Milo Yiannopoulos

Conservatives Are Finally Feeling Screwed by Milo

That it took them so long to see he is a false anti-PC messiah shows their moral bankruptcy

|

So what did it take to puncture conservative bravado about feting and fawning over Breitbart shock jock Milo Yiannopoulos? His constant race baiting? No. His

Milo Yiannopoulos
LeWeb14 via Foter.com / CC BY

misogyny? No. Apparently, his defense of pedophilia—pederasty, to be exact, because evidently even this nihilist makes a distinction between sex with pre-pubescent and post-pubescent boys.

CPAC cancelled its invite to Milo to speak at its annual conference this week after tapes surfaced in which Milo claimed that "sex between 13-year-olds and older men can be 'life affirming.'" Socrates might have agreed with him but this was too much for CPAC and Simon & Schuster that also cancelled his book deal. But Berkley College Republicans so far at least are still vowing to invite him back (along with right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) to deliver his previous speech that got aborted when far-left radicals declared war on the campus.

The radicals were nihilists in their own right, but if Republicans have a right to invite Milo, others have a right to judge them.

And what these invitations say about Republicans is not that they are some brave anti-PC warriors scoring one for free speech, I note in my column at The Week—but that they are fools who are declaring their moral bankruptcy by allying themselves with the equivalent of the Joker from Batman.

Go here to read the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: CPAC Organizer Tries To Pawn Off Milo Yiannopoulos as "Libertarian"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shikha’s thoughts on Black Bloc communist riots in Berkeley:

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia Feb 3

    When facts are always “alternative,” brute force is all that’s left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia Feb 3

    No matter what the moral rot on the left, the right always manages to outdo it! Sad!

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia Feb 2

    Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

    1. I think you have some sand in your vagina.

    2. Sorry Shikha, I just don’t care

      Something Something Rioters Heckler’s Veto

    3. At least she consistently misspells Berkeley.

    4. Stop feeding the troll!

      (Dalmia being the troll, in case that’s not obvious.)

      1. Well Hail Retaxes is in the thread and no one fed that troll. So that’s good.

    5. Honest condemnation of pedophilia must also condemn those children for looking so damn sexy.

      1. Perfect.

  2. False Libertarian Slams False Conservative; No One Affected At All

  3. “but that they are fools who are declaring their moral bankruptcy by allying themselves with the equivalent of the Joker from Batman.”

    What does that make Gillespie and Welch who keep printing your dogshit?

    1. This. Occam’s Razor: they completely approve of the shit quoted above, as they haven’t even made a minor attempt to disavow it.

      1. I think you mean Cock-Ham’s Gay Sore.

        1. In case you haven’t noticed, your pathetic attempts to try to deflect attention away from the content of the site and onto me aren’t working at all, scumbag.

          1. I disparaged the content thirteen minutes before you did, and THEN i attacked you for being the worthless idiot that you are. They’re not related phenomena.

            1. Bro, do you even multi-task?

              1. I would have done both at the same time, but i had to wait for Mikey to get away from his caregiver and find a computer that wasn’t an Etch-a-Sketch.

        2. I love that fuckin’ store!

  4. That it took them so long to see he is a false anti-PC messiah shows their moral bankruptcy

    Who writes this sanctimonious crap??

    Oh…

  5. I have obtained the memo from Reason’s staff meeting this morning.

    “Fuck Milo, all day everyday. Love, KMW.”

    Don’t you people realize this man thrives on controversy?

    1. Don’t you people realize this man thrives on controversy?

      No shit. He’s an internet troll in meatspace. If everyone just ignored him, he’d go away. But, unfortunately, just like with trolls on the internet no matter how much people say “don’t feed it” someone will almost always respond to it, guaranteeing that the trolling will continue.

      1. It’s his fault for begging us not to throw him into that briar patch.

    2. Lol… I think it has more to do with distancing themselves/libertarians from him after the CPAC organizer’s claim that he was a libertarian. I mean, you definitely have a point about the controversy thing, but I guess I like reading the different takes on this.

    3. We clicked on the story, bro.

      1. *ahem* i clicked on the comments.

        1. Clicks are clicks. Doesn’t to matter the analytics if you read the story or not, and I’m pretty sure every comment is registered as another click. So this story has more than 60 clicks and counting.

          1. Adblock and noscript mean analytics don’t pick up my clicks as valid visits, and reason had to therefore convince me to part with my money to get any value from my visits.

            They’re not doing a great job at selling me on their services.

            1. One more hyperbolic article will bring you around.

            2. I don’t contribute to Reason, but I feel I’m getting my money’s worth.

      2. Because Shicksa is trolling us.

    4. I’m thinking the “pedophilia” thing is the end of Milo. A shame. He’s been quite entertaining.

      1. Especially since that is not at all what happened, but don’t expect the author of this piece to let you walk away with a clear understanding of what he actually said.

        1. Shikha completely meets my expectations.
          I expect shit, I get shit.

        2. How dare he hit on that older man. That never happens. EVER.

      2. Joshua,

        This is not the end of Milo, but rather the end of the beginning.

        Castalia House is going to pick up his book and publish it and Milo will find a new niche.

        If I were him I would go scorched earth against the rinos that came after him. I.e. Evan mcmullin

    5. Don’t you people realize this man thrives on controversy?

      They still haven’t realized it with Trump, doubt they’ll realize it here any time soon.

  6. I remind any of the remnants here that there is a wonderful place you can go, where everybody knows your name.

    A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    1. I need to make that trip. This place has become a real shithole. If I wanted a smug celebration of free-speech advocate being successfully smeared, I’d read Slate.

    2. Nah. Hit’n’Run’s like an old pair of jeans – it’s comfy, broken in, covered in stains whose provenance man was not meant to know, and smells like me.

      1. And when you are deep in the embrace of Morpheus, and old toothless vampire appears and comes all over your jeans.

        1. Yes.

    3. Be sure to write songs of the brave who have stayed behind to fight this. Tell your children why you fled.

      1. Fled? We have migrated to the Promised Land! Try to fight Pharaoh as you build his pyramids.

        1. Nyet, tovarisch. We will make them bleed for every inch!

          “Hell I was born heaur, I was raised heaur, and god-dagnit-cob-flagnit, Imma gonna die here.”

          1. *Salutes*

            Godspeed, you damned fools.

            1. WOLVERINES!

              1. AVENGE ME CITIZEN X, AVENGE MEEEEEEEE…

                1. DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOO

            2. Service means citizenship – I’m doing my part!

              1. “Doing my part” – sometimes the simplest masturbation euphemisms are the best.

    4. You know that was set in 2019? Only two years from now.

    5. A safe space for yokels!

      1. It’s been requested that we don’t directly advertise here. If you’re in contact with any of the migrants, ask them and they’ll set you up. If not go back to the PM Links from last week and look for Playa’s posts.

        1. Oh I remember this now.

        2. “If you’re in contact with any of the migrants”

          Sounds like open border crap right there.

        3. Well, I’m in contact with no one so I guess I have to go hunting.

        4. Is it okay if some of us simply go to the site and register? Or is more required?

          1. Nothing’s required, do as you please.

        5. Found it. Thanks.

          Yeah, this site is going downhill.

        6. I’m going to recommend that everyone go over for the articles. Seriously. There’s been some good contributions there.

          1. From the commenting policy:

            Please: no NSFW images or gifs.

            Fuck THAT noise.

            1. I would think a libertarian website is already “not safe for work” by definition.

            2. bright side? images and gifs.

          2. Meh, so far it’s felt very bloggy, I enjoy the comments section and dickering more as a rule.

        7. just signed up. looks good.

    6. Where is this utopia?

      1. Glibertarians.com

        1. What is the privacy/anonymity/encryption policy like over there?

          #LibertarianQueries

  7. Go here to read the whole thing.

    Loneliest hyperlink in existence?

  8. Go here to read the whole thing moar hysterical bleating.

    No

  9. I’m having trouble getting past Dalmia’s obsessions with immigration and Breitbart to take some of these criticisms too seriously.

    “And what these invitations say about Republicans is not that they are some brave anti-PC warriors scoring one for free speech”

    The invitation to Milo does say that the conservatives were trying to differentiate themselves from progressives and social justice warriors on the issue of free speech.

    And punishing them for doing so hurts the cause of liberty.

    1. The invitation to Milo does say that the conservatives were trying to differentiate themselves from progressives and social justice warriors on the issue of free speech.

      Bullshit. If an angry mob of aggrieved conservatives prevented some commie from speaking at a college would you expect CPAC, an organization intended to promote conservative ideology, to invite said commie to talk?

      1. That’s irrelevant.

        The point is that CPAC was trying to differentiate themselves from the SJWs on campuses all over America who can’t tolerate free speech by Milo.

        Is it really hard to believe that conservatives are more tolerant of free speech than SJWs?

        If so, why?

        1. Free speech is irrelevant to this issue. No one has a right to get invited to speak to a private organization’s annual convention.

          The issue is two-fold:

          1. Does Milo’s platform add anything of value to the conservative ideology CPAC exists to promote?

          2. If so, what about it is worth tolerating some of the truly odious things he says and does?

          This is a classic case of laying with dogs and getting fleas. I want nothing to do with the alt-right and neither should CPAC or libertarians.

          1. 1. Does Milo’s platform add anything of value to the conservative ideology CPAC exists to promote?

            I don’t know… do you?

            2. If so, what about it is worth tolerating some of the truly odious things he says and does?

            Truly odious”… Please tell me more!

            Seriously- tell me about all the awful things he has said or done. A gay white Jew sucking black cock? Publicly acknowlege a transgender person’s chosen identity? Say that some feminists might just need some good dick?

            What?

          2. *Sigh* Milo is not alt-right.

            Can we please stop using this term until everyone actually understands what it means?

            1. I’m certain it doesn’t mean anything and never will.

              It’s being used to mean “all those icky people I disagree with” so depending on who is using it, the definition changes.

              1. It does actually mean something, I can explain it to people, and HM and Gilmore both also have are fairly good perspective on it.

                It’s telling that the people who tend to use it have no goddamn idea what they’re actually talking about.

                1. See also: “liberal,” “libertarian,” “conservative,” “fascist,” “irony,” etc.

              2. I’m certain it doesn’t mean anything and never will.

                It’s kinda like “neo-con”… In the last election the “war-mongering neo-con” ran as a Democrat, the “populist Dem” ran with a so-con Justice Warrior partner for the Repubs, and 2 Republicans ran as Libertarians.

          3. ^This. And it’s much better stated than what I have said.

        2. “Is it really hard to believe that conservatives are more tolerant of free speech than SJWs?”
          Yeah, it kind of is. Conservatives have passed laws requiring doctors and teachers to push their chosen lines in the classroom and doctor’s office. They constantly whine and cry about gay-anything, from TV shows and commercials to Obama’s “Father’s Day” statement that included gay dads.

          They’ve been complaining about how *not* explicitly mentioning Christmas is the same as discrimination for well over a decade, passed laws in some states that made it a crime to have a non-legally-binding gay marriage ceremony, cried discrimination at Mississippi businesses putting up “we don’t discriminate” stickers in the windows of their storefronts, and so-on and etc. ad nauseum.

          Fact is, conservatives have never hesitated to shut down speech they don’t like in any way they can, have called any criticism of their religion (or in some cases, just not mentioning their religion explicitly) “discrimination, literally tried to throw gay folks in jail, and so-on.

          Why would I ever think these folks actually care about “free speech”?

          1. You’ve made a reasonable argument that conservatives aren’t exactly free speech champions, but you have NOT made the argument that conservatives are worse than safe-space speech-is-violence SJW types.

            1. I do think that CPAC choosing him had less to do with a free speech position and more to do with youth outreach. Because Milo is basically the only ‘major conservative’ that appeals to the youngsters currently.

              1. Is there a fair chance that CPAC hoped to bait SJW types to show up and act like fools for the cameras? Were they trying to be crafty, or just tone deaf as usual?

            2. Well for one thing, conservatives have decades of history of getting their stuff passed into law. SJWs have some catching up to do. So far, all they’ve got is the heckler’s veto and it’s not like conservatives don’t have that too.

              1. Well for one thing, conservatives have decades of history of getting their stuff passed into law. SJWs have some catching up to do. So far, all they’ve got is the heckler’s veto and it’s not like conservatives don’t have that too.

                What color is the sky in the world you live on? Here, it’s generally blue–but I suspect, based on how much shit you’re full of, that where you’re from the sky’s brown.

                And damp.

            3. When CU invites a lefty, I stay home. Or go and listen.
              When Milo gets an invite, I have to stay home, because there are protesters blocking all the entrances, marching all over campus screaming nonsense.

  10. Apparently, his defense of pedophilia ? pederasty, to be exact because, evidently, even this nihilist makes a distinction between sex with pre-pubescent and post-pubescent boys.

    Shikha doesn’t distinguish between sex with pre-pubescent boys and post-pubescent boys.

    1. What about sex with pubescent boys? I notice a gaping hole in her analysis.

      1. Fucking bullseye.

        You’re hired.

      2. heh heh, heh heh. He said “gaping”.

        1. At closer inspection, he said:

          “gaping anal cist”, or something.

      3. gaping hole

        Are we not doing “phrasing” anymore?

    2. Or the fact that milo said he started it.

  11. “Go here to read the whole thing.”

    I don’t respond to authority and you didn’t say pretty please with a fucken cherry on top.

  12. A gay person thinks differently from a straight person about sexual relationships between young teens and older guys? How shocking.

    You do know that the sentiment expressed by Milo ain’t exactly uncommon in the gay identity movement, to say nothing of gay studies and academia… right? I know that the sacred gays in popular culture can do no wrong and are only their to help their bestest girlfriends with fashion tips, but it is a testament to how sanitized the movement has been presented by the MSM that a relatively uncontroversial viewpoint within the community has been blown up to a personal malignancy of Milo’s.

    (And no, I don’t agree with his viewpoint but if anyone at all finds this shocking that’s a function of their own naivete.)

    1. What does the literature say about teenagers and hot teachers?

      1. Huh. I don’t think anyone’s ever referred to Diamond Dave as “literature” before.

      2. I prefer to leave all such inquiries in the inbox of Van Halen, heh.

      3. That “my homework was never quite like this?”

        1. I don’t feel tardy.

      4. CR-
        Now *that* needs a newsletter.

    2. You do know that the sentiment expressed by Milo ain’t exactly uncommon in the gay identity movement, to say nothing of gay studies and academia… right?

      Yeah, and we also know how quickly some of the writers here would be to label anyone who otherwise questioned the legitimacy of such views homophobes and religious wingnutters.

      Principals > principles.

    3. You’re trying to make it a “gay” thing, but really it’s just a “young male” thing.

      It’s pretty much the same reason why “teacher prosecuted for having sex with students” is treated very differently based on whether the student was a guy or girl, and the teacher was a guy or girl. Male student, female teacher? You’ll see a lot of “go tiger!” responses. Female student, male teacher? “What a creep!”

      Throw in gay folk, and it confuses the usual reaction. When you hear that a 13 year old guy bagged a 20-something hot dude, do you say “go tiger!” or “what a creep!”? If it were about lesbians, I suspect you’d see more of the “corrupting our youth” response as a “protecting women” thing, but I think that situation would just confuse most people’s knee-jerk reactions.

      So yeah, it really isn’t a “gay” thing. It’s a “male” thing.

      1. Meh, it’s kind of both. Trouser’s not wrong, there is an undercurrent in the gay community for this kind of thing that just heightens the male response you mention.

        1. That “undercurrent” is just “we’re all men”. There is literally nothing that gay guys do that straight men don’t wish they could get away with.

          So sure, you see more May/December romances, you see more “open” relationships, more casual sex, and so-on, but it’s not because gay guys are more into these things then straight men, it’s that more men are into these things then women.

          1. Yes, “we’re all men”, therefore, different sexual norms and interactions. I.E. it has to do with the nature of homosexual relationships. Which is my point.

            1. That’s like going to two bars and counting beards, and concluding that beards are a gay thing because you found more at the gay bar.

              1. So, when you like it it’s that more men are into it, but when you don’t like it it’s drawing the wrong conclusion?

                Hypocrite much?

              2. Beards are not sexual norms and interactions. You yourself are arguing that males are more ‘into these things’ than women, therefore sexual norms and interactions between an all-male mating group are likely to increase the likelihood of this behaviour than in a male-female mating group.

                1. “You yourself are arguing that males are more ‘into these things’ than women, therefore sexual norms and interactions between an all-male mating group are likely to increase the likelihood of this behaviour than in a male-female mating group.”

                  It’s pretty simple.

                  You’re saying it’s a “gay” thing. I’m saying it’s a “man” thing. I find your hedging disingenuous.

                  1. Actually, I’m saying it’s both. It’s a man thing that is more likely within male-male relationships than male-female relationships due to that factor. Some reason you’re unwilling to actually look at the logical outcome of your argument and instead just call me disingenuous.

      2. If I recall correctly, Reason was pretty sympathetic to Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18 year old charged with statutory rape for her sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl.

    4. A gay person thinks differently from a straight person about sexual relationships between young teens and older guys? How shocking.

      (And no, I don’t agree with his viewpoint but if anyone at all finds this shocking that’s a function of their own naivete.)

      As usual with Shikha, I get about two sentences in before she uses some word or idea that’s so blatantly wrong and/or wrong-headed that convinces me I can’t be bothered with the rest of her Gell-Mann amnesia.

      Either there’s a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty, between talking about it and being involved in it, or Milo Yiannopoulos is a social outcast and philosophical giant on par with Socrates.

      Pederasty in Ancient Greece has been wielded as a double-edged sword that only cuts in the socially conservative direction since the earliest days of the gay rights movement. DeVos and Milo are nothing compared to Kevin Jennings. The idea that it would be wielded in the other direction rattled in it’s saber now, should surprise no one.

  13. So now the progs have flipped their position again? Your 18th birthday is the exact date that teenagers become sexual? 18yo and 1 day and 17 year old 364 days is bad, right?

    And we wonder why so many lives are ruined because one person falls right above that date and another person falls right below. Christ, I’m sure many of you older people on this board would be in jail now if the law was like this in the 60s and 70s.

    At this point, I want Milo and Trump to argue for the Minimum Wage, so progs will start arguing against it per their TDS. I’ve already had an anti-war prog suddenly be the biggest nato and nation building fan after Trump said other countries should pay their fair share.

    1. “At this point, I want Milo and Trump to argue for the Minimum Wage, so progs will start arguing against it per their TDS.”

      I like the way you think.

    2. It is a little awkward watching people become suddenly very prudish when it comes to Milo.

      1. This is nothing new. Prudishness is as American as apple pie. What this incident demonstrated is that everyone is a hypocrite, tribal alliegances trump principles, and no one really cares about free speech unless it furthers their tribal agenda.

    3. Lenora Skenazy repeatedly “seems to advocate pedphilia” on this very blog.

    4. Your 18th birthday is the exact date that teenagers become sexual? 18yo and 1 day and 17 year old 364 days is bad, right?

      That was the law when I was that age- and I had already heard three or four years of (99% false- unfortunately, the other 1% were true) stories from my older friends – it was commonly referred to as “jailbait”. “Age of Consent” was 15, so if you were close in age, you could hump like bunnies for a couple years–But if the girl’s parents didn’t like you, you might just want to stay away once you hit 18 if she was younger than yourself…

      I solved that problem by going out with a young lady slightly older than myself as I approached 18. My mom and dad were separated- and dad (who I lived with) was in the hospital dying of cancer- so, she wasn’t worried (plus, my mom really liked her).

  14. I think you meant to type “Some Conservatives Wish They Could Get Screwed by Milo.”

    Also, nihilist. Lol. What a stupid thing to claim.

    1. Nihilists? Fuck me. Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

        1. Your phone’s ringin’, Dude.

          1. The Chinaman is not the issue.

      1. Goddam, that movie’s appeal is not at all obvious to me.

        1. Passes Trigger the blunt, “are you cool, man?”

          1. I’m afraid I’ve never been cool. 🙁

            Seriously, I hate weed to death. Silly plant. Well, I mostly can’t stand stoners, but I don’t think I’m in the minority on that one.

            1. Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

              1. New shit has come to light.

  15. CPAC has for years embraced useless bigots like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin while promoting hostility to gays (recall the recurring controversy over inviting Log Cabin Republicans to a panel).

    It’s not like Milo is an aberration on some otherwise respectable organization.

  16. You nutty libertarians need to quit denigrating socialism. Look at what it’s capable of!

    “Study: Venezuelans lost 19 lbs. on average over past year due to lack of food”

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..-food.html

    1. if Trump doesn’t use this to make an inappropriate joke about Venezuela exporting models, then everything i’ve read about him must be a lie.

    2. Michelle Obama’s school lunch program?

    3. Marie Osmond Caracas-bound.

      1. You know how disappointed Napoleon was after Waterloo? It was nothing compared to my disappointment that “shit gibbon” did not become a “thing.”

      2. Hold the plane, I’m comin’!

        /Kirstie Allie

    4. socialism turned joe into a midget.

  17. This is silly, the Joker was the best part of the movie.

  18. Oops, accidentally clicked on a Dalmia post…

  19. “That it took them so long to see he is a false anti-PC messiah shows their moral bankruptcy”

    I think this is hyperbole. I am not sure there were large swaths of conservatives who saw him as some sort of messiah as now a false prophet.

    1. I saw him as an unpleasant person who was unfortunately arguing against the same people I often found myself arguing against.

      1. So he was “Trump-like”!!

  20. Maybe disinviting someone from your own event because they hold a view you find repugnant is a bit different from throwing a riot to prevent that person from.speaking at someone else’s event.

    There is also the fact the “free speech heroes” are rarely noncontroversial figures. Speech which does not upset somebody rarely gets censored.

    1. Don’t tell that to the reason staff

  21. I get a chuckle of people who write blogs/articles complaing or concerned about Person A gaining influence only to then repeatedly cover them. It is as if what they said is BS and is really about what gets them hits.

  22. I’m really sick of people arguing denying Milo a platform for his idiocy is a free speech issue. It isn’t. Just because mobs sometimes violate his free speech rights does not mean an organization is making a stand for the First Amendment by giving him a free platform.

    Last year in Anaheim, CA a mob prevented a Klan chapter from peacefully assembling. Should CPAC have also invited them, hoods and all, to their gathering to stick it to those intolerant progs? How about if a mob prevented a commie advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system or a Black Panther?

    The only reason CPAC would tolerate someone like Milo’s presence is if they agreed with his agenda in some capacity. Period. And that’s what makes them morally bankrupt.

    1. Good point. Though she is over-inflating how much he meant to them. I don’t think this is a serious blow to them.

    2. The only reason CPAC would tolerate someone like Milo’s presence is if they agreed with his agenda in some capacity. Period. And that’s what makes them morally bankrupt.

      Wouldn’t whether or not it made them morally bankrupt depend on which parts, exactly, of his agenda they agreed with?

    3. What exactly has Yiannopoulos said that puts him in Klan territory?

      I’m open to the possibility that this guy is just beyond the pale. But, all I ever seem to hear whenever I ask what the basis for the claim that he’s so terrible is a repetition of the claim that he is terrible.

      1. Well Robby made a pretty damn clear and concise case against Milo on several occasions. You see Milo is “vile” and also “loathsome”. Case closed.

        1. ^this!!!

    4. Actually at this point an organization which does give him a platform from which to speak is very very much making a stand for free speech.

      That said ones who decline to give him such a platform are not infringing his free speech rights but depending on their reasoning they might be demonstrating a lack of commitment to free speech ideals.

  23. Welcome to Earth, the Star Funeral Company; a microscopic spinning haven of mad minds where telescopes probe befuddling inky infinities and mass indignation clips the ascension of alternatives.

    ‘Mysterious’ is the word I’d tack onto the blip-like obsession right-wingers held for Milo.

    Not because the chatterbox fag plays with metaphor matches in the oily fringes and scares little dummies with his voice… it is because at the end of a long, hot, and heavy fucking day the religion-centric conservative cabals like their Jesus feet tapping to staid tunes plied by their coveted mystical establishment.

    On a somewhat brighter side to this wreckage-fest at least conservative Christianity exhibits a healthy fringe that can handle slumming with a societal discombobulater emitting Jesus tendencies and who glows with ferocious libertine flecks.

    Beats Dee Snider arm-bars and Dalmia dread.

    1. This is more lucid than the article.

      1. I can’t decide if “Dalmia Dread” should become the name of my band or my hairstyle.

        1. Isn’t that Kerouac’s sequel to “The Dharma Bums”?

  24. (posting twice)

    Regardless of whatever you (or the writers here) might think about this otherwise-unimportant-“guy with an opinion” =

    Note that they spend 99% talking about him, and ‘quoting him’ only via 3rd parties and/or obliquely
    (so you’re never permitted to hear anything directly from the source, in context)

    All this guy does is talk. And he makes videos every single speech/interview he gives..

    Yet somehow the best proof of subhuman-awfulness they can dig up about the guy is his candid admission that he seduced a 20+something when he was a teenager.. They’ve written dozens of posts about how bloody awful and triggering he is, and how many times have they sourced their complaints to actual footage of his remarks? Never, AFAIK.

    See, we should celebrate trans-teens joining the boy-scouts, and vigorously oppose Romeo + Juliet laws, and promote ‘Free Minds’, and oppose Affirmative Consent laws which de-facto criminalize voluntary behavior…. Oh, but if a *conservative* gay guy discloses anything in public about his past sex life? Suddenly its classy to start labeling people “pedos” in the press.

    Milo doesn’t offend me; watching people engaged in intellectually-dishonest smear-jobs does. I’m tired of it. Which is why i’m already one foot out the door.

    1. Just imagine a guest on Joe Rogan’s show being, get this, shocking and offensive.

      1. The Milo-Rogan video is from September 2015 and has +1 million views. And only now we find the things that were said then offensive? It seems CPAC is doing the SJW left a huge huge favor.

    2. The modern-day guillotine in contemporary culture draws a different sort of blood and the heads it lops off dance contrite tunes to strangely-overpowered invisible squads.

    3. it’s easy to find his stuff.

      http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/

      Shocking? Brillant? No, but I have not read much so what do I know.

      Some funny snippets in there..

      They’d never stop a Muslim, because that might be racist (or he might explode), but they stopped me. In the light of direct threats on my life, the response to my tour from academia, journalists, and even the government is silence.

    4. > Milo doesn’t offend me

      Maybe there’s something wrong with us, but everytime I watch a video of him speaking, or read an article he actually wrote, I may not agree with it all, but I’m never offended by his statements.

      Maybe I don’t own enough pearls to clutch.

    5. I just caught Nick’s flat-out lie in the previous post. I’ve got one foot and four toes of the other one out the door.

      1. I just caught Nick’s flat-out lie

        which was?

        1. your biggest draw to this year’s event defends pedophilia

          It’s in the first sentence.

            1. Pleather Fonzi is a mendacious piece of shit?

              I’ll put on my shocked face soon.

      2. The fish stinks from the head. Shikha, Robby and Suderman don’t accidentally write what they write here.

  25. I said it – somewhere else, and in not so many words – but if God intended post-pubescent boys to not have sex he would have, you know, made them unable to have sex. If conservatives want to throw a hissy fit while denying human nature, I suppose that is their right – but can we at least stop pretending that teenagers being uniquely required to suppress that nature until some magic age that the state decrees is a universal good? And let’s not obfuscate things by attempting to confuse the reader – is it pedophilia? pederasty? – that is not the real issue here. They would have disinvited him regardless of the age of his “partner”. Because teen sex evil.

    1. The culture right now has considerable revulsion for an adult (20+) having sex with an early teenager and does not consider that an equitable or healthy relationship.

      That is just something tbat is true.

      1. “The culture right now has considerable revulsion for an adult (20+) having sex with an early teenager and does not consider that an equitable or healthy relationship.”
        Make it “a male adult” and sure, I’d agree. But as we see every time we get a “male student and female teacher” story comes up, it’s not the “adult” part that’s repulsive to people.

        1. It’s the fact that the unappreciative little shit blabbed.

        2. The teacher’s have gotten jail time and have been considered weird, at best.

      2. You know that early teenagers aren’t post-pubescent, right?

  26. Meh. If Milo had talked about 13 year old boys and 27 year old women, few people would have batted an eye. It’s only because an adult man was involved that people suddenly got upset.

    1. Well, adult (white) men are the biggest shit-lords of them all.

  27. He sounds horrible Shikha, maybe you should send around some thugs to rough him up instead of just tweeting approval for violence aimed at him and his supporters.

    I don’t really like the guy but the fact that they still post your work here is a Goddamn disgrace.

  28. I’m pretty surprised to see a libertarian site piling so hard on Yiannopoulos,

    1) Just to review, what MY actually said on Rogan was (a) he agrees with the existing consent laws, but (b) some individual teens are capable of consent in fact if not in law; and (c) he doesn’t personally regret his relationships as a teen with older guys.

    Which of those statements does any writer for this site disagree with? Isn’t this the site that weeps copious tears over any 19 year old labeled as a sex predator for a relationship with a pre-teen. I’m against adult-teen sex, but I’m not a very consistent libertarian. I don’t think it’s outrageous that Yiannopolous himself doesn’t feel injured by his teen relationships – does that really make him a “nihilist?”

    2) More directly, when it turned out that Mary Ruwart, the Libertarian Party’s 2004 keynote speaker and 2008 Presidential candidate, had advocated childen’s right to consent to both sex and pornography, Reason pretty much just noted the fact with a question that Weigel was “curious . . . who will turn against her because of it.”

    Reason didn’t turn against her – they interviewed her in 2012. If they mentioned her stance in the interview, it didn’t make the description.

    https://reason.com/blog/2008/04…..-children/

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..-in-2008-2

    1. Yeah but Milo is icky. Faux outrage about faux claims of pedophilia are just a means to an end, to signal to the left that the editorial staff of Reason are on their side in the culture war, and please more than anything else, invite them out for cocktails.

    2. Reason isn’t a libertarian site unfortunately.

    3. Correction: Ruwart wasn’t the 2008 Libertarioan presidential candidate. She was one of the 3 leading candidates for the nomination, but she didn’t win.

      However, the Libertarian Party didn’t bar her from the debates, and Reason never even mention her pro child sex and porn stance again, as far as I can tell.

    4. ) Just to review, what MY actually said on Rogan was (a) he agrees with the existing consent laws, but (b) some individual teens are capable of consent in fact if not in law; and (c) he doesn’t personally regret his relationships as a teen with older guys.

      That sounds like any of the hundred articles about teenage love gone wrong we have here at this fucking site.

      what the fuck is happening, am I taking crazy pills?

    5. Reason doesn’t have principles, just principals. Such a shame, but progressivism is institutional cancer.

    6. “actually said on Rogan?” Wait, the Joe Rogan Experience is “evidence” now? This is where they’re getting it from?

      I was expecting at least an unsourced tape recording from a locker room or something.

      1. you should watch the interview with Milo. I like the JRE, he really does a good job. He asks good follow ups, and it always feels like a good conversation more than an interview.

    7. Excellent comment, J Mann.

  29. When Shikha perceives her intellectual opponents to be lying, she knows that brute force is the proper course of action.

    1. It’s just disgusting that nothing came of those tweets at a site that supposedly pushes libertarianism. NAP my ass.

  30. Ok, so I went and looked on this one.

    It looks to me like he did a pretty good job of explaining himself, not only saying he was taken out of context and intentionally spun, but actually copping to being unclear in his use of language while speaking extemporaneously.

    It seemed to be a pretty credible defense: (paraphrasing) “That’s not what I meant, I was talking about multiple subjects in close proximity so I can understand how there was confusion, I don’t support these positions as you can see by other statements in the same conversation, and I was a victim of abuse at a young age so I am very sensitive to these issues.”

    He goes on to explain that the “age 13” bit was in reference to his own first sexual experience, not an endorsement of that as an age of consent.

    Lacking a deep personal knowledge of Milo, his story or what the larger context of the quotes in question is, I was persuaded that he has been misconstrued, intentionally and otherwise.

    His defense was out there before this article was published, so it probably would have been good to include a deep dive into this defense before publishing. If his defense is BS, so be it. But pretending that obviously politically motivated attacks seeking to spin his language are the gospel truth isn’t very good journalism. Even if it does get you a byline in “the Week”.

    1. The attack on Milo is part of a semi-coordinated counter-attack by the Cathedral: the SJW/Democrat/establishment. They are going after Trump and any internet celebrity who is on his side (even partially). Banning Milo and others from Twitter, shadowbanning Scott Adams and others there, Facebook newsfeed bias, the attack on Flynn, the Soros/Obama “resistance,” and on and on. It’s sad to see Reason take the side of those statist forces out of a misguided sense of ideological purity.

      1. I should have wised up when they latched on to the “fake news” flapdoodle and wouldn’t let go.

  31. “The first big battle on this front was the GamerGate blowup two years ago, when video-game-playing (mostly white) men unleashed a torrent of invective and abuse against female game developers who they felt were hell-bent on feminizing their products.”

    I see no difference between GamerGate and Adam Lanza, herp-a-derp.

    So, I guess she didn’t do any research? Like… reading Reason’s own coverage of it?

    https://reason.com/tags/gamergate

    Because it’s trivially easy to learn that it was a bunch of corrupt game journos who “unleashed a torrent of invective and abuse” against gamers, after they got caught grabbing corrupt indie devs by the pussy and lying about it

    I actually like some of her work, even some of the immigration stuff, but this is just a a Chapmanesque wallbanger.

    1. Actually, it’s about ethics in gaming journalism.

      1. The funny part is that journalists can’t help but make it about ethics, since they keep obsessively lying about it.

    2. Maybe not so easy, as now I see the tag only brings up two recent articles, so never mind. Still a one-sided account.

      1. (Seriously, what’s the point of having a tag system if we don’t tag things properly? If you want to see the article I was thinking of, look up Cathy Young here, I remember her writing one of the more detailed accounts of it.)

    3. Gamergate is apparently in the eye of the beholder.

      Those of the feminist stripe are absolutely convinced to a level of moral certainty that is rarely achieved by mere mortals that anyone on the other side of gamergate is a flaming misogynist motivated only by hatred (and fear) of women. From what I can tell, the large majority of journalists seem to have been given this point of view as received knowledge, and as such are immune to a more complex understanding of the controversy.

      1. Which is funny, because the staff of your typical clickbait site is about as diverse as a Klan rally.

      2. Yes because they are dishonest. Gamergate is ethics in journalism and smearing all gamers who exposed corruption. There’s a reason women and minorities used #NotYourShield.

        Progs gotta Prog. They think they speak for everyone of a group but that is not so. There are female gamers, black gamers, gay gamers, etc, and they are were fed up with that crap. “Gamers are Dead” woke people up just like PewDiePie will.

        1. It’s also an interesting model for things like the Brexit vote or the 2016 election, where rather corrupt power structures tried to shame people into supporting them, as a distraction from their own shameful behavior, and it blew up in their face. To be honest, I was sure they would just vote fraud their way out of those, though.

          1. don’t think they didn’t try.

            I’m sure Trump is exaggerating, but his vote fraud comments really triggered Leftists because they know it is true. In Chicago they even joke about it. Why do you think they fight so hard against Voter ID laws

  32. It’s always telling when intelligent ideologues who are fully capable of making fine distinctions fail to do so when it’s convenient. I’ve read Milo’s explanation of his comments, and find them convincing.

    By fighting back against both the SJW tide and Islam, and getting young people to listen to him, Milo has done 100x more for liberty than Shikha ever has. And frankly, more than Reason magazine, if we just count the last year or so.

    Politics involves coalitions. You don’t have to agree 100% with all of your allies. If you try to do that, you end up in the single digits every election. (*COUGH*) It’s sad to see Reason piling on Milo and Trump, as if the MSM and the Democrats and the GOP establishment and the Deep State need the help of libertarians for that.

    I’ve been commenting here since the pre-Iraq war days, and I’ve been reading Reason since the Carter administration. I hate to say it, but Reason is running off the rails with Trump Derangement Syndrome and the endless cheerleading for mass immigration. Both positions are essentially anti-liberty. I’ll still drop by now and then, but Glibertarians.com seems like a better choice these days.

    1. Libertarians should be positive about Trump.

  33. Great article, Shikha. /said no one ever
    Click my name when you are done twittering stupid statements.

  34. what the fuck is happening here.

    1. What it is ain’t exactly clear.

      1. There’s a Shikha with a gun over there.

        1. telling me, I better watch my speech

  35. The internet got its scalp as it always does.

    1. Milo should ask people to cash him ousside.

  36. Why I Threw a Sex Offender Brunch

    Lenore Skenazy from the July 2015 issue – view article in the Digital Edition

    Sunday morning found me slicing the tomatoes and arranging a cheese platter as my husband set up chairs. At 11 a.m., the doorbell rang. And so began my very first sex offender brunch.

    I made carrot cake and fruit salad, and invited my friends in the press to meet my friends on the sex offender registry: Josh Gravens, 28, and Galen Baughman, 31.

    And Galen? When he was a 19-year-old opera student, he met a young man, 14, at a friend’s family party. They started emailing. When the 14-year-old’s mom discovered her son was writing to a gay teen, she took his computer to the local district attorney, who gave it to a cop.

    On Galen’s personal computer, cops found evidence that he’d had a sexual encounter with a different 14-year-old. The emails showed it was consensual, but this still constitutes statutory rape.

    He went to prison for nine years, including two and a half years after he completed his sentence. Those were spent in solitary confinement awaiting a trial to determine whether he was a “sexually violent predator.” If so, he could have been kept locked up indefinitely, a process called “civil commitment.”

    Obviously Reason is a terrible, horrible organization for giving this pederasty apologist a voice.

    1. I think it’s more that Shikia thinks that Lenore is a nihilist who is screwing Reason.

      1. Shikha, sorry!

      2. Ah, yes. I remember Shikha’s scathing rebuke of Lenore, and how she quit in protest after this article was run. She’s nothing if not consistent in her approbation, our Shikha.

    2. Pedophile apologists!

    3. Even that nihilist makes a distinction between sex with pre-pubescent and post-pubescent boys.

  37. This place went to shit as soon as they allowed threaded comments.

    1. I’m still holding out for cross-stitched comments.

  38. “Libertarians are finally feeling screwed by someone who publicly declared white people to be authoritarian thugs and who supports violence to silence speakers she doesn’t like. That the editors of Reason allow such a person to publish articles on their website is evidence of their moral bankruptcy.”

    How remarkably easy it is to condemn speech.

    Doesn’t seem so clever-sounding now, does it, Shikha?

    1. I know that she said minorities would protect the constitution from white people, but when did she declare them authoritarian thugs? I’d be happy to repost that quote every time she posts an article.

      1. Listening to the Reason podcast in which she was a panelist. I do not recall the name of the podcast and I am not in a position to track down the link. However, she pointed out that Trump carried 58% of the white vote, and argued that because Trump is an authoritarian, White people implicitly agree with authoritarianism, and it would be up to non-whites to preserve civil liberties under a trump administration.

        1. I meant “Listen to the Reason podcast…” someday I will actually learn to proofread.

          1. Only if it’s the hot 42%

        2. I read something from her (here) a while back that sort of paraphrased what you’re saying but I don’t care enough to slog back through the archives. You ain’t lying though.

  39. Any fair criticism of pedis must put some blame on the children for being so tempting.

    Seriously, Dalmia, how the fuck do you still have a job here?

  40. RE: Conservatives Are Finally Feeling Screwed by Milo
    That it took them so long to see he is a false anti-PC messiah shows their moral bankruptcy

    The conservatives are just as morally bankrupt as the liberals.
    Ask me again why I can’t stand either political party.

  41. GamerGate. Are you sure that’s what happened?

  42. This level (and lack-of-libertarian-context) affirms, again, my lapsed Reason subscription.

    1. (Add “of content and analysis” after “level”.)

  43. Shika is not only terrible on Libertarian principles, her writing is atrocious…

    Yiannopoulos agrees with the alt-right that certain pop cultural products remain firmly the purview of white men and yield not another inch to diversity or feminizing.

    There are so many goddamned things wrong with this sentence.

    1. “Citation needed.”

      To her, not to you.

  44. You know who’s fucking morally bankrupt? The person who blames the victims of a riot engineered to squash dissent.

  45. There is a difference between pre and post pubescent people. That is the crux of the point he was trying to make. It is only in the modern western world of the last couple decades that any normal person would consider it s vile and indecent act for a 22 year old to have sex with a 16 year old or whatever.

    That is essentially the meaning of what Milo said. While I agree that 13 to late 20s (which he used as an example) is on the very, VERY outside edge of what could be remotely considered even POSSIBLY acceptable, let us remember that historically even that isn’t entirely out of order. That was quite common throughout all of human history. I think when you hear the full statement in context it’s not as bad as it sounds at first blush.

    Bottom line is if we want to define truly degenerate acts you are basically talking attraction to pre pubescent children is non normal, AKA a mental defect. Attraction to post pubescent/sexually mature people that happen to be on the young side is simply socially unacceptable, but IMO not a mental deficiency. AKA thinking a hot 16 year old is hot is not really all that messed up, whereas wanting to bone a 6 year old shows serious mental problems.

    Personally I wouldn’t throw Milo under the bus for this of ALL the out there shit he has said. A lot of the other things are arguably worse, but I still think he should be free to say them! And in truth he cracks me up sometimes. LOL

  46. There was research done in the mid-1900s in the more sex friendly Scandinavian regions that showed that kids, even prepubescent kids, that had sexual relations with adults actually benefited from them psychologically and emotionally as long as they felt free in the relationship and were consenting.

    We are living in the middle of a modern witch hunt, nothing more. It’s sex, we are born capable of enjoying sexual pleasure and always have been born that way. We are animals first and foremost.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.