The Progressive ideology exposed

[odeon]

All right, my mistake.

I disagree with you re Rational Wiki's D'Souza appraisal, though. They pretty much nailed it.

So you think he's a Domestically violent Mall Ninja?? 

I think the description was fairly accurate.

[odeon]

Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).

Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?

Yeah, right.

So, this is a tangent that will probably now piss everyone off in this thread, but I honestly remember at the time reading the *descriptions* of what he said vs the *transcript* of what he said and did feel like he got shredded because what he said sounded worse out of context than it did in context.

That said, on a re-read, I'm landing somewhere in the middle.  It sounds like he's correct in distinguishing what pedophilia definitionally is vs isn't in terms of perpetrator psychology, but isn't correct in thinking about brain vs. body development when thinking about consent and power differentials in teens vs adults, which is extremely problematic.  And it sounds like he did clarify that he wasn't just talking about may-december relationships (which are gross imo, but if they're between adults, whatevs), but was talking about teens whose bodies are developed but whose brains aren't.

Now, to be super-sure I'm pissing everyone off here, I'll add this:  This is a good example of where culture and education play a role in social sexual mores, not just "intuitive morality."  If you really don't understand (or believe) that the body can be developed as visually "sexually mature" long before the brain is developed enough to really give consent (particularly to an adult, where there's an incredible power differential), what does that do to how you think about adolescent sexuality, and what you deem as OK?

Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"

Now a logical next step is to say "Well, maybe it is and maybe it is not. So let's examine what else we know of him, to put it into perspective. Was there any reason he may try to downplay his sexual abuse and the relationship he had? Why would he not wish to be seen as a victim? Has he done or said anything that may send a contrary or opposing message to the pedophilia apologist or pedophile label so easily stuck to him?"

Well to the first point - Absolutely! Part of Milo's schtick is to say "I am no one's whipping boy and I am not afraid of anything (threatened violence, death threats, bannings and so on)". He is not afraid of being Gay Jewish and Conservative. None of his persona lends it to admitting he was a victim.

To the second point, not only has he been a staunch critic of pedophilia but has written exposees of pedophiles at personal risk of defamation suits and the like and has been a staunch critique of pedophiles.

No one seems to wish to partake of this critical analysis because they do not like him and it is easier to hold to ideologically driven narrative without examining context there. Personally I think it intellectually dishonest but no matter. My opinion is my opinion.

I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would ignore Milo's words, regardless of context, because they lack consistency.

[El]

Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"

Well, duh.

But, without saying this is cause to condemn him as a terrible human being, his perspective can still be wrong, and still have the potential to promote terrible, harmful behavior.  So, does what was done to him make his opinion correct, or moral, or OK?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?

Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.

[El]

Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?

Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.

So, the joke he makes about the priest having taught him how to give good head, while dark and horrible, is also his joke to make, IMO.  I don't think that was supposed to be normalizing or actually saying it was OK, I think it was supposed to be dark humor about the shit he went through.  (I think that might have been the main thing I was frustrated with the media condemning him for saying, iirc, but I'm not 100% sure.)

It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview (at least, the way I read it).  If the only controversial thing he said was that joke, I'd fall firmly on the side of he has the right to make dark jokes about his own trauma.

[Calandale]

It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview.

I'm troubled by many sides of this. While some teens may not be in a position to make this judgement, I really don't
like the idea of making a blanket removal of their right to determine their own future. In general, I'm disturbed by
actions a society takes to inhibit the liberty of the individual.


I don't think the difference (for me) between say 15 and 20 (when I finally dipped my doinker) would make much
difference internally. I'm not sure ANY age there would - I'd still be easily won over to love - only experience
that came directly from those engagements meant anything, and even that not too much. The small sampling of
females I've been close enough to really get a sense of this from seem to hold to the same stance.


If it's not the effect on the youth, then what do we base it on? Emotional age difference? I'm still a child there -
paralyzed by fears and weakness; that's never likely to change. Physical? Well, certainly by now I'm falling to
crap, but I was about as fit at 35 as at 18 - and better than at 15. Survivability? If so, why not frown just
as heavily on a ten year gap later in life?


The only difference that I see is actually the freedom that society allows at certain age barriers. Therein
may lie certain power differentials. So, if society wasn't fucking it all up for the young to begin with,
it shouldn't be an issue.

[Al Swearegen]

Just to add, should Milo not be held accountable for his words because he sucked a priest's cock when he was 14, and claims it to have been a positive experience for him?

Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.

So, the joke he makes about the priest having taught him how to give good head, while dark and horrible, is also his joke to make, IMO.  I don't think that was supposed to be normalizing or actually saying it was OK, I think it was supposed to be dark humor about the shit he went through.  (I think that might have been the main thing I was frustrated with the media condemning him for saying, iirc, but I'm not 100% sure.)

It's the normalizing of adults dating teenagers as relationships that I found problematic, because that wasn't a joke, that was an expressed worldview (at least, the way I read it).  If the only controversial thing he said was that joke, I'd fall firmly on the side of he has the right to make dark jokes about his own trauma.

Yup it is gallows humour. Those who pretend that this is actually an ideological position of Milo's and that he is defending Pedophilia are not really genuine. What this actually amounts to is a gotcha moment that they have created and they will willfully hold to this narrative of him being a paedophile apologist (or paedophile himself) regardless of ANYTHING said or done to the contrary or regardless of ANYTHING to otherwise explain things.

They do not like him and so therefore he must have "...but he said once..." thrown back at him and out of context to explain EVERYTHING.
"But hang on, HE was a victim of sexual abuse, I hardly think he was honestly saying he supports that"
"But he said once..."
"Wasn't this gallows humour and him making light of something pretty painful from his past that HE did not want to feel a victim about?"
"But he said once..."
"But has he not placed himself at harm in exposing paedophiles himself?"
"But he said once..."

It is dishonest and you know why they do it? I will show you:

Holding Milo accountable for the shit that he says is a vital service to the public that might be influenced by his words and to Milo himself, as it might inspire him to engage his brain in future before speaking.

This pretty much lays it out. "He has to be accountable" and By God you all are going to keep him accountable and stick this to him and with righteous indignation, right? Doesn't matter if you have misunderstood, misconstrued or had to make any number of mental gymnastics to arrive to the point where the victim of paedophilia is now responsible for pedophilia...you do it with righteous conviction and you will "Make him accountable". Damn truth and honesty, damn logic and empathy. Fuck it all you are a moral steward and YOU will hold him accountable.....for being forced to have oral sex with a man as a kid and not following your specific view of how to normalise this experience.

What a moral champion!

[Walkie]

Not sure who Al was ranting at, because (if I understood right) he was expressing same view as most everybody else.
But he said it with real passon, conviction and empathy.  So I really liked that speech.  Besides which, I do very much agree.

I happen to  know people who were sexually abused as little kids (don't we all? but do we all know people who finally came out and talked about it?)  and have heard the gallows humour before. It's so hard for people to talk about their own personal experiences at all , it's cruel and obstructive to expect them be PC abouut it.

One very , very awful   and very common problem such people have is this: on some level (if only on a physical level)  they experienced pleasure diring that abuse ; and then guilt, shame and confusion  on acount of that pleasure.  And that plagues them and plagues them til their dying day, if they don't ever learn to open up. From the victim's POV it's a complex experience and  that complexity  tears them apart. They don't feel they way they "ought" to feel able it, and that's a massive hurdle to get over.   It's a crying shame if someone finally gets over that hurdle, only to find they're  being judged by some uncomprehending  idiot.

So  to Al for that one.

That point really does need hammering home.

[renaeden]

Someone I used to know was abused in their early teens by their uncle. The uncle used to offer money to her so he could do unspeakable things. She would take the money. It's because of this that she thought all the abuse that happened was her fault. I couldn't convince her otherwise.

[Walkie]

Someone I used to know was abused in their early teens by their uncle. The uncle used to offer money to her so he could do unspeakable things. She would take the money. It's because of this that she thought all the abuse that happened was her fault. I couldn't convince her otherwise.

you have to try to explain it in terms that the child would understand, because it's as if  that part of the person's pyche never grows up.  It gets stuck inside the triauma. Often the adult understands  pererfectly well that it wasn't their fault, but that doesn't stop them feeling las if it it was their fault. They become dissociated and it's not easy to reach accross that gulf between self and self.

Much easier said than done, of course.   It needs time, much time and reassurance.  Never give up ( But don't push it either, ofc)

That said,   I guess it's too late now, by your usage of past tense?

Well  to you both , in any case

[renaeden]

Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.

[Walkie]

Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.

Heck, i know what that's like too .
hope you're done with the self-reproaching

[renaeden]

Thank you, Walkie. Yes it is past tense. She used to be a very good friend. However her mental illnesses were starting to rub onto me so I severed ties. It was hard to do that but I had to protect myself.

Heck, i know what that's like too .
hope you're done with the self-reproaching

Yeah I have for the most part. It was a long time ago.

[Al Swearegen]

Not sure who Al was ranting at, because (if I understood right) he was expressing same view as most everybody else.
But he said it with real passon, conviction and empathy.  So I really liked that speech.  Besides which, I do very much agree.

I happen to  know people who were sexually abused as little kids (don't we all? but do we all know people who finally came out and talked about it?)  and have heard the gallows humour before. It's so hard for people to talk about their own personal experiences at all , it's cruel and obstructive to expect them be PC abouut it.

One very , very awful   and very common problem such people have is this: on some level (if only on a physical level)  they experienced pleasure diring that abuse ; and then guilt, shame and confusion  on acount of that pleasure.  And that plagues them and plagues them til their dying day, if they don't ever learn to open up. From the victim's POV it's a complex experience and  that complexity  tears them apart. They don't feel they way they "ought" to feel able it, and that's a massive hurdle to get over.   It's a crying shame if someone finally gets over that hurdle, only to find they're  being judged by some uncomprehending  idiot.

So  to Al for that one.

That point really does need hammering home.

"Expressing the same views as everyone here?"

Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.

If it's taken out of context and he is actually not a paedo apologist, by some miracle, then he is not very bright because he is feeding his opposition with enough ammo to have him removed, which a smarter person would know to avoid.

What is not in dispute by anyone, including Milo, is Milo being an apologist for sexual relationships between adults and minors.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/

Here is the actual transcript.

He is actually advocating relationships between adult men and post-pubescent boys in their early teens.

Technically it is pederasty rather than  pedophilia that Milo is advocating.

I guess he was trying to be controversial, as usual, and for once his instincts (for not straying too far outside the boundaries of acceptability) failed him

Why is it important to you to excuse this particular creep? There is little doubt over what he advocates.

Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?

Yeah, right.Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?

Yeah, right.

I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would ignore Milo's words, regardless of context, because they lack consistency.

Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?

[odeon]

I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here. My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.

Rest assured that I, for one, do not share your views on Milo.