends, I’d say the marriage rate was quite high. 50% or better wouldn’t surprise me. The child-count seems normal, but since they’re in their 60s or older, it’s probably low for the time.

    3. ARGH. These people drive me nuts. Because they are saying: Because he is a sinner (active homosexual) we will destroy him with a sin (bearing false witness). Because THAT sin is now a virtue because I’m a better person.

      Dante had a circle in hell for people like that. I despise them.

      1. The problem with destroying people for their sins is it doesn’t give them the chance to learn or change. I prefer to reserve destruction to those who pose a more immediate threat to the lives, safety, and health of myself, my family, or my friends. I may disagree with you, but I’m not going to punch you in the nose for it, unless you start swinging first; and I tend to avoid those situations in the first place.

  2. Sorry, no. I just can’t dismiss this as bad editing, because even taking it in the best light, he said there was something beautiful about a 16 year old having a sexual relationship with a man old enough to be his father. That’s creepy when it’s a rich old man with trophy wives, and it doesn’t get any less disgusting when it’s “just” an adult grooming his boytoy.

    In the full podcast, he talks about a relationship between 13 and 25 or 13 and 28 are okay. I believe him that he thinks pedophilia is wrong; I also believe him when he implies that as soon as the boy’s balls have dropped there’s nothing wrong with teaching him how to play hide-the-sausage.

    Tell me, are you familiar with the story of Lina Medina? Is that fact that she was impregnated at four and a half somehow less a crime because she had the sexually mature body of a woman? Is the man who raped her somehow less of a disgusting human being because she had breasts and was several years past menarche so it wasn’t technically pedophilia? We have statutory rape laws for a reason — they’re not there to reduce the fun of the sexually awakened; it’s to protect them from the real predators that exist.

    We can talk about how it’s unfair that Whoopi Goldberg can get away with trying to excuse Roman Polanski sodomizing a girl because it wasn’t “rape-rape.” But most of us realize that “Mom, all the other kids get away with it” isn’t a basis of morality. (Or at least, I thought most of us did. After the last 48 hours, I’m not so sure.) And “he pisses off liberals” is even less of a reason to excuse statutory rape apologists than “she’s a Emmy/ Grammy/ Oscar/ Tony winner.”

    I believe in freedom of association. I also believe that it’s a damn good thing not to be associated with the likes of Milo.

    1. Yes, he did say that. And? 16 is the age of consent in England. Do you know how many starlets will say the same thing about the director they’re bonking?
      I’m sure you hold NO controversial opinions whatsoever and have never said anything that will incense other people.
      I on the other hand am not so fortunate, and I came out of the political closet so I didn’t have to mind every word and every thought.
      You’re not shoving me back into that political closet with your complicity with the enemy and their demand we stand by EVERYTHING someone on the same ideological side ever said. Sorry. NO.

      1. I hold a number of unpopular views. I just hadn’t realized “it’s not okay for adults to bonk high school age kids” was one of them.
        And yes, I’ve incensed people too. I’ve had my actions edited out of context and put on cable TV. It sucks — but I also could acknowledge that if I hadn’t been in the wrong, there wouldn’t have been footage. And I publicly apologized for it.
        My grandmother taught me that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, and quite frankly, I’m not going to lie down with Mr. “A Greek name makes me sound cool.”

        1. It isn’t a matter of whether or not it is “okay for adults to bonk high school age kids” — it is whether or not people are free to express unpopular views.

          Stipulating Milo’s said what he’s accused of saying, I can disagree, I can denounce that viewpoint, without driving Milo from the battle.

          I am able to say: “I think he’s wrong, but he is still fighting against the people who must be fought.” Andrew Jackson didn’t have the luxury of declining the aid of Jean Lafitte’s men. Adams, Franklin and the rest didn’t have the luxury of demanding the Southern States renounce slavery before joining their revolution. Maybe we have the luxury of denouncing Milo but where is the need?

          Does Freedom of Speech carry an implicit clause of “so long as I agree with what you say”?

          1. At what point have I suggested threatening his freedom of speech? He has the right to be disgusting. I’m just not sure how being known as the people okay with gay grooming so long as the boy is 16 and the groomer is right of Hillary Clinton is part of our defense of Western Culture.

            1. You might be erring in your choice of target. We do not have to be “okay with gay grooming so long as the boy is 16 and the groomer is right of Hillary Clinton” to refuse to throw a defender of Western Culture overboard.

              Milo is free to express such views — and be judged accordingly — because he defends Western Culture. Acting on such views is a wholly different matter.

              Those attempting to tear down Western Culture are okay with his acting on those views so long as he doesn’t oppose their demolition project.

              1. I don’t always agree with Mr. Muir,

                but I think he nicely points out the Left’s hypocrisy in this matter.

            2. “And I believe it is damn good not to be associated with the likes of Milo” THERE is where you cross the line especially for me. You did not say “I prefer not to be associated with him.” You say it is GOOD that he be ostracized. You hand him the leper’s bell and proclaim him unclean. Because you disagree with him. Because you take your stance as axiomatically, irrefutably correct. You have not stated it as something with support you have stated it as ‘everyone knows this is wrong therefore he is beyond the pale cast him out! No one of good repute would have dealings with the likes of THAT! You’re of good repute… aren’t you?’

              You self-righteous hypocrite! Get the log out of your own damn eye before you start picking at other people’s eyes.

              I’m no fan of Milo’s I find his behavior distasteful. But he has as much right to his living as anyone else in the world. He has as much right to express himself and NOT be cast out as you do. Don’t like him? Fine. Argue with him. Debate his ideas. Don’t just say he doesn’t have the right to have his ideas.

              1. I have never said he doesn’t have the right to his ideas.
                I said that it’s good to not be associated with him. If I wanted to fight alongside people who think that “the heart wants what the heart wants” excuses grown men having sex with people barely above the age of consent, I could go back to being a leftist.

                1. Leper, pariah. Cast out the infidel! Ignore his words to the contrary of our assertions! Ignore his actions that directly repudiate what we claim! We have read his heart and know what he REALLY means!

                  (If you haven’t picked up on it, don’t step into the dripping mockery, you might hurt yourself.)

                  Based on your discussions here, I thought you WERE a leftist. I read his statements, and listened to the UNEDITED version of his speech. Either you have not or the versions you listened to were from some alternate universe because the words that came out of his mouth, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, don’t seem to mean what you think they mean.

                  There are many people I would prefer not to fight along side of: The vast majority of the young earth creationists for one. Yet there it is more important that we agree about the Rock of Ages than the Age of Rocks. Here it is more important that the man values freedom, including the freedom to disagree with and argue with him (which you do not seem to allow him the same freedom of disagreeing with YOU.) Than that we like his over the top black humor.

                    1. That triggered an association with another quote from the same source (although there is some question as to whether it is real):
                      “I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”

                2. I have never said he doesn’t have the right to his ideas.

                  No, you’re just implying that anyone who doesn’t use that single position as a reason to shun him is bad. Which is the kind of thing the Left does in order to divide their opposition, by insisting that all people who have been shown not to live up to perfection be cast out, or the ones still associating with them are horrible as well.

            3. You really don’t know anything about sexual orientation or homosexuality. Gay grooming? Doesn’t happen. By the time you’re sixteen your sexual identity has been formed. Whether that be gay, straight, or bi.
              Gay’s don’t recruit, they don’t have to, there are many young men out there who have already decided that they like men more than woman, and are looking for the same.
              And yes, there will always be young men and women looking for older men and women. Hence the term ‘sugar-daddy’.

              So come on down off of your cross, we need the wood.

            4. The issue of age of consent matters here and in Great Britain and Canada it is 16. In the US it varies with the state in question, but it ranges from 16 to 18, most commonly 16. Where it is 16 it remains 16 no matter if the other partner is 16 or 116. That is where the law has drawn the line. If you think it should be changed then work to change it.

              But all this amounts to a distraction.

              The issue at the heart of this bolg is freedom of speech. You do not have a society with free speech if you can be shut down across the board for having expressed an unpopular opinion.

        2. You recall one of the passages from one of Heinlein’s Lazarus stories where the hero, “surrenders to the inevitable?” If I recall correctly, he was a multi-hundred year old man being seduced by exactly the sort of young girl we refer to a s “jailbait”.

          I’m not kidding when I tell my wife that if a beautiful woman climbs naked into my lap, I’m not going to toss her out. (Unless you’re going to take her place, hon.)

      2. 16 is a weird, all-purpose age in Britain. An actor or actress can do nude scenes in movies at 16, no earlier, and can see the movies he or she made earlier at 16. Really, child actors aren’t allowed to see most of the movies they make till they’re sixteen. I don’t know the rating situation now, but up through the Eighties, most of the US movies that had some horror and violence and were rated PG here were rated X in Britain, which there means, no one under 16.

        1. IIRC, “Europe” tends to be a lot more permissive about sexual content in shows, while being horrified by violence; “The US” is the other way around.

    2. I don’t have to be associated with Milo to defend his right to unpopular, even offensive views. He stands against the tyranny of the collective.

      Heinlein “endorsed” group marriage, open marriage, sideways marriage and unmarriage — I don’t care because his views on marriage are not what the main battle is over, just as Milo’s views on “age of consent” or what is “beautiful” don’t matter. I can disagree with them on those subjects and still accept them in the battle — and it is only in that way I can hope to persuade them to my views on those issues.

      Because those are NOT the main issues.

      1. Also, let’s say Milo is outrageous. That’s ALL he’s being accused of being — he’s not accused of having DONE anything — if you remove Milo, the next person who speaks out of turn is “outrageous” And when those are removed, then you have the next, and the next, until someone — me — asking if our charity to Africa is counterproductive gets called white supremacist and a horrible person who shouldn’t be in the human race. Oh, wait, that happened, back when the right was a lot quieter. I’m not going back. No more quiet now.

        1. Milo is “outrageous” and effective. His outrageousness is a large part of why he’s effective. That’s precisely why they – the Left and the NeverTrump right alike – took him down.

          One of the things that most seems to upset the pearl-clutching brigades is that Milo treated his own molestation as a youth as a joke. Oh, the horror!

          And I hope all the people out there fulminating about Milo’s discourse on the age of consent, remember their outrage the next time you hear about some seventeen-year-old boy being unjustly forced to register as a sex offender because he was caught fooling around with his similarly underaged high-school girlfriend.

          “First they came for the flamingly gay alt-righter, and I was silent . . . “

          1. Any way we can get some kind of up vote on this site so I can endorse other posters without replying? Nicely said Wes!

            1. There is one in the wordpress reader. And if the person you’re liking has a wordpress account, they get a notification, but it has limited usefulness.

        2. Totally with you. No matter what Milo said or didn’t say, this sudden pile-on smacks of the lynch mob tactics of the Left, and I hate to see it coming from our side.

          I’d a heck of a lot rather be associated with Milo than with the lynch mob

      2. Of course he has a right to his views. He doesn’t have a right to be a speaker at CPAC, and he doesn’t have a right to have a book published by Simon & Schuster beyond the terms of his contract.
        If we’re going to defend Christian bakers the right to refuse service for gay weddings, we have to defend the right of publishers to not publish books they don’t like.

        1. The publisher liked the book fine, until the take down was executed.
          Look, I’ve been on the receiving end of this. So has Brad Torgersen.
          I’d take Milo at my back, pearls and all, better than the sissies hastening to turn on him.

          1. What saddens me is the people who appear to feel self righteous in silencing others. That is not a good attitude to embrace. It is instead an absolutely evil attitude to embrace.

          2. Milo’s persona is definitely not to my taste. Not at all. But as I told Chuck Gannon on Facebook yesterday, when the Left try to mulch decent folk and assholes alike, it makes an odd ally out of us all. I don’t have to endorse Milo, to recognize that what was done to Milo is not just wrong, it was wrongly done by people who think they do right, while enabling the greatest wrong our present generation currently faces.

            If the American Experiment collapses, there will be nowhere for us to go. Nowhere to settle. Nowhere to hide. We will have to fight, and die in place. While the Milo-haters congratulate themselves for their purity.

            I want no part of the “battalion” who happily sank the knife into Milo’s back. None. They are making a huge mistake. It won’t earn them any love from the Left, and it fractures and wounds the Right.

            Way to go guys. (slow golf clap)

        2. CPAC has the perfect right to change their mind. However, they shouldn’t have invited such a controversial speaker in the first if they couldn’t stand the heat. Simon and Schuster were blinded by dollar signs. The SJWs were hounding them. They saw the opportunity to cut and run. It will take some intense brown nosing to gain forgiveness.

            1. Costing his livelihood? Frankly, I expect him to use this as a springboard. Haven’t the Kardashians proved there’s no such thing as bad publicity?

              But even so, so what? Isn’t a conservative supposed to believe that no one is owed a livelihood? That it’s your job to make what people want to buy instead of demand they consume what you want to sell? If people want to know Milo’s opinions on things, they will. That’s what indie publishing, of both books and opinion pieces, is all about, isn’t it?

              And just to cut the strawman off at the knees, I *don’t* approve of the Berkeley riots that cancelled his appearance there. He should be able to speak at whatever venue is willing to host him, and the local police should try actually arresting rioters instead of sympathizing with them.

              1. The problem is that his livelihood is being taken from him by a bunch of lies. It’s one thing to say that nobody owes you a living, it’s quite another to take that living through deception.

              2. Never forget that in an argument it is possible for both parties to be wrong.

                Politically, our attention is best focused on which wrongs threaten our interests. I suggest that abetting lynch mobs is not in our interest.

              3. I don’t know Amy. Having been in the position of both voluntarily and involuntarily losing a job; the fact that many people end up in a better place afterwards doesn’t alleviate the pain, fear, and self-recrimination that comes with the phrases “You’re fired, let go, downsized, side-lined, laid off, etc.” I only consider it a springboard if it were planned that way, and it doesn’t look like Milo exactly planned on this as an outcome.

              4. So “I don’t owe you a living” roughly equates to “I will steal or smash your tools and blacken your name to prevent anyone from hiring you”?

                Good to know.

              5. The Kardashians have proved there’s no such thing as bad publicity?

                pish tosh and pfui

                Try telling that to Mel Gibson.

                Having suffered through the two unedited pod casts I can tell you: What Milo has said and what he has been accused of saying are not the same.

            2. There is scant need to turn on one another. In the heat of the moment it is usually desirable to make no decisions nor accusations that are not needed. I doubt Amy was any more inclined to purchase Milo’s books ere this than was I, and she is correct in defending the choice by CPAC and S&S to disassociate themselves from Milo, just as we are correct to view with suspicion their reasons for doing so.

              The foe is before us. We should avoid gratuitous confusion in the fog of battle. The issue is not whether or not we endorse Milo’s views, it is whether we endorse his lynching.

              1. I’m actually more likely to buy Milo’s book now if only to support him against these attacks. Circular firing squads are counterproductive.

                1. Exactly my feelings. I hope this backfires big time on the bigots. Milo is a “Dangerous Faggot” and dangerous to the enemy’s view of reality.

          1. Having several vague recollections of what Simon & Schuster has been proud to publish in the past, I am not inclined to acknowledge their moral rectitude in this instance.

            There is more than a little of the courtesan sniffing at the prostitute in their stance.

            1. I have no idea what S&S have published in the past, but I wouldn’t be surprised if your recollections are correct. And this is in much the same line as Salon deleting any and all attempts to normalize pedophilia before publishing their attack on Milo.

        3. No one has the right to speak at CPAC, and CPAC has the right to choose who they provide a platform. If they wish to distance themselves from the present controversy that is on their heads. Observers can form their own opinions about CPAC based on what and how it does.

          Simon & Schuster is a business and it canceled Milo Yiannopoulos’s book Dangerous because they did not want the bad publicity and what they believed would be subsequent dismal sales. It appears that the book may have found a new home. By the time it is published Simon & Schuster may decide they regret their decision to cut bait. Or not. Only time will tell.

          But once again the larger question is whether or not it is wise to completely shut down someone for an opinion.

          Having taken this morning to watch and read all that Sarah linked I haven’t the slightest doubt that Yiannopoulos makes his living being charmingly outrageous and overboard. I was not impressed by those who ran either pod cast, finding them needlessly crude and provocative. Normally I would never have spent the time. But does my opinion mean that no one else should be allowed to watch such?

    3. You need to read this, Amy. Milo is a victim of molestation who dealt with it by treating as not something terrible, a bit like the way Stockholm Syndrome works. He didn’t really say what you thought he did.

      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.

      1. Believe it or not, I read it before you published it here. Did you notice this bit?
        “My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous.” In other words, up until he got push back he just couldn’t brush off, he thought his victim status meant he had victim privilege. Hardly a champion of free speech!

        I have two very close friends who were also abused as children, one by a pedophile and another by “just” a gay man preying on pubescent boys. It messed both of them up considerably. Neither’s ever felt like their victimization gives them carte blanche to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive.

        I’ll buy that Milo’s a very damaged man because he was raped, even if he doesn’t feel like a victim. So what?

        1. I am not a huge fan of Milo’s but this is a hit job on someone who wasn’t speaking or possibly thinking clearly at the time. He’s a silly fellow and a little off his head. But an advocate for pedophilia he is not.

        2. Nonsense. As someone who grieves deeply but who also comes from a family that enjoys black humor, I have always understood that I had the right to joke about bad experiences. There are a lot of people who would deprive me of this right, even at the funerals of people who enjoyed the same black humor and are my close family. There people are entitled to their own customs, but not to depriving me of mine. If St. Lawrence could mouth off while dying on the grill, so can anyone.

          That said, Milo mouthed off something stupid. But that happens. Punishing every dorky or morally iffy word with termination and unpersoning is ridiculous.

          (Someone like Lena Dunham, confessing to committing sexual abuse as a juvenile and being unrepentant of it, should of course be dealt with promptly and kept away from kids. But you don’t notice any fallout for her predation.)

          That said, one wonders why the supposedly friendly interview source did not stop recording and caution Milo. If they edited some bits out for boringness (or for sounding reasonable), why did they not edit out the objectionable or outrageous parts to increase clarity ? This frenemy crap is getting old.

          1. Or Richard Dawkins openly condoning pedophilia recently.
            (It’s not like there’s a shortage of examples.)

          2. That said, one wonders why the supposedly friendly interview source did not stop recording and caution Milo.

            From what I understand, they are late night shock jock types and I think I saw them on Twitter excoriating CNN for taking the interview excerpt without their permission and out of context. If i find it I’ll post it.

          3. The interview was a livestream broadcast over the Internet where anyone could watch it. Someone then took a recording of the podcast, did the edits and then released the edited version as a separate video. I’m not sure if the source of the edited version was one of the other guests on the podcast or someone else not affiliated with the podcast at all.

        3. “Victim privilege”

          Hold up. I’m a sexual assault victim and let me tell you something.

          Privilege is something you earn. I don’t care how the term has been tossed around in nearly the last decade but when someone says “victim privilege” that’s when I say no way. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

          Below you’ve presumed your friend is married to an older man because she was raped. You make a lot of presumptions about victims.

          And “victim privilege” is such a nasty term. Perhaps one of the nastiest I’ve ever heard. There is no such thing.

          Remove it from the lexicon.

          He said what he did not because he earned the right but because 1. Sometime humor is our coping mechanism and 2. We have experience that gives us insight others don’t have.

        4. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I took his meaning to be that “I can say what I want to say about abuse, since I’ve experienced it myself, and you have no tools to silence me.” The same way his gay-ness should immunize him from claims that he’s homophobic, or his black lovers should immunize him from claims that he’s racist. It’s all part and parcel of the complexity of who he is, and how that very complexity can be used to neutralize the standard tools of the left and the SJW’s.

          It’s not the SJW hypocrites that are really leading the charge in this case, though. It’s the conservative hypocrites. Those who supposedly endorse free speech. I see that comment of his as an indication that he truly didn’t expect the attack to come from *that* direction. He was prepped for the battle space chosen by the leftist SJW’s. And if they had been his only opponents, then he would have been correct. That his status as victim would have disarmed them from attacking his provocations, enabling him to move on through the battlefield at will.

          As to your friends… yes, sexual abuse does do significant damage. It’s up to the survivor to decide if that damage defines them for life. Basically, calling Milo damaged now, negates his own right to determine whether he has overcome it in his life, and essentially demands that he live as a victim for the rest of his life.

          I am not permanently “damaged” from the abuse I experienced as a child. I *am* permanently *changed* from it, but I like the person I have become, so other than me, who has the right to decide that I am doing it wrong?

          And I do claim the absolute right to say whatever the hell I want, No matter how offensive. I learned that silence serves the agenda of the sexual abuser. And Offensive is in the eye of the beholder.

          1. It’s not the SJW hypocrites that are really leading the charge in this case, though. It’s the conservative hypocrites.

            There being no shortage of hypocrites on any side* it would seem that what matters is how we address our hypocrisy. The Left embraces and weaponizes theirs, the Right is embarrassed by their hypocrites. I think the latter is preferable at least to the extent it does not incentivize hypocrisy.

            *Even I am capable of hypocrisy; it would be hypocritical of me to deny it.

      2. Thank you for posting that. As you’ll see if you scroll down and read my comments below, it helped me understand what Milo actually meant.

      3. 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.

        Im sorry but this is classic parsing of the words. I can well believe that in the heat of an argument, words can come flying out of my mouth that I didnt think through or that dont clearly express what was in my head at the time, but if I am forced to replay the moment and hear exactly what I said, I think Id be intelligent enough to understand that words mean things and when they are spoken, they are out there forever. Which begs the necessity of being calm concise and thought out. Milo didnt deal in this particular method and now faces a shitstorm. Yes, Im aware it was a tape from a year ago. Sorry, but as we all love to remind each other, the internet (and the media) is forever. And we all know from life experience that what people remember you saying will last a long time, regardless of how much you have “matured” since then.

        1. So, having had the experience of revisiting words said in haste, you no longer say something in the heat of anger, or the flush of passion, or even just to get a reaction, right? You are always careful of what you say, even as the conversation around you gets more freewheeling, because you are always aware of the importance of saying only what you mean, exactly how you mean it, and in such a way that it cannot be interpreted otherwise.


      4. Thank you. This was easier for me, as I could pause and consider as I read.

        If anyone wants to see/listen to the statement being made it can be seen by following the third link provided above by Our Esteemed Hostess.

      1. Milo’s “Daddy,” for one. Which yes, I do find creepy. I think Thurm the Sperm was creepy for knocking up Miss South Carolina. I’m slightly squicked out by a dear friend being married to a man a decade older than her, but given that she was raped as a child, I’m not terribly surprised that she felt more comfortable with an older man.

        1. Then I’m certain that you are squicked out by Melania Trump. (she’s 46; he’s 70)

          How about Wesley Clark? After his divorce, he’s been dating a woman in her 30’s (he’s 71) See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391131/EXCLUSIVE-General-Wesley-Clark-divorcing-wife-citing-HER-general-indignities-inflicted-despite-affair-woman-half-age.html

          I can’t find the man’s name, but there’s an 86 year old General of some European army who had a child by his mistress when he was in his 80s. (It’s mentioned in the book “The Art of War: Waterloo to Mons” by William McElwee. I’ve got an actual book, so I can’t do a text search in it to give you the old geezer’s name.)

          It’s an old pattern. Men are still fertile when they are old, women aren’t. Younger woman marries older guy, gets pregnant and is guardian of both the child and the estate after the older man kicks the bucket.

          Note that I’m not claiming for a nanosecond that men are better than women because they don’t do that. The only reason why the pattern doesn’t exist for younger men to marry older women to do the same thing is that it just doesn’t work that way. A young woman can become pregnant by a man who will die of old age in a year or so; the reverse just isn’t possible (unless the woman has a heart condition or something; if that’s the case, I’ll bet that you’ll find a man taking advantage of it.).

          1. Then there is France. Politician Emmanuel Macron’s wife is twenty something years older than he is. He fell in love with his French teacher when he was fifteen. When he moved to Paris at 18, she abandoned her family to be with him. Now she may become the first lady of France since Macron is Marine le Pen’s chief rival.

          2. Unless I did the math wrong, Charlie Chaplin was 73 when his last child was born. He was 52 and Oona 18 when they married. A girl one of my sons dated for a while married a high school friend of her father. Old man, younger woman, not usual, but not unheard of. I do remember one saying oft repeated by some of the more perverted people I know: Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. Never invited any of them to my home. Technically, they’re correct. That’s one of those things where quaint old fashioned ideas like moral standards come into play.

            1. Historian Will Durant resigned his post as a teacher when he was 28 to marry his 15 year old student, Ariel. They were married for about six decades and in later years Ariel collaborated on the lengthy “History of Civilization” Will started. They received a Pulitzer in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 for their work.

              I make this point not to say that I approve, but to point out a few things. Some such relationships work out fine – though note Will’s need to resign to marry. Eighteen as the socially-accepted age of consent is relatively recent. The legal standard in various American has often been lower, 16, 15, even 14. It still is 16 or 17 in some states, I think. That gives me an ick feeling but such lower ages of consent were once common. There’s nothing magic about eighteen years of age – it is the current legal standard for adult, but with respect to maturity its rather a crap shoot.

            1. And there is a reasonably good chance I would have died before turning 2 years old if not for him. I had some weird digestion problem when I was weaned, vomiting and constant diarrhea, and the local doctors had no clue. My mother told me that I was down to skin and bones, looking like those pictures of the children in Biafra (what she was familiar with when she told me this) when she managed to get an appointment with Ylppö, who then got me into the at the time best children’s hospital in this country (he was a very big fish here in the early 60’s, somebody who would go on skiing vacations with the president and knew everybody worth knowing) and oversaw my treatment himself. And then remained as my doctor until I reached puberty.

              There are lots of stories similar to mine about him.

              So, what do you think would happen to the career of somebody like him in your country when he started to date a woman who was barely out of her teens? Would he still be accepted as a pediatrician?

              1. “In my country”?
                In my country he wasn’t doing anything illegal. He can be a pediatrician all he wants, and if I find his creepiness outweighs his abilities as a pediatrician, I can go to another pediatrician.
                In my country (this one) I got married at 18 because I wasn’t willing to shack up with my boyfriend when I went away to college. And if my husband had been 31 or 41 instead of 21, it would have been profoundly creepy instead of just a foolish decision that was made to turn out for the better with fifteen years of hard work.

                1. My husband is 22 years older than me. Your “profoundly creepy” is my enduring, profound love. You can be creeped out by that if you want – it’s a free country, and I’m not going to tell you how to feel (I’m not a leftist, or a self-righteous fundie.)

                  However, you might want to consider that your “creepy” is not everybody’s creepy, and no, we don’t agree that people should be “glad” when bad things happen to other people, even if the people involved include Milo.

                  I saw that interview. I turned it off because I found it irritating, and not being a statist, when I find people irritating, I turn off the channel or put down the book, instead of trying to destroy their livelihood with smears, rumour campaigns, whispers, and public crowing about how wonderful it is that anyone who thinks or feels differently than me has been taken down by same.

                2. My wife was 31 when we got married. I was 19. How much of a gap does there have to be, before “creep” sets in? I am honestly curious. There is what the law says, and there is what each of us personally must decide. And yes, my wife and I get raised eyebrows. Even 25 years after we first met. I tell myself that 25 years is a lot longer than most Americans in the 21st century, even when they’re same-aged at the time of marriage.

                  1. Calendar age is not emotional age is not physical age is not intellectual age.

                    Some people seem to regress, getting emotionally younger as they get physically older.

                    I find that, as a general rule, when you don’t know what you’re talking about — and other people’s consensual emotional relationships certainly fall into that category — it is best to tread very very lightly.

                  2. I feel I must attempt to set an upper bound to the lower limit on “creepy” here, since you asked:

                    I once worked with a man in his 20s (I think he was in his early 20s), who was dating a woman in her early 60s. I’m pretty sure he mentioned at one point the benefits of her being able to remove her teeth prior to commencing oral sex.

                  3. I was fortunate enough to have several older lovers when I was young. They taught me a lot and I think my youthful vigor rewarded their skillful investment. I’m sure it made me a more loving and considerate partner later in life.

                3. Pardon her, Theodotus: she is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of her tribe and island are the laws of nature.

          3. Isn’t the pattern a younger woman who marries an older guy, etc. etc. usually to a successful to very successful older guy? That’s not creepiness friends, that’s natural selection in action. Perhaps that creepy feeling is from running head on into the fact that we are no different than any other animals in nature. Tends to burst that bubble that we are oh-so-superior to the beasts of the fields.

          4. Historically, the typical marriage age of men in the Senatorial class of Rome was their early to mid thirties. After they’d completed their service in the Legions. The typical age of their upper class spouses. . . 16.

          1. Dear Charlie:
            “I find you creepy” is a good reason to not let you use my conferences as a platform and refuse to put my name on your book.
            Someone who believes in freedom of association, even for CPAC and Simon and Schuster.

            1. I’ll add this. He was going to talk to CPAC not about what it means to be conservative or any variation of that but instead about the battle for Free Speech.

              Ironic isn’t it that you want to take his right of free speech away from the person who was to talk on the topic of Free Speech.

              1. I’m not taking away his right to speak. Even were I a member of CPAC, I just took away a microphone. Everyone has a right to speak. No one has the right to an audience. I had no idea this was such a difficult concept.

                [sarcasm] Or hey, why don’t we have a free speech version of Obamacare! You must now buy into your local broadcaster/publisher, which may or may not be able to project your ideas as far as you want them to go. Those who can’t afford the fees with be given speech subsidies from the Department of Truth. This way we can ensure everyone gets their free speech rights! [/sarcasm]

                1. What you are missing is that between CPAC’s invitation to Milo and their rescinding of that invitation, NOTHING RELEVANT CHANGED.

                  There was a dishonestly edited tape misrepresenting his position on topics wholly unrelated to freedom of speech. Thus CPAC deserves to be judged according to their willingness to subordinate principles to fashion. Simon & Schuster deserve to be viewed according to their being cowed by the crowd.

                  Your sarcasm, being unrelated to any argument actually made suggests an inability to grasp what the issues here are.

                  1. CPAC deserves to be judged as damn fools for not vetting him before they extended the invitation.
                    “Oh hey guys! There’s this gay guy who’s pissing off liberals! Let’s invite him to speak!”
                    [they listen to him speak]
                    “Never mind.”

                    1. Except he wasn’t going to be there to speak as the voice of conservatism. Making this reaction to silence him show those advocating it as small petty and more immoral than Milo has shown himself to be.

                2. You claim they are taking away his microphone. It is a microphone that CPAC had handed to him in the first place and how is talking it away different than denying Milo his Free Speech rights to give his speech on the status of Free Speech?

                  What I am seeing here is that the so called conservatives are no different than the Ctrl-Left Progressives.

                  your entire Obamacare riff is just silly.

            2. But they did not find Milo creepy before this slanderously edited tape appeared, did they? Thus they are disassociating themselves from FauxMilo when they were perfectly fine with RealMilo.

              I find such willingness to join a lynch mob more than a little creepy.

              BTW: I do not recall any comments posted from from Amy Sly / Amy Schley prior to this post. Is that simply my general lack of interest in infrequent commentators or is this a new participant?

              1. She appears to be new, unless this is a new name. I suspect also a false flag, but that could be a misreading, and I’m modestly paranoid. She does seem only interested in championing the rights of Freedom of Association as long as she agrees with that association (evidence: the denunciation of any thought of Milo heading to Castalia House). Yet claims to be a former leftist. (Still seems to be quacking like a leftist. Not sure if this is an incomplete transition or a false flag situation.)

                1. If Castilia House wants him, let them have him. He has every right to speak and publish at every venue that will have him.
                  That’s what freedom of association means.

                  1. Except the ones you were lauding for deplatforming him and proclaiming that it was GOOD that he was being lied about, thrown under the bus, having contracts abrogated, and generally treated like trash. Freedom of association is fine as long as you, personally, don’t have to sully your hands with it. As long as you don’t have to live up to the standards you demand others live up to.

                2. It’s a new name. I didn’t approve her. She also changed name halfway through. ALSO I’ve known her as moderately rational to sane on FB. I’m glad I’ve now realized she thinks everyone who likes what she hates deserves to be taken down. I want to lay down a marker. I like anchovy pizza.
                  I’m trying to meet an impossible deadline, which is why this went up last night. If/when you’re tired of the chew toy, one of you with my number, or a way to read someone you know has my number (Amanda, Charlie) tell me.

                    1. Someone lovingly kneads the dough, patiently waiting for it to rise, punch down, and rise again. It is then spread with a generous sauce of tomatoes with delicious spices to enhance the flavor. Then aged cheese is lovingly placed on top, with other wholesome ingredients…

                      And now, someone wants to place pickled fish, head, bones, skin and all on top of a masterpiece of love and effort. Indeed, anchovies are the masterpiece of Satanic influence on earth.

                    2. Speaking of anchovies, was thinking about garum when I remembered something about a popular fermented sauce. Found a bottle and checked. Sure enough, anchovies are in the ingredients Worcester Sauce.

                    3. Anchovy pineapple pizza is the perfect mix of salty and sweet. It is also Lent-compliant (unless you are Eastern and have to skip cheese and fish).

                      Hmm. Maybe I need to call Domino’ s.

                  1. Okay. That’s it. If and when I run into you at a con, or other social situation, I’m definitely ordering my own pizza. On the other hand, you should go to Okinawa and try a Japanese attempt at pizza. Fish, mashed potatoes, and corn on pizza aren’t part of my gastronomic culture.

                    1. Eh, once you’ve got the other 9 or so toppings I like on pizza, what’s a salty fish added to the pile? It’s almost Caesar dressing, before the blender. 🙂

                3. She has been blindly arguing this point on farcebook with Brad. There she appears to be holding herself as the moral judge of what is and is not the “One True Conservative.”

                  Just as you see here where having moral judged Milo as bad it becomes proper to treat him as a nonperson.

                  1. For me the “voice of conservatism” remains Goldwaters “Conscience of a Conservative”. And while he speaks of “spiritual values” of conservatism, it’s in the context of the intangibles related to living in a free society as opposed to a totalitarian regime.

                    Nowhere does he equate “conservatism” with Christian doctrine. Almost like he actually believed that “Freedom of Religion” thing. (Mind you, Goldwater was before I started becoming politically aware and active so I don’t know if his voting history matched the ideals of his book. Still, I’m willing to go with the book as my bible on conservatism, which is pretty dang libertarian when you get right down to it.)

                    Unfortunately entirely too many people, including many on the “right” conflate “Christian Right” with “conservative.” There’s a good bit of overlap, but they are not the same thing.

              2. Mostly infrequent — I’m normally reading from my phone and trying to comment when the phone’s autocorrect dictionary isn’t even half as large as my vocabulary is a pain. But yes, this topic engaged me enough to break my normal rule against commenting here on my work computer.
                I spent most of last World Con hanging out in the Sad Puppies suite with Kate, if I need someone to vouch for my credentials.

                1. OK, it’s been several months, and no doubt I’ve forgotten a lot that happened that week, but I spent a lot of time in the Sad Puppy suite as well, and you’re not ringing any bells. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

        2. My mother was ten years younger than my father, thank you very much for finding their loving relationship that lasted over 60 years until he died, distasteful and creepy.

          1. Precisely. That girl sure can make horrible assumptions.

            My mother’s first husband was ten years her senior and she was not raped. There was nothing creepy about it either.

        3. That’s really funny. At one time, it was not uncommon for a man to make himself financially secure before getting married. My grandfather did that, and 40 married a woman who was 20.

          They had 10 children together.

        4. You think it is creepy when couples who differ a decade or more in age choose to marry. I find the way a couple treats each other far more important than their age difference when it comes to how I feel about them as a couple.

          1. Umm, yeah. Don’t want to go into any details… but yeah. Last serious relationship was with a gentleman several decades older than me. We just hit it off. Interests in common, you see.

            1. If I’d met an occasional commenter here when I was single, and he’d been single, (a conjunction that never happened, so alternate universe) I’d have done my best to marry him. And he’s my dad’s age. (BTW this is not regrets, I love my husband. It’s more a knowledge of yourself and what you might have been.)

              1. Came to nothing, eventually, since I realized that I was holding up both ends of the relationship – geography, the sad dwindling of age and all, but it was good while it lasted. I’m certain that he got a hell of a charge out of it, too.

              2. We had some family friends over once when our daughters were 14 or so. They were watching some movie when a male 35ish character hits on a 21ish female. Their daughter goes “EEEWWW!!! He is way too old for her!” Her mom casually replies “About the same ages as Dad and I when we met.” “Noooooo!”


      2. Amy made clear she did not approve of “rich old [men] with trophy wives” — a sentiment I share, although I’ve never quite decided whether I am more repulsed by the “rich old men” or by their “trophy wives.”

        But there are many things in this world by which I am repulsed and were I to take them all on I would have no leisure for being witty* on the internet.

        While I do not think Milo right to say such things, I think he has the Right to say them. Nor do I think simply saying such things renders him less fit for human companionship than Bill Clinton.

        *Whether I’ve the talent for it is a separate matter.

        1. “Nor do I think simply saying such things renders him less fit for human companionship than Bill Clinton.”
          Way to set a low, indeed below sea level bar.

        2. I used to babysit for a trophy wife who, in retrospect, I respect highly. She was quite happy with her lovely house and lovely son, and fulfilled her end of things admirably, so far as I was ever able to tell. (Beyond the obvious; her house was artistically immaculate and she did wonders as a hostess, volunteer, etc.) Her _husband_ rang all kind of warning bells with me, but things worked surprisingly well for them for damn on twenty years before going south.Fascinating stuff for my adolescent-and-older self to observe.

    4. You don’t want to associate with Milo? Fine, then shut up and stop handing ammo to the Stalinist firing squad that is attacking him, and lining you, me, and the rest of us up for the next few shots. The left is ALL IN in Milo. If they take him down with your help, they won’t thank you. They’ll just destroy you a little later, so that you get to watch in dumb horror as the rest of us shooting left get stomped one… by…. one.

      Survive first. Moralize later.

      1. “Appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.” — Winston Churchill

        And believing that he will get full and leave first.

        Won’t happen. He’s not leaving, and sooner or later he’s hungry again.

      2. They’ll just destroy you a little later

        “You’re a funny guy, Sully. I like you. That’s why I’m going to kill you last.”
        Of course, we all know how that worked out.

      3. The minor detail is that much of the establishment Right is all in on taking out Milo as well.
        It very much appears that most of this didn’t originate on the Left. They were just happy to opportunistically pile on.

        1. As I said on the other forum I follow:
          Is the conservative position, the defenders-of-Western-civilization position, the custodians-of-Judeo-Christian-morality position, really that grown men banging barely legal teens is okay?

          Because quite frankly, if that’s what we’re trying to save by standing athwart the tracks and yelling “stop!” I’m not sure why we’re bothering.

          1. Dear Amy:

            The key phrase here is “barely legal”.

            If it’s legal and you don’t like it, it’s still legal. But yeah, if it’s consensual on both sides, yes it is okay.


            Everyone who thinks more people should mind their own damn business.

            1. I guess I’m just not libertine enough to be a libertarian. Is it legal for grown men to bang teenagers over the age of consent? Yes. Is it right? No. Is it morally acceptable to talk about how awesome it is? No.
              And I guess I’m just a backward homo neandertalis Christianus for thinking so.

              1. On what basis, other than your personal squick, do you define this as “immoral”? I am not especially focused on the Bible’s teachings about “age of consent” but cannot recall anything in the text defining such behaviour as immoral.

                It would seem you are projecting your own moral standards and proclaiming them to have Divine Provenance. I believe there is a term for that.

                1. Extra-marital sex is immoral. I realize that’s not a popular thing to say, even on the right, but when my God, my experiences pre and post wedding, and observing the world match, I’m inclined to think it’s a good rule of thumb.

                  1. I trust, then, that you similarly reject all persons who have engaged in extra-marital sex and not repented?

                    I find your objection to May/September marriage is not explained by such principle as you’ve specifically cited deeming such marriages offensive.

                    It is curious that you defend entertaining unpopular thoughts while in the process of endorsing silencing a man for expressing unpopular thoughts.

              2. Now, I get it. Amy is more moral than we are. Now, it makes sense: She’s being holier than thou. Punish the ebul sinner! Thanks for clearing that up, Amy!

                Now, let’s see…what was that about a mote and a beam…hmmm…

                1. If you can’t find a decent argument against what she actually said, you might want to avoid the irony of personally attacking a caricature.

                  1. Honey, there are arguments all over. I don’t SEE a caricature, that’s what she’s been telling us. And she knows she’s been making a big ugly thing out of herself, hence the handle change, so it can’t be traced. (Her ip is the same.)

                    1. The name change is because my home computer logs me in through Facebook and the work computer logs me in through Blogger.
                      I’m the same Amy Schley who wrote for WoW Insider and the same Amy R Schley who provided a report on the first Tea Party in Kansas City, and the Amy Schley who made a stupid ass of herself on Heroes of Cosplay.

                      I’m not the child psychologist quoted in the article about shooting feral cats in Wisconsin, however.

                    2. and the Amy Schley who made a stupid ass of herself on Heroes of Cosplay

                      I still don’t think you were as out of line as you think you were…..

          2. Is the conservative position, the defenders-of-Western-civilization position, the custodians-of-Judeo-Christian-morality position

            So, since I’m not a Christian, I guess I don’t have a place in your “Western civilization”?
            How far does this “Judeo-Christian-morality” that you’re seeing yourself as the custodian of go? How much of your religious belief will you, given the opportunity, impose on me?

            1. If Milo has sex with teenage boys above the age of consent who have consented, he’s not a criminal.
              I reserve the right to think he’s a pervert, to call him a pervert, and to not voluntarily associate with him, even to the point of boycotting those who provide him a platform.
              If that’s not acceptable to you, we have irreconcilable views of what freedom of speech and association really mean.

              1. Apparently we do “have irreconcilable views of what freedom of speech and association really mean.”

                Because I find freedom of speech that does not extend to speech which I find creepy and immoral is not, in fact, freedom of speech. It is freedom to agree with me.

                As for freedom of association, defending the right to speak even when it offends me does not require I associate my views with the speaker. Guilt by association does not rationally extend so far.

                To use a historical instance, my defense of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie does not mean I endorse their views or associate myself with them.

              2. If Milo has sex with teenage boys above the age of consent

                Wow. You do realize, he’s not even being accused of that don’t you?

                Frankly, when it comes to allies in the culture wars I’m only interested in two things: can he shoot (metaphorically speaking in this case) and will he aim at my enemies? Everything else can be worked out later.

                Some people are more interested in their self-righteousness than in actually winning that war.

                1. Yes, I know he hasn’t been accused of it. It’s called a hypothetical; lawyers use them as a way of illustrating their points.

                  1. lawyers use them as a way of illustrating their points.

                    And folk also use them as a great way of dealing with what they want to deal with rather than the topic at hand. See also “straw man”.

                    1. This kind of insanity is becoming more common.


                      In much the same, way, they keep ranting, arguing, upset and getting increasingly hysterical, twisting in their heads what we actually say, dismiss what we’re actually upset about, and ignore the argument, in order to screech and condemn hypothetical actions which they already have determined we ‘do’ when there is no evidence of such.

                      Why need actual truth? Why need facts? All they need is feeeels~!

              3. How are you missing the fact that our major problem is with him being lied about? Or do you just not care because it’s someone you don’t like?

                1. Not only the truth stretching but the obvious collusion and targeting. This isn’t a case of a tape that just got released or a major event. It was a podcast that iirc has been on YouTube for years that was dug up by McMuffin (allegedly) and places like Salon prepared for the hit. Right now I am being extremely utilitarian on this. His sexual antics are not what he goes out to espouse, but rather that the mob veto via the media bullhorn or organizational power is not correct.

                  If you want purity, Newt, Reagan and Bush all should never have spoken at CPAC since 2nd wife scumminess, signing NoFault Divorce, and DUI And family coke issues.

          3. Yes, it is.
            Because being conservative is NOT about telling others how to live their lives. That is a left wing liberal philosophy, which you are endorsing. Conservatives are about less central control and more individual rights and responsibilities.
            Individual being the key word here.

            I have finally found your problem. You’re not a conservative. You’re a leftist. You want to control other people, you want to butt into their lives, you want to be the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, and anything that offends your weird social morals, is wrong.

            1. She said, point blank, in my conversation with her, and I quote ” If I wanted to fight alongside people who think that “the heart wants what the heart wants” excuses grown men having sex with people barely above the age of consent, I could go back to being a leftist.”

              I submit she’s still a leftist. Only now of the “Sister Bertha, Much Better Than You” variety. Actually, I think the whole song is rather appropriate.

              For reference:

                  1. Or she’s one of the many people who won’t say “it’s legal, so it’s totally OK” and is pointing it out now, when it’s someone who’s politically useful.

                    You know, exactly the people that folks will insist don’t exist the next time someone on the left gets caught doing sexually predatory stuff that manages to embarrass them… I can’t think of an example at the moment, but I’m sure there’s something that’s legal that they’d be embarrassed about.

                    1. Except she’s not. She’s saying it’s LAUDABLE for people to throw Milo under the bus for a pile of lies. She has ignored the fact it’s a pile of lies and lauds throwing him under the buss anyway because she finds it ‘creepy’. Not wrong. Not against her faith. Creepy. Which she extended to ANYONE with a substantial age gap in their relationship. She hasn’t objected to the fact he’s gay that I’ve seen (though this thread, and some of the things on face book are getting long enough that it is quite possible I have missed something.) What she’s objected to is “It’s icky that even legal older/younger parings exist!” And it is by THIS excuse that she lauds people actively, maliciously attempting to destroy him with false witness. Hence my own reference in my first reply to her to the log in her eye. Especially when she has upheld herself as a defender of Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian morals.

                      I will be blunt. Milo’s life style contains many things I find morally objectionable. He is very open about those things which makes it very easy to say, up front, without deceit or fabricated videos, “No, I find this wrong, and am uncomfortable associating with you because of it.” or “I think you are wrong in this matter, and here is why.” or, as relevant to some of his notions I do think are good, “I agree with you about this issue, but find your behavior on this other issue to be wrong.” She didn’t even go “Because I find his stance repugnant, I am uncomfortable associating with him even on the matters where we might agree.” She went “It is mete and right that he be destroyed by falsehood because he is beyond the pale.”

                    2. THIS. All of this. What she’s saying is evil and inexcusable. My judge (and Milo’s too) is beyond time and space, not between the ears of a human woman.
                      Also, I’m reminded by her actions of Heinlein’s dictum “Most people can’t imagine a G-d greater than themselves. That’s why most gods, as their worshipers see them, have the mind and manners of spoiled two year olds.”
                      Mine doesn’t. And while I’m at least as much of a sinner as Milo, in different ways (what, you thought only sexual sins counted?) I trust in the Mercy that is infinite to reach me where I am, and redeem me, even if I am a wretch of the first caliber. And even if I die unredeemed I trust Him to reach me, because I don’t think G-d is less than I, and I would not cast any of my characters to eternal punishment, unless they barred their door against me for all eternity.
                      That’s who I am, that’s where I stand. And from my infinite ignorance, I’ll extend to my fellow humans ALL the mercy I can and all the love and protection due to G-d’s other children.
                      I will fight active enemies, but I will not condemn anyone for anything that I just think it’s squicky. Hell, I won’t condemn anyone for anything, unless it’s active malice.
                      Taking a man down with lies is active malice and is evil. I will do what I can to thwart and battle evil and those who do it until or unless the perpetrator repents and changes his course.
                      Note these rules are FOR MYSELF inside my own head. You live as you feel right. But this is my place, and here I stand.

                    3. Again, it’s not about the legality or morality of Milo’s actions, it’s about the fact that he’s being lied about. Or are YOU okay with the fact that he’s being lied about?

                    4. Congratulations, you just showed why, exactly, she felt the need to explicitly say that she was NOT OK with the unedited comments — because failure to say it, every single blinkin’ time, gets snagged as a route of attack.

                      Either you don’t care enough to notice that I’ve repeatedly and loudly pointed out that the smear is wrong, evil and hellooooo violates one of the ten commandments— all right here on this very page!– or you did notice, but demanding the denunciation is OK when it’s something that you object to.

                    5. Foxfier: This going to look weird because I can’t reply to your comment later in the thread. I don’t see where she’s said that she explicitly doesn’t approve of Milo being smeared. I just did a search on the page and can’t find it anywhere. And I will admit when I’m wrong, you’re own comments were made after I left yesterday and I was commenting as I went along. I will admit when I’ve made a mistake.

                    6. There’s a limit on the number of times it can be responded to from the page, we call it “the wall” and it means that there isn’t a “reply” link anymore– if someone has an email link or an app, they can respond to comments that hit the “wall,” but from the webpage you can’t respond to a comment.

                      …well, technically you can figure out how to reverse engineer a “reply” by looking at the URL when you open a reply, and then looking at the URL for the specific comment you want to reply to, but it’s a bit of a pain in the rump and most people either quit when it hits the wall (on the actual-Godwin’s-law idea that it usually indicates nothing is going to be gained) or they respond to the last comment in that thread that has a ‘reply’ button.

              1. Hey now, that’s a bit much.

                The problem here is that conservative has come to mean nothing more (and nothing less) than “opposed to the Left”. Which does mean that there are a number of authoritarians on this side of the line. (Witness Kevin Williamson at National Review as a blatant example.)

                Personally, I’d draw the line through Plato’s Republic. Everyone who sees it as a beautiful utopia on the Left, everyone who sees it as a horrifying dystopia on the Right. But that would put Huckabee and Bushes squarely on the Left side of the line. (shrug) I don’t have the power to force reality to make sense.

          4. If a 16 year old girl climbs naked into a man’s bed to have sex with a 60 year old guy because she thinks he’s a cute old guy, or if she feels sorry for him, or even if she has a bit of avarice in her blood and expects some bling, you expect him to toss her out? Madam, you have no concept of human nature.

            1. And yes, I have a problem if the situation is reversed. 60 year old men should not be crawling naked into 16 year old girls beds. I never said I was logical, and early cultural training is the hardest to overcome.

            2. Especially in an era of fake ids and astoundingly early development.

              There is a way to handle it, and it’s why sexbots are going to be the next big thing: Guys will decide the game isn’t worth the candle. For any woman.

              1. We are rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can later do to him in the courtroom.

                I used to be joking with the “sexbots are going to be big. Invest now.” These days? Not so much.

              2. I remember a recent case. Older teen was sexting with someone online. She swore up and down she was of age. She was 13. He is sex offender.

                1. A couple GIs got busted here recently, picked up a couple “young ladies” drinking at the bar. Turns out they had false IDs and were under aged. GIs got arrested, girls didn’t.

                2. Seen it happen. Even to friends of mine. Had to talk a buddy of mine out of blowing his brains out when he found out he’d been with a 14 year old. The military doesn’t look kindly on this; and doesn’t care who initiated it or whether the youngster lied about it or not.

                1. We’re all worried for our sons. Worse, we’re afraid we’ll never have grandchildren because women have gone f*cked in the head, and the law is behind them.
                  This is how the world ends. Bare branches everywhere. (No, Islam will not outlast us, unless it ceases to be Islam. In current form it’s a parasitical culture.)

                  1. You wanna know how crazy this is?

                    This is how crazy this is:

                    Pamela Anderson stands up for men falsely accused of rape
                    Pamela Anderson says she has been inspired by her friendship with Julian Assange to campaign for men who have been falsely accused of rape.

                    In an interview on Russia’s RT network, Anderson said that Sweden — where WikiLeaks founder Assange is accused of sex crimes — “has these very progressive laws against sexual crimes, whatever you want to call it. It’s almost too progressive, it’s almost paralyzing,” she added on its “Going Underground” show. “I’m going to actually start campaigning for men who have been victims of being accused of rape when they haven’t actually done anything.”


                    “We all, of course, gravitate to volatile people and we consider that to be women and children first and foremost, which is important, of course, but there are also a lot of men who have a vulnerable situation and [are] politically bullied,” Anderson said.

                    The actress said in 2014 that she has been raped several times and has campaigned on behalf of victims of rape.

              3. You know, based on my accepted definition of morality, use of a sex robot during your reproductive years would be immoral behavior.

                1. I have the start of a story floating around where the sex robots are used to collect sperm for artificial insemination back on Earth. It got really bogged down though.

                    1. Now that I think of it, it could have turned into a Dangerous Thoughts story. Men were in space, women on Earth. Hero wanted to go to Earth and start a family, but that Wasn’t Done. Narrative crashed into a bucket of “As you know Bob.”

            3. “The Moon Goddess and the Son” has some of this – very tasteful and touching (I don’t think she was was 16 either). One of the best books ever.

        2. Understood. The GOP Establishment is not about freedom. It’s merely the slightly less insane half of the bi-factional ruling uniparty, who both seek power and control, using different rhetoric than the so-called “progressives.” Milo is unique in that he undercuts the false narrative(s) from both sides with equal ease.

          Helpful criticism is only helpful if it’s done politely and in private. Done publicly it’s counter-productive virtue-signaling which does nothing more than hand the enemy ammo.
          “Shoot left or shut up (so the rest of us can aim better).”

    5. Milo was sexually abused at age 13 by a priest. I don’t doubt that has colored his perception of the morality of the act. I am willing to consider his judgement ‘unreliable’ in this particular matter, without condemning him in other areas. I find the ctrl-left’s position to be total hypocrisy, since they have already separated rape from rape-rape. I find CPAC to be a gutless, spineless, morally intolerant group of bigots, and they exemplify what is wrong and rotten in the GOP today. Both of those findings are not new, they have simply been reinforced by the Milo controversy.

  3. I’m gonna go hide now. In all aspects of my work life, I am in a situation where my personal opinions are now unwelcome. Don’t get me wrong, I like my job and what I do, I just can’t have open political views without putting my livelihood in jeopardy. Not going to do it. I’ve talked to my pastor about my fear of speaking out, but he didn’t give a damn because he’s a committed progressive who thinks political correctness means being nice and not upsetting people. Yes yes, I’m looking at other churches to join…

    The left has embraced personal destruction and no one is too small to destroy. So I’ll keep quiet and hunker down.

    But if the do come for me and mine, unprovoked, because as I said I will not do that, they will be met with force…

    1. The left has embraced personal destruction and no one is too small to destroy.

      The credo of the collective is that there is only safety within the collective; so long as you pay lip service to the will of the collective you are free to live as you like. Hypocrisy is not fatal for those who abide within the collective.

      We ought not counter the collective of the Left by forming a collective of the Right.

      Should “the collective” be “The Collective”? It seems a most improper noun.

  4. All the social conservatives cheering about Milo’s engineered fall, especially my fellow Christians, need to re-read Romans 3:23 until they have it memorized.

    1. They need to think about that very very carefully, for if you believe yourself free of sin then you are saying His sacrifice was not for you.

      I don’t think it prudent to get into arguments about “your sins being less than mine.” as none of us are anywhere near clean enough to blow a nose with.

    2. I’ve noticed my atheist friends all seem to have a Strawman they use to argue against Christianity.

      I’ve noticed that Conservative Christians™ also seem to have a Strawman they use to argue for Christianity.

    1. No! Who would have ever imagined that! Lefties sailing under false flags? Why, what is this world coming to!

      1. Leftists (unmasked afterwards) handed out “Trump flags” at CPAC – they were faux Russian flags.

  5. I watched the Milo lives stream today, read up yesterday on Milo’s life.

    Before maturilty, Milo was groomed by a Catholic priest for “gay” sex. True. Milo was aged 13 – 16. His family in turmoil from divorce. The priest was successful in having sex with underage Milo. Think about it. How would YOU recover from something so awful?

    A Catholic priest attempted to groom two of my first cousins about 40 years ago. My aunt had gone to the rectory, she was worried franctic about my uncle, her husband whose alcoholism threatened loss of job, etc. The priest she discussed her troubles with was a pederast. Fortunately, my mother said to her sister, be careful, i have heard Father so-and-so might be “weird” with boys. So my aunt said no to father so-and-so for an invitation to my young boy cousins to go on a camping trip. Seriously, this is true.

    Milo has exposed 3 pederasts so far. He is opposed to adults having sex with underaged boys and girls.Why? It’s life altering, painful, humiliating,. His own horrid expereince he deals with in a mocking way. That is what was in the vidoes, which were cobbled together to make Milo look like a monster.

    I like Milo. I hope he can keep his “brand” going. He is a voice for liberty, and the young listen . His “schtick” is over-the-top, like an English rollicking broadway show, but it’s a show, with a serious message about freedom, freedom of speech is under assault, listen up.

    1. the young DO listen. he was the political wakening for my son, who has made posts here, and who is now a reasoned conservative. (And straight.) Milo has great influence with the college crowd. that’s why they hit him.

      1. I think the Berkeley thing was the final straw for the left. They had to use shock troops to shut Milo up, and that caught the attention of even the vast silent majority. Great PR that, they had to set fires and damage buildings just to silence an admittedly outspoken gay dude. People noticed, and that simply cannot be permitted.
        So, they did what they always do, and what has more often than not worked for them in the past. What was the worst possible thing they could smear him with that the ignorant might just believe? Wait! Attractive gay guy must be a pedophile or at least it’s a lie we can sell to the public.
        And just how many times have we seen attacks such as this whether it’s inappropriate relations with girls or boys, other misconduct, all of course innuendo, never proven.
        But we never talk about the darlings of the left now do we. Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski, Lena Dunham, the list goes on. They all get a pass because they embrace the collective.

    2. I don’t particularly like Milo. I find him weird and squicky. I nonetheless hope he can keep his brand going through this, too. Actually, I suspect that this is only going to make his brand that much stronger.

      On the other hand, I don’t think I can personally hold it against CPAC to disinvite him. If I remember correctly, they were going back-and-forth trying to decide whether to invite him in the first place. I think we forget that what we see as the “conservative” movement is a coalition of two movements — moral conservatives and libertarian conservatives — and Milo himself is right smack on the border of the two groups. So it’s no wonder that CPAC has a problem with him. They always have!

      The American Right has a tendency to police their own — if a politician does something immoral, they are much more likely than not to throw them to the wolves than to circle the wagons — and I like this tendency, because it means that the Right has standards that they sincerely try to uphold. Unfortunately, (1) sometimes the Right is a little too quick to do this — they sometimes reject people before all the evidence is in; (2) it makes us susceptible to the Left, because they have no moral qualms whatsoever, so are absolutely gleeful when they can destroy someone on the Right for doing something that many people on the Left do all the time; and (3) it oddly makes the Right look like hypocrites, even though by demonstrating that the Right does’t tolerate bad behavior, they actually try to live up to their standards (however imperfectly), they aren’t as hypocritical as the Leftoids who gleefully go after Right-wingers, while embracing the very people on their side who do even worse.

      In any case, the Left could go pound sand, for all I care; I will continue to dislike Milo, and continue to hope that he succeeds to teach others about conservatism and libertarianism.

      1. I the coverage on this I first saw was from people who’s apparent axe to grind included CPAC previously refusing to invite GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans.

      2. I think trying to define the American Right is probably an impossible task.
        The breakdown looks more like “Dirt People” vs. “Cloud People”. or Teaparty vs. the Uniparty. Those I would call real Americans have never thrown their own to the wolves, and those I want to associate with are not throwing Milo to the wolves either.

  6. Patterico has a transcript of what appears to be unedited video at http://patterico.com/2017/02/19/milo-on-the-joys-of-young-boys-having-sexual-relationships-with-older-men-unedited-video/. And the conclusion I draw from it is that Milo WAS, in fact, endorsing young teens (he gives himself as an example) engaging in sexual relationships with men a generation older. His own sexual experience with an older man was when he was 13, so that’s the context that his later words were said in. It’s not deceptive editing, and it’s not misreading him. He is saying that some teens aged 13 or 14 are capable of giving consent to sexual activity, which is a VERY damaging, and ALMOST entirely false, belief. (The few exceptions that may exist are always seized on by child molesters to justify their molestation, but I cannot deny that a FEW 13- or 14-year-olds are mature enough to get married, with all that comes with marriage. Used to be a lot more, in societies where kids grew up faster. But these days? Darned few.)

    Milo is a child abuse victim who has internalized the abuse that happened to him and justified it as being okay, and is now justifying the same thing happening to others. We should pity him and pray for him, and defend him against any and all unjustified attacks. But when anyone even comes CLOSE to saying I should defend this particular statement that Milo made, I say not just no, but HELL no. Because this particular abuse victim has internalized and justified his abuse, does NOT make the abuse that happened to him okay, and when he suggests that it can be okay for other people, we need to say loudly that he is WRONG on that point.

    I’ve already been accused once, by a commenter over at John Wright’s blog, of “joining the circular firing squad” by saying this. I hope the people here have more sense than that. We’ll see.

    1. Robin, if Patterico has that, he has the edited one. Look at my links and his press conference, please. Every time he referenced a 13 year old, it was HIMSELF. the video was edited to make it seem general.

      1. I still haven’t watched the video because this all happened during a time when I was either getting ready for bed, or else at work the next day with almost no free time. (In fact, I really shouldn’t be spending time here now since my lunch break ended fifteen minutes ago. So I’ll make this one quick). Someone who DID watch the video said that there was video of Milo during the whole thing, and that video never appeared to skip, so there didn’t seem to be any editing going on there. So on this one, I was going on the judgment of Patterico (whom I’ve always found to be careful with the facts in the past) plus someone else whom I don’t know, but who appeared to be a careful thinker and in no way an SJW type. (I wouldn’t trust an SJW to report accurately on this thing).

        But it seems that I did act carelessly in not verifying things for myself, after all. That WAS a failing of mine, for which I apologize.

        And incidentally, I don’t think that Patterico was being un-careful with the facts in this case either. I believe that he did, and does, honestly believe that the video he posted is unedited. So if that particular video was edited, it was done in such a way as to fool a lawyer who’s usually pretty canny about such things. I say this not to defend my own carelessness in not verifying things for myself, but to head off any suggestion that I’m accusing Patterico of dishonesty or carelessness; I’m not.

          1. Was the video on which Marshall spotted the edits it the *same* video that Patterico posted, or a different version? Because I’m getting the impression that there are multiple versions floating around.

              1. You know, this is exactly the problem and why it is called ‘Fake News’. Fill the internet with edited videos and snippets and obfuscate the truth with the edited ‘Narrative’. Even when they finally ‘release’ the unedited version, the damage has already been done, and only a small minority of the people will even bother to verify.
                Look at this conversation thread. Is the video edit Sarah’s son saw the same video Robin saw on Patterico’s site? How many ‘edited’ versions are out there? Are there more than a single ‘unedited’ version.

                Frankly, I am waiting for the ‘Hitler is told of Milo’s interview’ video to come out. I know it will certainly be the truth.

                1. From Stirling / Drake in The General:

                  “The purpose of disinformation is so the information stream is too polluted to see the truth.”

                  1. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-27/a-fake-news-warning-from-a-former-propagandist

                    “Larry Martin, a retired professor who lives in the seaside town of Rockport, Massachusetts, used to be Ladislav Bittman, deputy commander of the Department for Active Measures and Disinformation in the Soviet-directed Czechoslovak intelligence service. To create the kind of disinformation that changes the world, he told me, you need a story that’s at least 60, 70 or even 80 percent true. Even well-educated people will swallow untruth without too many questions if it’s plausible and it reinforces their existing beliefs.”

                2. For iirc the week after inauguration, Ace had a running log of the f-ups of the media on Trump. Never under a half dozen per day, often double digits. He stopped after a week because there were too many to keep up with.

                  But with that megaphone everyone thinks Trump was on phone with Putin editing Minnesota’s voting tallies and Milo straight up said he wanted to find a boy to molest.

                  TBH I think many take perfect as enemy of good. Are kids ready for sex when young, often not. But a significant minority will still have it. I don’t blame the kid.I do blame the adult. But he’s not advocating for diddling a 10 yr younger sister, or drugging and raping someone. Both of which are actions of those championing against him.

              2. In Milo’s press conference, he says:

                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.”

                The video that Patterico transcribed does contain that statement by Milo: “Of course, of course, and I think the law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age, I think it’s probably about okay …”

                So I’m pretty sure, at this point, that Patterico did post an unedited version.

                And even with an unedited version of the video, I misunderstood Milo until I read that transcript of his press conference — so I can’t say that everyone who had the same misunderstanding is doing so because they only saw the edited version.

        1. Experience has inclined me to conclude that if the Lord can eschew rushing to Judgement, so can I. Initial reports from the battlefield — ANY battlefield — are usually wildly inaccurate, and those urging urgent steps are not typically watching out for your footing.

          As Craig Ferguson has noted, “Does this need to be said; does this need to be said by me, does this need to be said by me now?” is usually a good series of questions to ask oneself.

          It is not humility alone (‘though that would suffice) that persuades me the answer to all three of those questions with regard to Milo is No. With regard to those denouncing Milo and demanding I join the denunciation: Hell Yes, who better than me, and if not now, when?

    2. Update: Now that I’ve found a copy of Milo’s press statement and read it, I need to revise some of what I said. Since I read the transcript, I did not get Milo’s tone of voice. And so when he said, and I quote, “I am grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.” — I thought he was being entirely serious. Having read Milo’s press statement, I now understand that that was black humor (a type I don’t use and usually am blind to), so I need to retract a part of my statement just now. I was, as it turned out, correct in my analysis that Milo is a child-abuse victim who internalized his abuse. But I was, it appears, wrong to think that he was now justifying that behavior. I apologize to Milo for misunderstanding him, and I retract the part of my statement where I said that he was endorsing young teens (age 13-14 or so) engaging in sex with older men. He was not, in fact, saying that.

        1. That would be just fine, Sarah, if he were still in the UK, but he’s been living in the US for some time. An adjustment would have been the decent thing to do. I frankly dont care about “British sarcastic humor” while Im living in my own country. I dont deal in British sarcastic humor. I deal in American clarity and forethought, of which I have been in awe and admiration for your own contribution. Im sorry Milo is having to suffer this shit storm. It sucks. But its thrown a pall on a movement thats already having issues defining itself.

            1. Having thrown massive amounts of poop at Trump only to see none of it really matter the left went for low hanging fruit (pun intended) with Milo. While I am delighted to see the left so bat shit crazy, there is and will continue to be all sorts of collateral damage. And for that I want to see the left crushed and in chains. Hopefully they will continue to act in ways that mandate that eventuality.

              1. In chains would be OK, but I would prefer permanent loss of the franchise as well as being banned from any office of trust or profit.

          1. Or, you could just recognize that there are types of humor you don’t ‘get’. Black humor runs rampant thru my family, and there’s a good chance we’ve been here long enough to have complained about your ancestors being immigrants. It’s not exclusively British.

              1. Anywhere you have the do and die mentality, or just dealing with dregs of society black humor grows common. If people heard the banter in the fire station down the road with the nice men who came and got their kitty out of the tree their ears would burn.

              2. “Of course we’re not normal. Normal people go crazy out here.”

                Hawkeye Pierce
                (From the book, whose resemblance to anything involving Alan Alda is purely coincidental)

          2. if he were still in the UK

            Why should where he’s living, or not living, now have anything to do with it? Humor is a personal thing and his sense of humor developed growing up in the UK. One doesn’t “adjust” ones sense of humor. It might evolve–or not. When I lived in the UK (I did for a while), the sense of humor I’d developed over 19 years in the US didn’t suddenly change to make, oh I can’t remember anything from that period but take a later example of “Absolutely Fabulous” suddenly become funny to me.

            Humor is a personal thing. Not everyone finds the same things funny. Most of us know that. In fact, I think most of Milo’s attackers know that but this is entirely too convenient an excuse to oust somebody they find “icky”.

            1. And a very in-grained thing, humor is. British humor, it was explained to me once, exists on two levels. One very highbrow (Ever hear the My Word radio programme? Often filled with examples.) and the other very low-brow (e.g. Monty Python). Whereas American humor, when it is actual humor and not mere shock-schlock, tends to the middle-brow. The result is that, once again, we have two countries divided by a common language. You can try to adjust for this, but there is much difference between ‘try’ and ‘succeed’.

              1. I was most fortunate in that growing up the local PBS station ran old Brit comedy shows on weekend nights. Monty Python, The Two Ronnies, Are You Being Served, Dave whatever his name was.
                Gave me a rather cosmopolitan humor sense that I still can’t seem to shake.

            2. American pop culture has a long history of rejecting British humour, as Peter Sellers, Dudley Moore, Rowan Atkinson, Simon Pegg and the Monty Python crew have learned. That is why no PBS broadcasters fill out their schedule with British originated sit-coms.

                    1. I could not decide with would be best:

                      “You might be wonder what I am doing …”
                      “Oooh Renee!”

                      Whatever I shall not offer to sing for you, there is not enough cheese.

            3. Agreed if he did not represent himself as a comedian and entertainer. Given that he does, as a professional, he needs to adjust his act to the audience that he is facing.

              1. Of course. Just like Monty Python’s Flying Circus changed their jokes to match local tastes when broadcast in America, right?

                Oh. Wait.

                Considering how popular he’s been as a speaker and entertainer I somehow don’t think you or I are qualified to tell him what he “need” to change.

                1. I recall the Monty Python cast being utterly mystified at the show’s popularity in the US as they were poking fun at specific politicians/people, not pols in general… but the US audiences took it as ‘in general’.

              2. Okay, Scott, as someone who actually acculturated to a different culture: adjusting your SENSE OF HUMOR can be almost impossible. Mine is still not American after 30 years here. Is there any other miracle you’d like him to perform?

                1. Yeah, and his humor plays very well to American crowds, anyway. So well, in fact, that Hillary supporters laughed when she told some of his jokes at a campaign rally. She didn’t seem to like that much.

          3. Ah, but aren’t we supposed to be more enlightened than the British? And allow greater freedom of expression? That should apply to the entertainment industry as much as anywhere else.

          4. Milo Yiannopoulos remains a British citizen, and officially resides there. He spends a great deal of time traveling in the U.S..

            One’s sense of humor is deep set and not determined entirely by place of residence. It has much to do with how the individual mind works. I don’t think you can change it like one does a suit of clothes.

            I instinctively understood and appreciated British wit. I also love American Screwball comedies. Things such as Benny Hill and American slap-stick are largely lost on me. On the whole I like the French farces I have seen and am particularly taken by those movies in which Pierre Richard stars. (IMHO The American remakes are never as good.) I find no pleasure in most of the present American style of comedy, which I find adolescent in all the worst ways.

            But all of this is my opinion. I don’t expect anyone else to accommodate it … except, possibly, The Spouse.

              1. I do not understand what is funny about inflicting pain. When you observed a child who thinks it amusing to inflict pain on others it is a sign of future problems. I wonder what it means when it is the grown-ups who are laughing?

              2. And I hate the peculiar form of American comedy where you set someone up for a big fall.


                Mortification “comedy” is more sadistic than funny.

                SOMETIMES it can work for dramatic purposes- one of the times that anti-heroes aren’t annoying– or it can be funny in a sufficiently cartoony setup, but mostly…*shudder* Just shoot the guy already.

                1. From the most tangential things… you just put a specific redemption arc into perspective for me, and may have unjammed a story. Thank you. 🙂

                  1. A dislike for “setting up for a fall comedy” is doubtless why I never liked “I Love Lucy.” Knowing that whatever plan she had … it would be a spectacular flop was not amusing to me, from earliest age. It was mortifying to watch Lucy humiliatingly lop, flop, and flop again. Why people ever thought it was funny, unless they were complete sadists, was a mystery to me.

                2. That might be a comeuppance, such as the given in the plot of Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons, which is not a comedy. Anyway, by the time things go wrong for the character in question (George Minafer) you are thinking he earned every bit of it.

                  1. I know the best adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo (anime version) was a rather straight-up version of it, and some of the Punisher stories have been, but I’m not sure how iconic they are– just know it was a rather good story, and only was “ok” because the guy being horrible was not a good guy.

                    1. Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo is lovely to watch, but can be rather hard to follow at points. I enjoyed it anyway.

                      (BTW: It seems to be presently available at Crunchyroll.)

  7. I certainly want Milo to succeed and move past this. Whoever publishes the book, I will buy it.

    The video is old and Milo has matured since then. It must be odd trying to explain how one feels okay about having lived through a relationship that a majority of society sees as surviving abuse. There are gray areas here.

    On another note another blogger we know has offered to publish Milo while at the same time condemning an award winning SF author who is a proud member of NAMBLA. Politics certainly makes strange bedfellows.

    1. Milo is too big for that blogger. OTOH that blogger is not stupid. Also, no contradiction. Milo does NOT endorse pedophilia, nor is he on the Nambla member roles. He has in fact earned their enmity by exposing them.

  8. If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
    Winston Churchill

  9. As far as consent goes I know a few 15 year olds with their act together. I know far more 30 year olds who have no business jumping in the sack. As for Milo I have not seen what he has said yet and won’t judge. I do know a gay community quite well that is overflowing with “boys” who have no other aspirations in life than to find a “daddy” that will care for them (their words) and have no clue that one day they will no longer be a “boy” and “daddy” will find him another “boy” to replace them and they will have nothing to fall on but their fading looks and well used ass. If you observe that scene you see it every day. That aside what bugs me the most because I have dealt with it personally is the hypocrisy of it all. If Milo was a card carrying liberal gay man taking up the cause he would be afforded protection but I have had oppressed members of the lgbtalphabet community spend more time than I cared to listen giving reasons why he should be thrown under the bus these same people confused and hurt when they get thrown under the bus time and again by their own when they are no longer convenient to the cause of the day or veer from the accepted talking points. That he is not a stereotypical hetero male conservative the right has no problem with driving said bus and those in the middle are pretty much standing by and watching while saying nothing. All sides I have seen including those who were his supporters are now quick to distance themselves from him and use who and what he is to justify their positions. When I had similar happen to me my parting words everyone were “first they came for me… which one of you is going to be next?” In the years since I have had more than ample opportunity to say “I told you so” People never learn. Never will.

    1. If Milo was a card carrying liberal gay man taking up the cause he would be afforded protection

      George Tekai has made similar approving comments as those attributed to Milo, yet where’s the outrage? He’s a liberal, so there’s no outrage. Any “outrage” on the Left comes from their revulsion as the messenger (Milo), not the message. In fact, wasn’t Salon on a pedo normalization campaign? Ooops, looks like they scrubbed their site (how strange) …

      1. Yes they did. About a week before this came out. Hence why I suspect there has been more than a little coordination. I do find this disturbing just as the ‘Has Justine Landed’ incident as well as Eich, shirtgate, etc. Media does take individuals, even nobodies like Justine, Joe the Plumber, etc and demonizes them.

        1. Well when he got tossed out of Berkeley I protested and I had friends in the liberal LGBT community come up with near endless reasons why he should be burned at the stake and he is not one of us etc and I am just sitting here thinking “and they could use the exact same argument against you” You try to point that out but “thats different he…” It just didn’t register with them. That is what bothers me because I have been there. “they” decided “I” was no longer one of “them.” People I thought had my back were some of the first to light the torches. It should scare the crap out of all of us no matter what orientation, group or political affiliation we have.

          1. Yep. It worries me because there are people who when pushed against the wall and alone will lash out. I have told people that certain pranks have a high probability of resulting in grievous bodily harm given my past. If it wasn’t for that I could live with em from those I actually trust with my life. You start pulling the trapdoor from people and it will backfire on You.

            Social ostracism is not better now than when daddy had the shotgun on his lap when you came to pick up his daughter, or the neighborhood biddies cackled that you had interacted outside your station. Social pressure is useful in keeping a core principle, but when it is all encompassing it is very destructive.

            1. There is that. I am fairly tame, try to be quiet and am slow to anger to the point I let people walk over me but there is a point too far and its one of those I actually have the pale horse and hell will come with me. I know that temper and I don’t like As for social I think it started in my generation (last of the 70s kids) and only got worse. You have people who are now adults having to interact with other adults after growing up in a life that had no consequences.

  10. Now McMuffin has acknowledged his involvement in the Milo attack.
    So not SJWs but NeverTrumpers.

  11. Oh you mean the McMullin that has the mutual admiration pact with Shaun King? That McMullin.

    Anyone who voted from him is going to need to scrub A LOT before they get clean.

    1. I voted for McMullin, switching from Johnson late in the game — on the chance that Utah could take its 6 EC votes from the Democrats and Republicans both. It’s safe to say that McMullin has effectively lost any future support I might have given him. He used dirty tactics to do a dirty job. As opposed to simply debating Milo in the public sphere, which would have been the honest way call Milo out.

      I no longer believe McMullin is honest.

      In a way, it feels like the Lewinsky scandal, wherein I cam to very much regret my Clinton vote in 1996. When you cast a ballot for somebody, you’re gambling that they’re not going to be a turd. I lost that bet in 1998, and I obviously lost it again in 2017.


      1. Keep in mind that you can only vote for who the candidate is, not who the candidate might come to be. Voting for McMullin may have been perfectly rational based on the information available, and what McMullin has become may well have been affected by that campaign.

        The Richard Nixon who ran in 1972 was not the Nixon who ran in 1968, much less the one who ran in 1960. There is that about running for high office which affects even the best people, and the experience may well prove hazardous to their mental health (but let us not discuss Alan Keyes.)

        1. Yeah, well, the Democrats don’t know what they’ll do in 2020 either.

          At a guess, it won’t be a candidate who can touch the mainstream with a ten-point poll.

  12. I’m a middle class, blond, Southern Baptist, and I’m a Milo supporter, not of his lifestyle which I think is ultimately self-destructive, but of him as a person with an imperfect past, and most especially of his mission. His mission is to regain protection for unpopular speech, really the only kind that needs protection.

    If Milo can’t say the things he says, how long before believing Christians, Catholics, and Jews will be forced to remain silent, unable even to defend themselves against the most libelous of accusations, let alone speak to the faith that helps define them? Milo is the canary in the coal mine. I wish him a speedy recovery, or it’s bad sign for all of us.

  13. I have a bunch of different but related Milo thoughts on my blog (which I can’t link to for some reason)

    But I agree with our hostess. the fact that people of all persuasions seem incapable of actually listening / reading a paragraphs without flipping out at one controversial comment when taken out of context is deeply disturbing

    1. Yes, it is disturbing that some people do get triggered. Kind of reminds me of the end of Kingsmen: The Secret Service

  14. If challenged about what Milo said, it should be sufficient to say, “I don’t agree with him on that and don’t think he should have said it. Why are you so eager to start a fight over it?”

    1. Guy I used to follow on the ’net had a saying, “bad behavior is bad behavior. No matter who does it.” That seems to fit what I’ve seen so far.

      Can’t access the video or transcripts for another eight or so hours, but my reaction from the *reactions* is “are you all frikken *nuts*?” Many of the tactics used to attack Milo are SJW tactics. Bullying, denouncing, shaming, etc, immediate denouncement of not just one thing, but a whole person.

      I can understand that pedophilia is a hot button topic. It is wrong. But I’m seeing a lot of folks acting on emotion rather than sober contemplation. I expected better of a great many. It’s hard to be the adult in the room sometimes, but it’s needed most when tensions are high.

      After I get a better look at what’s going on, I’ll make my call on it. But for now, for the love of chocolate, cat videos, and long naps, I hope we can all take a breath and proceed carefully. Never been a fan of rushing to destroy. Especially character assassination. It may feel good to ride that high of righteousness, but be suspicious of it- that’s what the Left does, and look where that got them. Let’s not be that way.

      1. There is a specific politician in the past. He was gruff, boozer, heavy smoker womanizer, and could be quite a lout. Thankfully Britain didn’t shun Sir Winston Churchill for actions that had no bearing on his work.

  15. So the left-wing DNC “Stop Trump PAC” wants us to treat Milo (who was abused by a priest and who now busts pedophiles) as if he is Jared Fogle (the former Subway pitchman).

    Not going to happen.

  16. I just skimmed through the comments. But reading the tone of the comments, and the tone of MSM takedowns of Milo, whileFifty Shades Darker is playing on movie screens throughout the country is somewhat surreal.

  17. Milo did not do anything. All he did was engage in an overly intellectualized discussion about a taboo subject, and in the context of an hours long live stream used some imprecise language. Plus this is a subject that hits very close to home for him given his experiences.

    There is no evidence he has ever engaged in or advocated or supported pedophilia. If anything he has been the victim of it.

    But let’s say he did, although you will need much stronger evidence than cherry-picked statements from a boozy bull session. Ok. So what? So his “crime” is that he once expressed a bad view on a sensitive subject. So is he supposed to wear that as a Scarlet letter for the rest of his life? Because that is exactly what his attackers are arguing, that one infelicitious phrase during a live stream should irrevocably ruin his life, and that he is not permitted to clarify or place it in context or walk it back. I’m sorry, but that is insane.

    This was a grossly unfair political hit. I do not expect the Left to have any principles or empathy. But the idea that some people on the Right would egg this on and accept this absurdity because they just do not like the guy is beyond self-defeating.

    Again Milo did not do anything. That he may have once expressed himself poorly or said something stupid is no basis for defenestration. Not even an apology. That cannot be said for so-called conservatives that played along with this assassination attempt. They are worse than false friends.

  18. I’ve slowly, gradually, achingly reached the conclusion that for a committed ctrl-Leftist, there is not now, nor can there ever be, a Good Conservative. There are Nice Conservatives — who will of course be patted on the head and given table scraps, for being willfully second class human beings in the hierarchy of moral perfection — but there are no Good Conservatives.

    Because Mitt Romney never got treated any better than they treated Bush before him, nor Trump after him.

    I happen to think Mitt was the most genuinely decent person to run for the Presidency since Reagan, and yet Romney got called Literally Hitler just like they call all of us Literally Hitler, whenever it suits them.

    The Nice Conservative is an indentured servant, polishing the silver in the ctrl-Leftist mansion. Never speaking unless spoken to. Tipping his hat. Straining to smile, and step out of the way.

    And as soon as any of us stop being Nice, or we actually start to peel their grubby little paws off the levers of power, they freak out. It’s a four-alarm house fire. We all become Literally Hitler. For daring to stand up.

    Thus the Nice Conservative will get thrown out of the mansion and beaten with a rod, along with all the other Mean Conservatives — whenever it suits the ctrl-Leftist Master’s purposes.

    Ergo, we are all Deplorable. All of us.

    I used to think that if I was just patient enough, and kept my powder dry, that I could make a difference. That I could appeal to the better angels of ctrl-Leftist nature. I desperately wanted to believe hat reason and good will and careful argument could win. I rallied to flags I thought reflected a similar sentiment.

    Nope. We all get kicked to the curb, regardless. We all get painted with the same brush. We are all evil. All of us together. No save for the Nice Conservative. It’s Literally Hitler time.

    So I no longer believe them when they tell me I have to slit somebody’s throat, to demonstrate I have standards and can be counted as a Nice Conservative. It won’t save me from their scorn, when the chips are down. They will label me Literally Hitler, and there will be a trail of bodies on my own side — people betrayed for the sake of hoping that the ctrl-Left actually understand the true meaning of honor.

    But they do not.


    1. The only Republican one mouthpiece, er, columnist likes happens to be one that acts like Obama’s hand’s run up inside his back. Of course they think we’re all deplorable. When Hillary came up with that “. . . basket of deplorables,” I wanted something that said “Deplorable me,” done like the Despicable Me poster.

      The amazing thing is the number of Republicans who still think they can sit at the “cool kids” table if they jump through enough hoops. Ain’t gonna happen. Just like I wonder if a certain cartoonist thinks he can win a Hugo by making the right noises, Ain’t gonna happen, either.

      1. I despise Trump. I decided long before he won the nomination that I wouldn’t be voting for him.

        But when Hillary made that comment about Trump, I immediately thought, “I’m one of those irredeemable deplorables that you are talking about, and I’m not even voting for the guy!”

        I think we all would benefit from learning to be unpopular. Who knows? We may find ourselves more popular than we realize, by doing so!

    2. And if you are a perfect “nice conservative” who bows and scrapes, they won’t like you – they will just despise you. And rightly so, imo.

      Look at who they actually adore and make excuses for – actual dictatorial leaders, who ignore the law and push their way – Obama, Pelosi, DeBlasio (and Castro, Mao, etc). AND Muslims who want sharia. Sweden’s “feminist government” went to Iran in hijabs.

      They say they want their way, but in truth they are Loki’s perfect subjects:
      Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

      It’s better to be assert your rights. They Left will still despise you, but they will also fear you.

        1. And practice, practice, practice.
          SInce they are seriously talking about banning black silouette targets I’m thinking of having a batch made up in bright red. Think they’ll sell?

      1. And the final lesson: Moral courage without firepower and the willingness to USE IT means you’re roadkill.

    3. While understanding your point, I disagree with its application.
      I’ve never backed Yiannopolous, and it’s not because he doesn’t meet the left’s standards of “acceptable views and behaviors.” It’s because he doesn’t meet mine–much like Lena Dunham, in that regard.

      1. Amen. It’s the same argument I had with Trump — if I wanted to vote for politicians who believe in big government spending, eminent domain abuse, identity politics, and a rejection of social conservatism, I could have stayed a Democrat.
        If being on the right means ignoring the scat coming from the resident attack dog “because he fights!” I don’t belong here either.

        1. If you wanted to impose ideological purity on your coalition you probably ought have stayed on the Left.

          1. Actually, those are all the reasons I didn’t vote for Trump, too, even in the General Election. It still boggles my mind that, for all my worries that Trump would do all these things, he’s only done about one or two of them so far — and that, for the most part, he’s acted Conservative.

            I have often feared that the other shoe will drop, and will do so soon; I have often wondered, too, what Trump’s motivations are. (At this point, I almost think his motivation is revenge against the Democrats in particular, and the Establishment in general; if so, the constant harassment by the Press and by Democrats in general aren’t doing themselves any favors.)

            While I can understand the need to be at least a little flexible in ideology when trying to choose a candidate, there’s only so much bending that one’s ideology can take before it breaks….

              1. I think this is the case. I worry a little bit that Republicans oppose Trump as well, but I think this is a mixture of being a gadfly to the Establishment, and the fact that Republicans are bewildered and don’t quite know what to make of Trump…so they kindof oppose him, but not in the full-fledged way that Democrats have done.

                And if this is Trump’s motivation, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot (with a bazooka! of all things) by dialing up their opposition to 11.

                And while I might not particularly like Trump, I’m REALLY tired of hearing how every little move he makes is ABSOLUTE PROOF that he’s incompetent, and doesn’t know what he’s doing, particularly when after I sift through all the hysteria, he seems to be doing a pretty descent job so far!

        2. And if I wanted to just virtue signal and continue to fail and conserving anything I would have stayed with the Conservatives. “Loosing with honor” is still loosing.

          1. If you want the “dump everything you believe in so that we can win” team, it’s over to the left.

            I want the right– conservatism– to win because it’s Right, not because it’s where I am.

            1. “I want the right– conservatism– to win because it’s Right,”

              Of course that leads to the next question: was Evan McMullin right to take out someone he thought was Wrong through deception? And will you call the Stasi on us wrongthinkers?

              The Left already knows where it thinks you are, and what to do with you.

              1. Of course that leads to the next question: was Evan McMullin right to take out someone he thought was Wrong through deception? And will you call the Stasi on us wrongthinkers?

                Quit being ridiculous.

                1. Quit being disingenuous: if something is really Wrong as opposed to Right on the scales of cosmic justice you are referring to, how far is too far?

                  1. Evan McMullin is not conservative. And he has gone from being a useful idiot to a malicious idiot. I suppose McCain is his model, but McCain isn’ t conservative, either.

                    So yes, bringing him up was ridiculous.

                  2. Quit being disingenuous: if something is really Wrong as opposed to Right on the scales of cosmic justice you are referring to, how far is too far?

                    Don’t accuse me of your problems– unless you’re setting up to argue that it wouldn’t matter if Milo was not only guilty of promoting pedophilia, but practiced it himself, you do not actually believe that anyone who will act against objective wrongs is a cowardly murderer.

                  3. So, if the NAZIs are evil enough it is okay to use the NAZIs tactics on them?

                    Wasn’t it Lenin who was famous about saying the ends justify the means?

                    1. Precisely the point. If the end is as objectively wrong as fox and others are claiming, then those means are justified. It’s just another example of “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like there is one.”

                    2. If the end is as objectively wrong as fox and others are claiming, then those means are justified.

                      1) That is not how it works.
                      2) That makes three false accusations so far, without rational support.

                      ‘The ends justify the means’ is a statement involved in the argument about if good ends make it OK to use bad means; it is only involved in so far as you have no issue with at least giving a pass to sexual predation so long as it’s legal because the person involved is really useful, but you do have a huge issue with others finding that to be a bridge too far.

                    3. Fox, Milo “predated” ON NO ONE. He was talking about his first relationship.
                      HEAVENS ABOVE WOMAN. you have the wrong side of the stick. you’re not required to defend every thick headed priss who claims to be moral. Go read John C. Wright on the subject, take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

                    4. That is why I said ‘giving a pass.’

                      If I thought he *was* one of the predators, I would’ve been vocal a long time before now.

                      I think he’s… well, like your brother’s friends, the ones that you’ve mentioned would talk about how having relations early on was a great thing, because that’s what the philosophy said, but when it actually came to living it, they were honorable guys.

                      So I figure he’s wrong, but in a way that’s in line with the majority of current culture and thus that I’ll only mention when folks keep bringing it up or it’s otherwise relevant.

                      Same way that I don’t feel the need to constantly mention that my respect for human rights means that I believe those who are pro-abortion are wrong, unless it keeps being brought up.
                      Actually, that may be a good way to reframe the issue… it’s like if someone was having a discussion about abortion,and it was recut so that it sounded like they were promoting the kill-anybody-under-five theory that was going around a while back.

                    5. That bit about the ‘kill everyone under five’ thing really annoyed me on behalf of the ethicists involved. They were demonized on both sides for doing their jobs, and applying logical conclusions to theoretical concepts to analyze something relevant. At no point did they advocate for any of the positions, but only took the positions and applied them hypothetically (ergo, in a thought exercise) and went “Does the position held still hold true?” and went down the line of various “If… then” positions/limitations/concepts/arguments held by the pro-abort and pro-life groups. They then presented their findings in a detailed paper.

                      For the pro-life position, well, pro-life.

                      For the pro-abortion position, since part of the arguments is often made against the baby is “Can it support itself? Can it survive on its’ own, without outside intervention, if not, then it’s not ‘alive’ and thus is moral to abort”, it really did apply for everyone under five, and anyone old and infirm. All they did was slide the age of the hypothetical baby -> person up and down.

                      And that’s the part that people got really upset about. The pro-life advocates got upset because they felt that it was advocating or arguing in favor for killing a child even after it was born, and well on it’s way to survival, as well as arguing in favor for euthanasia.

                      The pro-abortion people got angry because the conclusions made them look, well, like monsters, as well as demolishing the argument they used to make that the ‘ethical line’ they hold is ‘birth.’

                      It’s really no different from the ‘imagine yourself in that position’ or “What would you do” or any number of questions asked where we are told ‘imagine’ – all they did was imagine, take a notion, and use nothing but thoughts and words. No people were killed, at no point was a position held as more meritorious or better than the other. The people involved were very neutral, very professional, and they still got ripped apart.

                      It was disgusting.

                    6. As Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated, one fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives* is that the former are mostly concerned with conclusions — it doesn’t matter how you got there so long as I like the answer — the latter tend to think how we get there matters at least as much.

                      *Keeping in mind that there are few “pure” representatives of either faction, both being comprised of humans, not abstractions.

                    7. I hadn’t even heard of the paper you’re talking about, actually… Peter Singer, the “bioethicist”, is the place I first heard of it from. He takes it from the awareness standpoint, IIRC, rather than ability to survive on your own.

                    8. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

                      It was full of controversy, and ignited a lot of rage. But what they were discussing and debating was not policy, and was essentially a continuation of an ongoing academic and philosophical debate. The concept was ‘if these are the common pro-‘choice’ arguments in favor of aborting a fetus, what changes besides location, that keep those criteria from holding true after birth?’

                      (this will be a several part comment since links, which I hope will go through.)

                    9. My mother came across the argument – filtered extensively through the telephone game, and I had to look it up again recently, because the claim was that medical ethicists were arguing in favor of infanticide. I had to explain to her that no, it was not the case, and that the conclusions found by the two made the pro-abortion arguments and premises ultimately, at their logical conclusion, monstrous.

                      I’m saving that Slate article, because it actually parses down what the intent of the paper was. (Believe me, it took a LOT of will for my brain to go ‘shut up, heart, stop overreacting, and READ.)

                    10. It took a bit of thinking for me to understand why they needed to make a new term.

                      Under the concept, infanticide is murder, and held as immoral. Thus, if the assumptions and arguments of the pro-choice side hold even after birth, which calls abortion moral if the assumptions are held as true, then logically and academically, the pro-choice side should not hold that infanticide is immoral and a different term is necessary to distinguish that; thus ‘post-birth abortion’ being coined, in keeping with the pro-choice arguments in favor of abortion being morally acceptable by their standards.

                      …That is a really awkwardly structured sentence. I’m sorry.

                    11. Pointing out the slippery slope their arguments lead to does tend to make folk irate.

                      This is especially so when the slippery slope is nearly impossible to dismiss as fallacy.

                    12. This editorial – ironically, Slate! – notes that the paper actually shakes the foundation of the list of assumptions that the pro-choicers usually give as to why abortion is legal.


                      It’s a very well written article and summarizes: if the arguments for pro choice apply prior to birth, there is nothing that changes other than location that prevents those same assumptions being true after birth.

                      I think, most of the controversy in this philosophical exercise comes from the terms that the two doctors use to differentiate from infanticide in the paper (They coin the term ‘after birth abortion’) – academically correct for the purposes of what they are stating, but emotionally fraught for those of us outside.

                      I’ll admit that I read this very extensively when it first came out, and my initial reaction was, well, rage, being upset, how dare they… and I read it. And realized that what they were actually saying was very, very different from what everyone else claimed they were advocating.

                      The paper was a giant “If (assumption/argument) holds true, then abortion by the pro-choice assumption/argument = a pro-choicer should, logically, hold as still morally valid, regardless of age of fetus/stage of fetal development/post-birth/well into infancy.

                    13. Some might would undoubtedly argue that the change of location is significant, as it no longer sentences the womb-bearer to involuntary servitude.

                      Of course, it sentences somebody to involuntary servitude, even if people volunteer to adopt/raise the infant because they are taking n a burden they would not have had if some woman (with male accomplice) willfully undertaken a process which could be logically foreseen to have the given consequence (principle of contributory negligence.)

                      Those arguing the infant be made a ward of the state have obviously never given deep thought to anything the underlying structure of taxes.

                      Certain precious snowflakes currently protesting at campuses and public venues nationwide should be wary of endorsing any imposition of death sentences for the crime of being incapable of unaided self-sustenance.

                    14. Can’t do that, if they did it would allow the question of why the kid has to die in partial birth abortion– being delivered early isn’t ideal, but it’s got a much higher quality of life than death– and it’s been repeatedly established that the kid not existing is a very important aspect of abortion for most of those given the option of early delivery and on-the-spot adoption vs a late term abortion.

                    15. And yet it’s a mitzvah the adopters do, and were it possible to transfer babies in the womb, I’d probably have twelve kids, because some of us LIKE kids, and love grows. And love is its own reward.

                    16. http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/02/an-open-letter-from-giubilini-and-minerva/

                      as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.

                      We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates. And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.

                      However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

                      Moreover, we did not suggest that after birth abortion should be permissible for months or years as the media erroneously reported.

                      If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

                      However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested. This is easier to see when our thesis is read in the context of the history of the debate.

                      We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened. We apologise to them, but we could not control how the message was promulgated across the internet and then conveyed by the media. In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think. Because of these misleading messages pumped by certain groups on the internet and picked up for a controversy-hungry media, we started to receive many emails from very angry people (most of whom claimed to be Pro-Life and very religious) who threatened to kill us or which were extremely abusive. Prof Savulescu said these responses were out of place, and he himself was attacked because, after all, “we deserve it.”

                      We do not think anyone should be abused for writing an academic paper on a controversial topic.

                      However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).

                    17. (Last one)

                      The death threats against Dr. Francesca Minerva have become so serious that the University of Melbourne has notified the police, who have said they are assisting her.

                      Anthony Ozimic, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), meanwhile, has said that the article, which he described as a chilling promotion of infanticide, shows how abortion is creating a culture of death.

                      The paper proves what pro-lifers have long been arguing: that the common arguments for abortion also justify infanticide.

                      Ethics And ‘The Truth’

                      Dr. Minerva’s colleagues, however, are rallying behind her during what she describes as the worst [few days] of my life.

                      Professor Julian Savulescu, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, defended her right to publish the article, which he hailed as an important addition to the discussion of medical ethics, in a blog post for the British Medical Journal, which sponsors it.

                      The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, Prof. Savulescu began, noting that the main difference with Dr. Minerva’s article was to examine this argument’s application in consideration of maternal and family interests.

                      Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments, Prof. Savulescu wrote. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

                      The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn, he continued. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

                      So, giving it a bit more personal and familiar touch, remember how Yama would take our ‘what if this happened’ conversations over at Jordan179’s journal and then make as if we were either advocating for that, or wishing it had happened?

                      That’s what happened here.

                    18. Dr. Minerva’s colleagues, however, are rallying behind her during what she describes as the worst [few days] of my life.

                      Oh, that’s a tripple shot.

                      Not only did she do a paper that eviscerated their emotion-based argument,
                      not only did she do so while being a respectable type Person Of Science,
                      but she did it while being female.

                      Folks’ heads must have been exploding.

                    19. “you do not actually believe that anyone who will act against objective wrongs is a cowardly murderer.”

                      Speaking of falsehoods……

                      Foxfier, what I saw is lots of people including you claiming that Milo said something he didn’t, no matter which video was involved, and then attempting to justify it by claiming that your earlier error of classifying Milo as a pedophile justified treating him as an unperson. It’s spread out over several threads here and at MGC, and I’m not going to try and track it down so you can rationalize with more verbiage like what I quoted.


                    20. Foxfier, what I saw is lots of people including you claiming that Milo said something he didn’t, no matter which video was involved, and then attempting to justify it by claiming that your earlier error of classifying Milo as a pedophile justified treating him as an unperson.

                      Then you need to get to a mental health professional, because you’re imagining things.

                      Or maybe, POSSIBLY, you’re as human as Amy and are having issues being clear about where you’re talking and to whom, specifically, you are talking to.

                      I know this in part because not only can I not remember having posted over at MGC, due to life being quite hectic, but when I went over and did a search I couldn’t find any evidence that I’d been there, either.

                      Congratulations, you’ve become that which you claim to hate– you are accusing me of something I didn’t do, and won’t even consider looking for any sort of evidence. Because you just “know” that I accused Milo of pedophilia.

                    21. I thought Lenin might have cribbed it from someone else; but the idea, if not the exact words (in translation) pretty much sum up “What is to be done?”

      2. I don’t blame anyone for non-backing.

        But where Milo’s case is concerned, he was actively sabotaged by so-called conservatives who went out of their way — spending time and money — to destroy Milo in the public sphere. Either because they don’t like Milo’s persona, or they hate having to share space with a loud gay guy, or they think it will earn their cause respect on the Left, or they just think he’s bad news.

        Maybe, all of the above?

        Which precisely mimics all the fucked up bullshit that the ctrl-Left always does, to nonconformists. Purge, purge, purge.

        I mean, if people think Milo is wrong, by all means, debate him in the public square. Argue where he is fucking up. Do it honestly.

        There was nothing honest about what happened to Milo. It was a Night Of The Long Knives maneuver, by people who never looked up the phrase “useful idiot” during the Soviet days.

        1. http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reagan-battalion-milo-yiannopoulos-never-trump/

          Reading more about it, yeah it has a Night of The Long Knives feel. And frankly, it’s this kind of bullshit that’s pushing people to move ‘Alt-right’ or to any group that’s more proactive. I can definitely understand why people are getting sick and tired about having to watch for fire from the front, and then getting knifed in the back by supposed allies.

          That, more than anything else, is what caused Trump’s win.

        2. That said, Brad – you’re right about the useful idiots. This tactic is more the ctrl-left’s thing. They’re not above using useful idiots and patsies, and how would these ‘Reagan Battalion’ unveil the video in such a manner that so neatly benefits the mainstream left? As Milo’s pointed out, the video’s been out for more than a year – the untouched, unedited one. The timely fashion that the smear campaign dropped; it’s not the conservatives who benefit, it’s Milo’s enemies; the ctrl-left, who get the most.

          Someone told me once, that when it comes to discerning who’s pulling the strings, you have to see who benefits the most from something. This distracts EVERYONE from the Podesta Pizza emails, from everything that was pulled out about Clinton’s rapes and relation to the Lolita Air flights – over the flimsiest and clumsiest fake ‘evidence’ they could get.

          And note too, that Salon’s pulled their pro-pedophile articles. Supporting Sarah Butts, and Lena Dunham’s ‘sexual exploration’ with her baby sister, to name a couple off the top of my head. (And, Milo was directly involved in the exposure of Sarah Butts, even going as far as contacting the parents of the girl that Butts had been targeting, if not attempting to groom, for years.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this was something that had the partial motivation of revenge on Butt’s behalf – Salon’s pro-pedo articles were around the same time, so their pulling their articles now is because their virtue signaling is not beneficial to them at the moment.

          By claiming Milo ‘supports’ pedophilia, the Left, and Hillary’s supporters, get to scream “hypocrite! See, you have filth on your side how dare you claim ours is horrible!” and attempt to tar Trump by it too; perhaps wanting to have him publicly disavow himself from Milo’s support of him.

          Given that, one has to seriously, seriously wonder at what other benefits this brings as it is escalation in the political battleground. The riots weren’t working. The screeching feminists and their ‘protests’ weren’t working. Having the media spin everything wasn’t working.

          If this fails, what’s next? What was their aimed for prizes?

    4. Bingo. I think that’s why Trump grabbed the “deplorable” label, redefined it slightly, and ran with it, instead of trying to futilely deny it. Scott Adams has said similar things about trying to fight Hitler comparisons when he talks about persuasion tactics.

      1. I recall Bill Whittle making the case that the fact that Cruz didn’t do similar things when people attacked him made him vulnerable to Trump’s attacks, and attacks by people in general.

        Embrace and humorize — this may be the key defense against Alinsky’s personalization and polarization tactic.

        1. I had a random thought while reading through all these comments: you can’t do this with *all* attacks against you. Milo shouldn’t start calling himself a pedophile, for example.

          But Mas Ayoob, in talking about how to deal with lawyers, gave another option: complete outrage about the indecency of it all. “How dare you imply such a thing?!?”

          1. Depends on how you phrase it. Milo could have said, “If you define having sex when I was 13 as being a pedophile, then I guess I am.”

    5. We must make our own decisions as to when to bear the knife. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds acorns, but it shall be our decision to cut ties. And someone despised and targeted by the media is, if not an ally, a distraction. So let Milo be our USSR against the national socialists.

    6. “Nice Conservatives” are like “RINO”s, Not to be trusted. Curmudgeons on the other hand….

    7. You elucidate a feeling that has occurred to other people during the last campaign and the fall-out period afterward:

      Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.

      Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

      “We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

      He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

  19. As far as age of consent, I forget the movie, but remember the scene somewhat. The vice cop shows a roomful of young cops a clip of a shapely young woman pulling herself up out of the pool, flicking her hair, and starting to dry off. Stops the tape, says something to the effect “She’s fourteen. How many of you want to fuck her?” No hands go up. He continues, ” You’re all lying. You all want to. The difference between you and the bad guys is you won’t, because you know she’s fourteen. Our job is to protect her from the creeps.” And that’s part of the foundation of Western civilization. Men are expected to control their sexual urges and play within the established rules. Some states have an additional rule I’m in favor of besides age of consent. In most cases, the two year rule. Age of consent may be 15, but you don’t convict a 16 year old of statutory rape of 15 year old. 18 year old yes, 16 or 17 no. And if you have a sexually precocious 12 year old, they’re fair game for 13 and 14 year olds.

    I don’t approve of Mill’s lifestyle. I do approve of his helping bust 3 actual pedophiles. He was a bad fit for CPAC to begin with. But uninviting people is a show of cowardice. And it’s obvious that Milo’s words have been edited out of context. And therein is the problem, falling for contrived propaganda. Like Trump and his comments about Sweden. Or for that matter, Trump and anything he’s accused of saying that he hasn’t.

    1. “Age of consent may be 15, but you don’t convict a 16 year old of statutory rape of 15 year old. 18 year old yes, 16 or 17 no. ”

      The problem is that it’s happening. Daily. It used to be that you might end up with a beating or a shotgun wedding; now you’ll be on the offender list for life.

      There are multiple jurisdictions that have passed “Romeo and Juliet” laws BECAUSE this is happening frequently.

      1. When I was in Ohio it was explained to me (IANALNDIPOOTV) that age of consent went down to 14 so long as there was no more than a three year age difference between the two individuals.

      2. I cautioned my best friend’s son just before he turned 18 to carefully and fully delete all the pictures that naked 16 year old girls had texted to him. It didn’t matter that they sent them and he saw them when he was 16-17, because then he was just a horny boy. But for him to have them when he was 18 meant he was a sexual predator.
        Often we have well meaning laws that are simply stupid. Until 1929 the age of consent in Scotland was 12 for women and 14 for men. Apparently, that was the custom since Roman times.

        1. It is not really that way for a guy turning 18. The nude 16 y.o. on the phone is a violation of a Federal law, regardless of the age of the person possessing the image, as well as possibly as state law.
          As I recall, an 18+ y.o. guy in KY was successfully prosecuted some years ago for possession of child porn for having nude pics of his 17 y.o. WIFE.

          Staying out of the argument as to what the age of consent should be, and under what conditions / exceptions, at least for now.

          Thanks to most of the commentators for all the reasoned discussion and analysis here tonight.

          I looked at the links above, and it does seem that the initial attacks on Milo were indeed a progressive false flag, trying to teach the deplorables how to be good virtue-signaling helots, to get them to pile on in pushing Milo under the nearest bus, and to divide the opposition to the Uniparty.

          1. That sounds like the kind of thing that would at least pop up on the activist blogs, or Reason…but nothing is coming up.

            Can you think of any other details?

      3. Interesting. Because many years ago I sat a grand jury hearing on a case just like that one. Turned out that it was because her Daddy didn’t like her diddling with her boyfriend. Talk about a waste of time and tax payer money!

    2. But you do get 15 year olds being charged with sexual assault because princess comes home with a hickey and daddy presses charges. Doesn’t matter that princess was the instigator or completely willing up until daddy saw the hickey. (true story)

    3. “And if you have a sexually precocious 12 year old, they’re fair game for 13 and 14 year olds.”

      No. Anyone underage is off-limits to anyone. No minor may sign a binding contract, because there is a legal presumption that a minor lacks the mental ability to make a properly informed decision, which cannot be refuted under law. There is another legal presumption that a minor’s lesser mental ability means the minor cannot form true criminal intent. That presumption can be refuted, by evidence showing sufficient mental ability to be charged as a adult. There are many cases of underage persons planning and executing crimes that are both heinous and complicated.

      If the crime is sexual exploitation of a twelve-year-old, should an exceptionally clever fourteen-year-old perpetrator get a pass?

      1. “If the crime is sexual exploitation of a twelve-year-old, should an exceptionally clever fourteen-year-old perpetrator get a pass?”

        More like exceptionally horny. Clever in that they thought of a way to do ti (and with today’s young girls, helped along the way), horny in that the hormones raging overcame any sense of right/wrong, thought of consequences, and the like. When I was 18, I had sex with a 13 year old girl who was promiscuous and threw herself at me, in order to make my ex-GF (her older sister) jealous. Despite the dangers involved, I never hesitated, letting my other brain take over. It could have gone very wrong for both of us. Plot Twist: I’m 61, she passed away last year at 56 of natural causes — we were closed friends and sometimes lovers for 43 years.

      2. It would be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fourteen-year-old was not only “exceptionally clever” but was possessed of mens rea, a problematic task.

        *singular male pronoun used here in accord with traditional practice of the English language, not in the assumption that fourteen-year-old boys are more likely to exploit others.

        1. These days you could probably look at his facebook/wahtever the current fad is account and see him gleefully plotting it out.

          I believe that’s how they’ve caught some of the homicidal bully girls.

  20. Honestly? I haven’t paid attention to it. Yeah, I knew about it, but no strong feeling either way. Of course they went after him. Of course they can go after any of us. Of course they convict through public opinion by creative editing and headline spin. That’s what they do.

    I also don’t know beans about Milo other than the “news” by the nattering nincompoops. That said, I also think of someone else I don’t know much about: Roman Polanski. No, I not linking the two. Having seen chop jobs done on others, when the media says jump, I yawn. My point is I don’t know much about Milo, but mindful of Polanski, I won’t say yeah or nay until I do. Though, for giggles, you might want to see how many on the left outraged by Milo think Polanski is a pretty good fellow.

    For that matter, I’ve wondered what would happen if someone the media went after produced some skeletons in the reporters’ closest. There’s bound to be a few.

    1. Interestingly, I heard Rush Limbaugh say something like this yesterday. IIRC (I was writing a cognos report at the time, so only half listening). He suggested something similar to a reporter and the response was that the reporter wasn’t “fair game” because he was just a journalist. Rush replied that he was just a radio host, and fair goes both ways.

      We ALL have skeletons in our closets. The only ones that should matter are the ones that directly reflect on our jobs and/or public stance on a subject. And then, only if they’re recent skeletons. The rest can bloody well stay there and gather dust.

      1. The “journalist” (so-called) distinction is particularly amusing considering that before he became a touring speaker, Milo was a journalist, though being that he did it for Breitbart I suspect that the reporter which Rush was talking about/with (not sure from the context of the post, and haven’t listened to Rush since the late 90s) would reply that it’s not “real” news.

        … entirely unlike, say, Jayson Blair at the Grey Old Gasbag Lady, Brian Williams at NBC, the NYT being so eager to jump on Johnson about the Aleppo thing that they themselves screwed up twice on the geography…

        (Not at all an all-inclusive list, but I don’t have all night. 😛 )

    2. What I find disturbing about this, though, is that McMuffin seems to be implicated in doing this (and since he seems to be bragging about it, I’m willing to take his word for it).

      But it’s much the same way for dictators. People who are horrified by Pinochet in Chile are all chummy with Castro in charge of Cuba. (The differences being, of course, that Pinochet killed less people than Castro and actually has a good economy to show for it, I guess….)

      1. Socialist economies are sabotaged by capitalists to keep them poor. They figure their socialist utopia would be perfect except for those cheating capitalists.

    3. The defining thing about the Roman Polanski case is that he was *convicted* of the crime of forcing his attentions on an underage girl (I don’t quite recall, but I think she pressed charges as rape charges. I *do* remember that he was in a position of authority over her.) He skipped the country and has never served his time.

      So in his case, it’s not allegations; it’s crimes that he was found guilty of in a court of law. And there are tons of Hollywood types who shrug off his guilt with “but his ART.” (There’s at least one prominent Hollywood person, OTOH, who publicly wrote that she could not understand people defending a convicted child rapist.)

  21. You guys are crazy nightowls! Great post Sarah! I disagree with Milo on this, I think he is wounded and in denial, but either one supports free speech or one supports fascism. I support Milo’s right to say wrong things among the many right things he says.

  22. Watching this whole Milo takedown and freakout has underscored something I said years ago. Now not saying I like him or approve of him. I have been ignoring him since he got popular. Doesn’t do anything for me. I have been of the “he’s good for conservatives, let him be” belief.

    Anyway, someone asked me once a long time ago why I didn’t go into politics since I was passionate about my beliefs. I told them that I didn’t want umpteen reporters, researchers, gossip rags, crawling into my personal history to tar me with all sorts of grievous wrongs. They told me that I was being needlessly fearful. Of course I have always been a big conservative supporter and one friend was a leftist.

    Since I have made that statement I have seen the left attack any conservative/republican/right politician when ever they ran against their anointed choice. 2008 hammered it home with the attacks on Sarah Palin and “30 reporters” flying to her home state to give her personal history a very thorough colonoscopy.

    The trouble with this is that a lot of conservative people have been paying attention to how this works and are deciding they DON’T want their name to be dragged through the pig sty of media and politics. Thus our best and possibly brightest go on with their lives and telling the left and right “A pox on both your houses”.

  23. I support Milo and stand up for what he has accomplished so far, saying things that others run to the fainting couch over. I think Jimmy Carr is a great comedian who uses shock value to get laughs. Very bad taste, but can be extremely funny. His act contains jokes about pedophilia, rape, incest and other “untouchable” subjects. He has one joke about how it is racist or bigoted to make ethnic, religious, sexist or racist jokes UNLESS you are one of that pedigree (Italian, Jewish/Christian, feminist, black); he then segues into telling a joke about pedophilia. ( Imgur is full of Holocaust humor.) I, for one, exclude 9/11 from my warped, dark sense of humor. But Carr has a great line in one of his stand-ups on Offensive Jokes. :I can;t tell you what joke is most offensive (because) offense is taken, not given.”
    Milo is great because most of what he says is based in truth but cloaked in humor and is politically incorrect.

  24. A great example of someone not of the Left who knows how to redirect is Trump. I watched him frustrate a Journolister who was trying to make Hay of the Women’s march (and whatever the hell it was about) directly to Trump and he immediately switched to the March for lifers who would be showing up the following day and how they didn’t care about it. And he held his course.

    That’s how it’s done.

  25. Yiannopolous is, to put it bluntly, the equivalent of William Quantrill or James Lane.
    He may tick off the right people, and he may be “effective” at causing people to reveal themselves for what they are, but he creates far more enemies than friends in the doing.
    Do I think he actually endorsed pederasty? Probably not, although I question how you end up in a situation where that’s even an issue that comes up.
    But realistically speaking? This isn’t someone being kicked out for expressing “unpopular views.” This is someone being kicked out for, in fact, being an obnoxious troll.

    1. So you are agreeing that we (the non-left) should ostracize anyone that pisses off and trolls the left? And where will that leave us, once we have done the left’s work for them by killing off all our allies? Will you, bravely and with great charisma, step forward to put your head on the block and hope we stand behind you, rather than just stand back out of the splatter-range?

      Or do you wish to restate your position more clearly?

      Just for the record: IMHO, creating enemies of bad people isn’t a bad thing.

      1. If that’s what you got out of my comparing him to William Quantrill and James Lane I can’t help you. Protip: you can make enemies out of good people too.
        Look, you know who else angers the Left? Ben Shapiro. Larry Correia. Ted Cruz. You’ll note that I’m not demanding that we ostracize them. Because when they tick off the Left, it’s because they disagree with the Left’s fundamental premises.
        Yiannopolous doesn’t. Yiannopolous stands them on their heads. Which isn’t any better.

        1. I think your point might have been better made by citing John Brown. It is entirely reasonable to deplore John Brown’s raid and still reject slavery.

          As has been observed, there is no cause so noble that some deplorable persons won’t associate themselves with it.

            1. “Do I think he actually endorsed pederasty? Probably not, although I question how you end up in a situation where that’s even an issue that comes up.”

              You end up there when people edited what you said and take comments from one part of a conversation and add it to another part.

    2. Glad I’m not the only one around here who thinks so.
      And no, he didn’t endorse pederasty. What he actually said was obnoxious enough for me.

    3. I have mixed feelings about people being trolls. On the one hand, it’s obnoxious behavior; on the other hand, I think sometimes people are accused of being trolls when they sincerely hold their beliefs. I suspect that the latter happens when you’re in an environment where the “locals” can’t possibly believe *anyone* can hold such a “nasty” belief.

      I know I’ve been called a troll a couple of times. Usually, it seems to happen to me when I post a pro-gun comment on an anti-gun blog, or when I try to challenge an anti-private-health-care meme posted by a friend on Facebook….

      But I think you’re right, too, that sometimes (whether it be intentional or not) one can be a troll merely by expressing an opinion in a way that generates more heat than light….

      And then there’s the cases where, if you’re not obnoxious, no one notices you, but if you *are* obnoxious, everyone dismisses you as a troll….

  26. This would be bad enough if it were purely virtual, but with Berkley and other stuff happening, how long before he needs a real life security detail? All the time?

    Who thought it would be a good idea to bring back the 60s?


  27. The thing that stands out to me is how things said in the past are used to hang us now – when our views may have changed or opinions shifted.

    Its a different kind of silencing. In the way that makes people unable to voice their thoughts at all any more.

    I shouldn’t wonder at the success the left has in divide and conquer tactics. The right from what I have seen is hard pressed to do what the left is great at – move like a flock of birds around a tree; avoiding attack or staying as a group. The left is dedicated to our destruction and we are happy to throw our own under the bus or to the wolves at the flimsiest of evidences – as if afraid if we don’t do it fast enough we are no better than the accused as if already guilty of the allegations.

    All that while they stand behind and are supportive of their proven rapists and pedophiles.

    I don’t like how; from the comments there seems to be this “he better not publish through Castalia” – why not? Because Vox Daaaaaaaaaaaay! – really? The same reaction the SJWs have is the reason? When Castalia is unrepentant in its providing those of us who have been disenfranchised in the wake of Sad Puppies with a place where we might be able to go? I know the popular opinion is there is always Amazon; but since Milo’s deplatforming I doubt that security.

    The Left is good at coordinating to attack and destroy their chosen target of the day. They swarm quickly like locusts and leave destruction in their wake because it is clear that is their priority; ours is to survive; to defend; livelihood first.

    None of us are safe and have not been for a long time.

    The thing is I don’t particularly enjoy having to watch both my front or back for attacks.

    The really sad thing? Is discovering that the awful lesson I learned years ago – that anyone with no scruples; enough influence and the ability to spread lies will win against the person who wants nothing more than to be left alone and be productive. And it doesn’t matter if his or her name is cleared later. The reputation is ruined. Livelihood destroyed. Figurative fields salted and wells poisoned – and how long before that is fixed? If it can be?

    Milo will be fine. He has a stronger core than most these days. But I wonder at the croc feeders… and whether it is possible for us to really fly to more welcoming pastures. Will those exist???

    1. This. I don’t think it’s quite that bad in my country, but I stay low and mostly keep my mouth shut because I’m not sure, and I’m scared to find out I’m wrong. Most likely even if I am wrong I’m such a very small fish that I’d be left in peace, mostly anyway, even if I got out and was noticed as not swimming in the right schools, but there is also the worry that what if writing stories actually leads to some sort of real career at one point, and I am no longer such a tiny fish but something maybe seen as worth eating. Somebody like Milo can perhaps survive because he did build big enough a platform before the take down attempts got serious that his notoriety may be enough for him to build anew what now got trashed, or even build something better, and he can get that real life protection he may need.

      But what if a tiny fish gets noticed while still being tiny, and then does not have a chance to grow big enough to not be eaten once some group notices she is starting to grow and decides to take her down before she gets too big? And then there are those bullies who simply like bullying enough that being very tiny might attract them rather than make them leave you in peace due to insignificance. This is scary.

      1. There have been examples of small fish being zerged by the zombies; a fairly successful blogger who wrote about (how to keep working at?) marriage was zerged some years back. The audience wasn’t huge a million perhaps.

        But an example of really small fish is myself. Clamps took a post I wrote and quoted it out of context and edited what he quoted in the Fundies Say The Dumbest Things site; in the hopes I would get dogpiled. Except I noticed the new mention. I went and politely gave them the heads up about Clamps’ ongoing vendetta; gave evidence; as well as the original post; which several of their established members read. They eventually came to the conclusion what I wrote was nowhere near as bad as he was making them believe; that while some of the things I said was problematic in how I said them my criticisms were valid. They also observed that Clamps was one of their more prolific posters; and that the threats he makes against children – mine – were not acceptable. The subtext was “how much of what he quotes is just as edited? As falsely misrepresented?”

        Thwarted; the social disease accused the ones who spoke in my defence or suggested that this was something they best set aside because of personal vendetta to be Vox Day’s minions as well. After he became increasingly more shrill the thread was deleted.

        1. “Which office do I go to get my reputation back? ” As asked by Ray Donovan in 1987. A caution against these types of witch hunts.

          1. Still a relevant question, though. When your good name and repute has been trashed and slimed … do you have recourse at all? Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Shirt-gate guy … I despise internet lynch mobs even more than I despise their meat-world version.
            Especially since in the internet version, there is no brave person with a double-barreled shotgun standing on the steps of the jail, facing the mob.

              1. The problem is, in this, we can’t stop them from getting to the person they’re trying to lynch. All we can do is try to stack lumber under the gibbet to keep the victim from falling hard enough for it to kill him. And they will still try to light that lumber on fire.

                Milo was beating the Left at their own game, so he had to be destroyed. Now, I think there’s possibly enough people stacking lumber and fire extinguishers to keep him afloat, but there needs to be an offensive launched. They need their feet kicked out from under them (verbally, of course), and then kicked (again, verbally) while they are down, until they stop trying to light the fires.

            1. Yep. Any claim deserves the 72 hr rule. At least. These mobs get ginned up on rumor and innuendo and go out to rampage. And with the interconnected nature of the world, it can do grievous damage to individuals targeted. Having to move a state over to get over your family’s rumored horse stealing ways is bad enough. Today, well these are the same folks that go all in on.banning bullying. But only against the right people.

            2. I’ve found myself wishing dueling was possible nowadays, but it likely wouldn’t work as well as I hoped. The more vile people would either be superior duelists or have champions to fight for them.

  28. I look at it this way: the people who had the tape held it back — for months. They claim he’s endorsing pedophilia, but they held the proof back — for months. Its not like they were trying to build a case, one deceptively edited tape *is* their case. If they thought children were in danger, why withhold the evidence?

    If the accusers can’t take the accusations seriously, why should the rest of us?

    1. What I’m seeing is, given the number of pedophilia accusations hanging over the Left at the moment, crushing Mr. Y. might be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

      I can’t tell if they’re so disconnected they’re not even considering that, or if they still haven’t realized they don’t own the media and law enforcement the way they used to.

      1. I have to assume that the hypocrites on the Left merely don’t care if we all see the numerous instances of Left-favored celebrities, who’ve all said and done some rather despicable shit, and the Left has done nothing about it. They don’t care if we see the double standard. They are merely interesting in destroying somebody who has been an annoying thorn in their sides for many months. With the added bonus that nobody on the Never Trump side — right, left, or center — won’t care.

  29. He is a Bad Man who does Bad Things and said Bad Things; therefore all his ideas must be Bad Ideas. Good People must suppress Bad Ideas so the Bad Ideas don’t infect innocents who will then become Bad People.

    We have a duty to protect innocents by any means necessary, including intimidation, shunning and even outright violence, whatever is required to prevent a Bad Man from speaking his Bad Ideas.

    Later, we’re gathering at the library to burn offensive books. You’ll be joining us, of course. You’d better. Because if you don’t . . . . . . .

  30. CPAC inviting Milo is like Nixon meeting Elvis – an attempt to get in on being cool. That never works for wonks and dweebs, it must makes them look like sorry losers while Liberals laugh at them.

  31. You may think this post is off topic. It’s not if you read on far enough.
    This issue brings to my mind statements people make about gun control. Namely that people who own guns regard them as substitutes for their genitals and have an unnatural mental attachment and get sick gratification.
    Well . . . What if they do?
    The people making these sort of statements about others’ sexual differences seem to assume (like all their other nuggets of wisdom) that once pointed out the target will see the error of their ways and become just like the superior being giving them divine direction.
    It doesn’t work that way.
    If a person has a deep seated need to own a Buntline Special or engage in sex covered in chocolate whipped cream or with younger people than them a ‘good talking to’ isn’t going to make a dent in what they need to achieve satisfaction. They will simply hide their behavior and work around your disapproval and prohibitions. The drive to have some form of sexual satisfaction is too strong to think people will change to suit your tastes.
    I’m not going into what will work to change fringe behaviors you or I find abhorrent, but banning the production of chocolate whipped cream is simply an exercise in futility. Like banning booze or pot. You better give it some deeper thought.

    1. It is a rabbit hole. We are not talking about the illegality of sex with minors.

      And I trust that you are not seriously arguing that murder and theft should be legalized, just because people will still manage to kill and steal.

      Even if you wish to legalize theft and murder of yourself, your neighbors will justifiably fear some carryover of your decision… So you had best move to your own constructed sea island and set up the country of Murderia. (Funded by a Tenth Victim style reality show, no doubt.)

      Similarly, circular firing squads endanger everyone. But they are not illegal, because ideology is not enforceable, and neither is a lack of common sense. However, participating in them does tend to become its own punishment.

      1. Not arguing what should be legal or not. Simply whether you have any rational expectation people will follow that law. Very few people want to commit murder. The law works because almost all people have no deep desire to kill, not because it is illegal. If the majority of us were killers the law would be a silly exercise in futility. We do benefit when laws conform to reality. If too many laws are seen as absurd and are ignored then the small marginal benefit we see as respect for the law vanishes. Most laws are preaching to the choir. We do them already by culture and social pressure. Would you be in favor of imposing the death penalty for all laws? Are they that sacred to you? Hanging for 3mph over the limit? See what I mean?

          1. Slippery slopes are fine, until you get past the 1:1 rise over the run; then you go downhill in a hurry.

        1. I disagree about the notion that very few people actually want to commit murder. I think a lot of them want to do it. Whether the State should be in charge of prosecuting it, or worse, preventing it, is an entirely different matter. But it’s because of societal pressure that murder isn’t committed as often as it could be — and it’s difficult to tease out “general social conventions” from “but it’s illegal”.

          I will say this: there have been places where murder was legal and rare, and there are plenty of places where murder is illegal but common. It is an ironic paradox that anarchy works best when the people are law-abiding, and that no amount of law will force a lawless society to be lawful. It is deeply ironic when people point to places like Egypt and India and say “Without government, you’ll have a society like this” when those societies have plenty of laws, and plenty of government, for that matter, but no end of bureaucrats willing to take bribes, and drivers willing to run red lights and stop signs….

          Ok. I need to stop. My inner anarcho-capitalist dachshund is barking loudly now. (Heel! Heel!)

      2. I completely agree about this being a rabbit hole. I’m doing my best to keep my anarcho-capitalist dachshund from following down that hole right now!

  32. Something to keep in mind because history rhymes. And warns…

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    –Pastor Niemoller

  33. So, this kerfuffle with Milo Yannopolis, let’s be frank: have you seen the non-edited videos? Have you been to his page? No? Then shut up.

    My first reaction on listening through the links: They can use cuss words, aren’t they so special!

    My second: Why am I surrendering all my online time this morning by following instructions and listening to these links before I consider posting?

  34. Edited video? So, another Rather-ite mess, huh?
    Well, it’s not as if I hadn’t already given up on getting anything resembling actual facts from ‘our’ alleged media. Yeah, they say that “de-legitimizing” the media a Terrible Thing. Perhaps then they shouldn’t ought done it.

  35. I’m with Amy generally I that I think his words did cross a line to acceptance of underage grooming, though his further statements are enough that I’m not opposed to his return to commentary.

    For those of you looking for revenge, some people have dug up identical remarks from George Takkai. mobile.twitter.com/johncardillo/status/834086452489236480

  36. And I will also point that I fairly certain that “girl power” (and “grrrl” power for the more growly or too poor to avoid vowels) is more applied to women than actual not-yet-adult girls. “You go girl!” tends to be said to adult women. Also, “girlie” magazines seem to not be about the latest trend in dollies and dollhouses.

    Thus it’s common, at least in English, to refer to adults by the terms used for minors. Most adults can manage to not get confused and befuddled by their native tongue. Most. And even ox figure this out.