Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Conservatives Made Their Bed With Milo, Now They Have to Lie In It

Disinviting him from CPAC won't wash their sins.

Milo Yiannopoulos finally went too far.

Less than three days after this lightning rod Breitbart News editor made a triumphant appearance on Bill Maher, he was dumped by the Conservative Political Action MiloLe Web 14 via FoterConference and Simon & Schuster. Then he was forced out to resign from Breitbart. And this was all because a tape surfaced in which Yiannapoulos seemed to condone pedophilia. This was awful stuff, but it was hardly the first —and hardly the worst thing that Yiannopoulous has ever done.

That it took these pedophilia comments for conservatives to finally turn on Yiannopoulos speaks volumes about how low their movement has fallen. Yiannopoulos was a hate-peddling provocateur long before this. By inviting him to speak at universities around the country, many college Republicans apparently thought they were taking a brave stance against the forces of political correctness, and scoring one for free speech. In fact, they were discrediting their own movement by allying themselves with a vicious troll — demonstrating that they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles.

Republican students have a right to invite whomever they want to say whatever they want (short of a targeted call for violence) unmolested and without censorship. So if University of California, Berkeley, where Yiannopoulous' appearance triggered riots by armed leftist hoodlums, stick to their vow to have him back (along with right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) then so be it. Berkley is a public university and is required not just by the First Amendment but its own mission to be a broad purveyor of ideas to create a "safe space" for Yiannopoulos. And CPAC is a private gathering that can put whomever it wants on its roster — and also remove those same people.

But if Republicans have a right to invite Yiannaopoulos, others have the right to judge them for the company they keep. And Yiannopoulos is very, very bad company.

For starters, he writes – or wrote -- for Breitbart, a go-to site for the alt-right movement, a loose conglomeration of long-standing nativist outfits such as VDare and FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and white supremacists. They all hate the left's political correctness and multiculturalism not because it offends America's commitment to individual rights and universalistic notions of justice, but because it comes in the way of their ethno-nationalistic project — which the site aids by peddling a constant stream of the vilest xenophobia (as I wrote here).

But Yiannopoulos is a devilishly cunning man who is not easily categorized. He has devised an elaborate straddle, serving the alt-right while hiding behind his complex identity as a gay, Catholic, partly Jewish immigrant to make fun of the left's growing regime of intolerance.

To be sure, this regime needs attacking. It has become impossible to challenge leftist orthodoxy on race, gender, sexuality, and other issues without being dubbed a racist, sexist, and bigot. The left has made discussion of too many issues taboo and vastly narrowed the terms of discussion on those that are allowed. But if "nothing goes" in the leftist moral universe, "anything goes" in Milo's and his fellow alt-right trolls'. And that, too, is a big problem.

Yiannopoulos wants to replace the left's protective authoritarianism with the alt-right's nihilistic anarchism. If the left wants to empower the state to mollycoddle minorities, Yiannopoulos and his social media warriors want free rein to viciously bait and bully minorities — and mock them if they refuse to grin and bear it. It is a profoundly degraded and dehumanized spectacle. It's political sado-masochism.

Now, in Yiannopoulos' appearances on campuses and elsewhere, there is often nothing particularly objectionable about him. To the contrary, he is funny, charming, knowledgeable, edgy, entertaining, and sometimes even insightful. Even his profanity-laden attacks aren't out of line compared to what you hear from contemporary stand-up comics.

If that was all there was to Milo, you could simply shake your head at his over-the-top taunts, laugh a little, and move on. But it isn't.

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. 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. Yiannopoulos tweeted and wrote constantly in support of the gamers, joining them in their attacks and depicting them as the real victims — a political jujitsu that he has now perfected to an art.

Yiannopoulos was later banned from Twitter over his attacks last summer on Leslie Jones, a black woman starring in the new Ghostbusters. Yiannopoulos instigated and mobilized his massive alt-right Twitter brigade — already worked up about the movie's all-female cast — against Jones. They called her an "ape" and other terrible things. Then they created a fake Twitter account in her name and sent a series of tweets with anti-Semitic, homophobic slurs. When a distraught and bewildered Jones protested, Yiannopoulos simply berated her for playing the victim.

Yiannopoulos and his fellow alt-righters don't just abuse leftists and their symbols. They also go after fellow right-wingers who disagree with them, especially on Trump. Milo's former Breitbart colleague, Ben Shapiro, who quit when the site became, as he put it, "Trump's Pravda," recounts that when his child was born, Yiannopoulos tweeted a picture of a black baby to taunt him for being a "cuckservative." (This is alt-right slang for a cuckolded conservative who enjoys watching his wife have sex with a black man, a metaphor for having been seduced by the left's multiethnic vision.) Now, Shapiro is no slouch himself when it comes to fighting the PC culture. He has written books like Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. But because he is anti-Trump and Jewish, alt-righters flood him with anti-Semitic tweets replete with references to gas chambers.

Yiannopoulos dismisses all of this with a flick of his thick artificial-blonde shock, glibly insisting that speech is not violence and most of his followers don't actually believe what they say. They are simply doing it for kicks and to shatter taboos. That's debatable. But what's not is that speech affects culture and culture affects politics. Otherwise, what would be the point of zealously defending free speech? Indeed, as Andrew Breitbart, the late founder of Breitbart, used to say, "politics is downstream from culture." And a culture where threatening minorities and dissenters with imagery from the Holocaust is tolerated will, at minimum, expand the outside limits of the inhumanity that is politically possible.

So why are conservatives cozying up to such hideousness? The best explanation they offer is that inviting someone so beyond the pale will shatter the tight boundaries drawn by political correctness and open the space for a wider airing of ideas. But the problem is that by using a stink bomb like Yiannopoulos they'll make their own ideas malodorous. Who will take conservative praise of civility, tradition, family values, manners, honor, moderation, and dignity seriously if a 31-year-old, out-of-control adolescent is their champion?

Milo Yiannopoulos is like the Joker in Batman. He has turned chaos and nihilism into a business model for notoriety and wealth. Conservatives won't defeat their liberal enemies by making a deal with this devil. Rather, they will validate the liberal critique of the right as a front for bigotry and prejudice, discrediting everything they claim to defend and declaring their own moral bankruptcy.

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.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Hmm, this article reads like it was written beforehand as a response to Milo's CPAC speech. Then when that speech never happened, Dalmia just attached a couple of paragraphs acknowledging the pedophilia controversy. It doesn't make much sense to beat one's chest urging conservatives not to embrace Milo after he's already been ostracized by the right.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why would any conservative listen to anything said by Shitka?
    Hell, why would anybody?

  • Bra Ket||

    Didn't read the article but I think it's been pretty clear lately that for the most part, Reason is only interested in persuading and/or ingratiating themselves with the left. Perhaps because they share the same urban cosmo value system as left-wingers or maybe they're just thinking about who has all the jobs in journalism. Or perhaps it's capitulation from fear of the left's bullying, just like CPAC.

  • David Nolan||

    Youngsters seem unaware that libertarianism has been both fiscally conservative and socially liberal .. for nearly a half-century now. Or as we've said all along, Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet, while Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom. Two competing versions of government oppression -- while each claims to be defending individual liberty!!.

    Also see the World's Smallest Political Quiz - for well over a quarter-century now -- based in the 1969 Nolan Chart. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, using force and mandates against any who dare disobey their diktats.

  • WakaWaka||

    Except Reason doesn't push for individual liberty and it's ironic that you suggested this under an article written by proto-fascist Shikha.

    They don't care to defend religious liberty, freedom of association, or even free speech (like jackass Shikha, for instance). All they care about are political questions like free trade and open immigration.

    Maybe the Nolan Chart needs to be updated or maybe libertarian literal means nothing anymore, as every principle has been foresaken, save for two

  • David Nolan||

    Your ignorance is astounding.
    You have no clue what religious liberty is. Or free speech.,
    How did "jackass Shikha" endorse government censorship?

    Maybe the Nolan Chart needs to be updated

    You clearly have no idea what that means either.

    ll they care about are political questions like free trade and open immigration.

    It's a political movement and philosophy!!!!
    And you've only listed positions you disagree with -- because YOU endorse government force. So you're also clueless on the very purpose of the Nolan Chart. It's to stifle authoritarians. Like you. By calling out your authoritarian demands.
    ,

  • Contrary Ian||

    You just identified the problem with your view pretty well. Libertarianism is supposed to be anti-authoritarian, not "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

    By using identity politics, intersectional feminism, and 'hate speech' restrictions social liberalism has become authoritarian. People can criticize Milo for flirting with the alt-right and for being too offensive or 'mean spirited' in challenging leftists' taboos, but his primary focus was always to challenge cultural authoritarianism.

    Before his remarks about underage sex were brought to the fore (which are different because they actually seem to be endorsing behavior that causes real physical harm) people were just criticizing him for how hard (and some might argue how dirty) he was fighting, but that criticism fails to take into account how powerful and toxic the forces were that he was fighting against. He was outnumbered and outgunned in a culture war and people are whining that he wasn't paying fair.

  • David Nolan||

    You just identified the problem with your view pretty well.

    You just made a public fool of yourself.

    Libertarianism is supposed to be anti-authoritarian, not "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

    I'll TRY dumbing it down for ya
    "Liberals want government out of your bedroom but into to your wallet. Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom. Libertarians want government out of your life." See it NOW?

    By using identity politics, intersectional feminism, and 'hate speech' restrictions social liberalism has become authoritarian.

    (lol) So -- you say -- it's NOT libertarian!!!

    People can criticize Milo for flirting with the alt-right and for being too offensive or 'mean spirited' in challenging leftists' taboos, but his primary focus was always to challenge cultural authoritarianism.

    So he supports marriage equality? (lol)

    You clearly know nothing about libertarianism, and perhaps less on Milo's cultural fascism. You're authoritarian, perhaps a cult follower of Ron/Rand Paul.

  • damikesc||

    Small issue.

    Liberals --- well, modern-day Progressives --- want the government COMPLETELY in your bedroom (conservatives aren't demanding affirmative consent laws nor are they demanding a jihad against a mythical issue of college campus rape). Your definition is amazingly wrong.

    Reason supports using the law to force businesses to make cakes for groups they oppose, to force businesses to provide bathrooms for people who have a psychological problem believing they are the wrong gender, etc. Most of the writers are, to be generous, intellectually sloppy (why they ALL seem to combine illegal and legal immigration is odd, no?) and, honestly, have done immense harm to the Libertarian movement. Hell, they tried to pretend that Gary Johnson was a SERIOUS candidate.

    Libertarianism is a joke, and it has its own self to blame.

  • WakaWaka||

    Yeah, supporting violence against people attending a speech at a public university is totally cool.

    You are a moron.

  • David Nolan||

    You are a moron

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

  • David Nolan||

    You are a moron.

    One more time, cowardly bullshitter: "How did 'jackass Shikha' endorse government censorship?" WELL?
    And why are you stalking me?

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Ah, I get it. David Nolan is a Michael Hihn sock. Now this makes sense.

  • David Nolan||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He does say the same tired shit, doesn't he?

  • David Nolan||

    He does say the same tired shit, doesn't he?

    Here's where I jammed it up HIS ass.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

    And now yours. (smirk)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sorry, I don't roll that way. You will have to find someone else for that.

    Poor David(Michael Hihn). Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

  • David Nolan||

    It's not nice to ridicule the handicapped, so I won't. I'll just link to where it was also jammed up your ass.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6775084

    Stay with the stalking, aggression and bullying, which seems to be all you can manage.

  • DesigNate||

    "Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet, while Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom."

    If you, or Reason for that matter, actually believe that, I think I see the problem.

  • David Nolan||

    If you, or Reason for that matter, actually believe that, I think I see the problem.

    Keep going. I need a good laugh.

    It's been true since 1969. Try again?

  • DesigNate||

    Republicans have proven over the last 30 years that they are just as interested in your wallet as the Democrats. Likewise, the Democrats have proven they are just as interested in your bedroom as Republicans.

    Or do you not read the articles Reason posts?

  • David Nolan||

    Republicans have proven over the last 30 years that they are just as interested in your wallet as the Democrats.

    ANOTHER FUCKUP!
    Learn what "want" means. Since libertarians control NOTHING, even a retard should be able to grasp that the message refers to VOTERS.

    And you've confused taxes and spending. Third, you fucked up the FACTS!

    1) 80% of the Bush tax cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000 -- who were paying 45% of the tax. Biggest wealth redistribution since FDR.

    2) Medicare Prescriptions were "paid for" by looting the income tax, a subsidy that now exceeds a quarter trillion dollars per year -- roughly 20% of the entire personal income tax. So a HUGE new middle-class entitlement -- paid by a tax the middle class barely pays! (Over 40% of their actual share is subsidized by the rich. )

    Or do you not read the articles Reason posts?

    For over 35 years, Sluggo.
    1) I UNDERSTAND them. You clearly do not.
    2) But on REPORTING, today's Reason publishes tribal bullshit for goobers like you. So I do my own research -- and have just shown I know that Reason does not.
    3) Example: do you swallow the MASSIVE bullshit that huge government spending cuts were a "stimulus" after WWII, causing the postwar boom? If so, you're as brainwashed as the BernieBots.

    the Democrats have proven they are just as interested in your bedroom as Republicans.

    Same fuckup, now with drooling.
    Anything else?

  • Presskh||

    Agree. It's pretty clear that Reason has become a shill for the left.

  • David Nolan||

    Your fault for being so ignorant of what libertarianism has been for the past half century.

  • Contrary Ian||

    not hardly- you should probably change your name

  • David Nolan||

    not hardly- you should probably change your name

    Learn what the Nolan Chart is ... since 1969.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

    Anything else I can help you grasp?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Dealing in reacharounds are you?

  • David Nolan||

    Anything else I can help you grasp?

    Dealing in reacharounds are you?

    Suffering severe denial are you?
    Anything else I can help you grasp?

  • Julesjcg||

    "Didn't read the article..."

    Didn't read your comment, as these first four words told me everything I needed to know about what you are saying.

  • Bra Ket||

    Aren't you clever for using my own evil tactics against me. Except my conclusions are based on reading prior articles on actual topics (instead of some silly drama about a professional troll). Whereas yours is based on emotion and projecting a broad conclusion with minimal information.

  • David Nolan||

    So Bra Ket is PROUD of being judgmental.
    And showing a truly laughable double standard.

    "My conclusions are based on ... (take my word on blind faith)"

  • Bra Ket||

    Guy who refuses to read my post is now criticizing me for not typing more. How do you even know what my "judgements" are?

    Fyi the reason I prefaced my statement by noting I didn't read this article, is to allow for the possibility that perhaps this particular article might have actually been surprisingly even-handed or something (sure wouldn't bet on it though). And I wouldn't attack someone for something I didn't read after all, that would be unfair. Despite you hilariously getting all triggered and white knighty as if I had done exactly that.

  • David Nolan||

    Guy who refuses to read my post

    Look closely You've confused two different people ... pressumably from your obsession with judgmentalism.

    One more time, I'm laughing hysterically that you accuse someone of making emotional arguments ... while making a totally unsupported assertion.

    FYI, your mere assertion ed claim is "judgmental" -- and a double standard -- because you used it to attack the credibility of someone else ... while establishing NONE for yourself ... not even caring to try .. and now you've done it to me also.

    If you object to "judgemental" -- how about blowhard?

  • Bra Ket||

    "Look closely You've confused two different people"

    My mistake. Didn't notice it was a tag team.

    As for the rest of you post, no it doesn't particularly bother me to be called judgemental. I was merely trying to correct some apparent confusion. My previous post was not about credibility, but about who reason writers care more about persuading. Much like I myself don't actually care about persuading some flamey dude who only came here to pick fights. You can just sit there with that pole up your ass and accept my wisdom whether you like it or not.

  • David Nolan||

    "Look closely You've confused two different people"

    My mistake. Didn't notice it was a tag team.

    But you're not judgmental! (smirk)

    My previous post was not about credibility,

    (add 'liar' to the list)

    Much like I myself don't actually care bout persuading some flamey dude who only came here to pick fights.

    Says the serial aggressor.

    You can just sit there with that pole up your ass and accept my wisdom whether you like it or not.

    But he's not judgemental (sneer)

  • trashdoveluvsu||

    Thank you for this. I've finally got to witness the personification of one shitting into their own hands and clapping.

  • David Nolan||

    I've finally got to witness the personification of one shitting into their own hands and clapping.

    Agree, Bra Ket is kinda stooppid, but no call for such childish language by you.
    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

  • Hooha||

    "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"

    Checked the author (and quit reading) here. Why bother reading something penned by somebody who clearly has no fucking idea what they are talking about?

  • David Nolan||

    Why bother reading something penned by somebody who clearly has no fucking idea what they are talking about?

    I read you, even knowing you're full of shit on that.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Gray van plows into Mardi Gras crowd in New Orleans

    It appears the driver was drunk, not Muslim, though it can be hard to distinguish sometimes.

  • creech||

    So, it's o.k., because it isn't a Hate Crime like the recent bar murder.
    OT - buried in a short paragraph in the daily police blotter story in the local paper is an act of vandalism: someone spray painted "No Fascist USA" on a storage building. Would have been Page One, and national news, if it said something like "Trump Says Go Back Where You Came From."

  • Bra Ket||

    Last Mardi Gras, you may recall some dude in North Carolina went into a rage over a parking spot and murdered three age 20-ish muslim college kids. Right around the same time, some guy in New Orleans got into an argument at a parade, pulls a gun and kills two other dudes. All three people in this story were also close to 20. Of course they were also black.

    One of these stories was international news for many days, has its own wikipedia page and candlelight vigils, and will be cited in books and theses confirming biases for years to come. The other story only made the local news.

  • Stilgar||

    demonstrating that they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles

    Ah.. yeah, isn't that exactly why the OrangeJerk won?

  • The Grinch||

    Laughable coming from a person who was condoning violence against political speech she doesn't like. The fact that she is still here shows Reason does the same and the lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

  • David Nolan||

    Laughable coming from a person who was condoning violence against political speech she doesn't like.

    Hateful and shameful bullshit .,.. as documented here.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

    It's you who's laughable.
    And pathetic.

  • Careless||

    Wow, who's this retard?

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    It's Hihn. He just figured out how to make a new userid apparently.

  • David Nolan||

    Did you see how I actually provided proof? (gasp)

  • David Nolan||

    Wow, who's this retard?

    His name is the Grinch. I assume you followed the link to see him totally humiliated. Only because he is an aggressor.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I think it's Hihn: same kind of senility, same lack of ideas or coherence, same kind of faux libertarian beliefs.

  • David Nolan||

    same kind of senility, same lack of ideas or coherence, same kind of faux libertarian beliefs.

    But Nolan jammed it up your ass ... proved you a psycho bullshitter -- twice on this page (so far)

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6775012

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6775000

    (sneer)

    (My tone in response to repeated aggression by a serial cyber-bully)

    Readers with integrity my do a page search for "Pants on fire" (Those words go into all the repeated bullshit by my stalker on this page, which exceed the two-link limit per comment.)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It definitely is Hihn.

  • David Nolan||

    Hihn deals in documenting facts and proof while exposing bullshitters?
    Instead of childish personal attacks?
    I can see why that would really piss off your gang of cyber-bully aggressors!

  • Sam Haysom||

    Dalmia's principle being that she really really hates white people.

  • David Nolan||

    But she's not a nasty asshole!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How do you know? Did you check? Have you even checked your own lately?

  • David Nolan||

    How do you know?

    I can read.

    Did you check?

    Pay attention. I'll go slowly.
    It's his job to prove it about her. Not just a shitmouth like you brag about being.
    His fucking lie proves what I said. Still confused?

    Will you continue stalking and bullying me?

  • Bra Ket||

    Voting for Hillary would've been the principled thing to do?

  • David Nolan||

    Do you EVER make sense???

  • VG Zaytsev||

    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 menMilo can be 'life affirming.'"

    A totally outrageous statement coming from some that doesn't even work in Hollywood, let alone directed any films.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    That's not even what he said.

    They were having a conversation about whether 13 was too young to consent to sex, then moved on to another topic, then Milo made that comment about "relationships between younger and older men can be life affirming".

  • David Nolan||

    That's not even what he said.

    Bullshit
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773333

  • IStandWithMilo||

    Milo was talking openly and honestly about what happened to him at age 13. I admire that, even if his comments may seem strange. I stand with Milo.

  • David Nolan||

    Milo was talking openly and honestly about what happened to him at age 13.

    Bullshit. He REFUSED (twice) to say how old he was when the priest allegedly blew him. 13 was the age he DEFENDED an adult having sex with,

    I admire that, even if his comments may seem strange.

    It's illegal. In all 50 states.

    I stand with Milo.

    What level of depravity will you "stand with" -- if committed by someone on your own team, who also attacks those devils on the left?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, it's time for you to go away now. We're very busy here. M'kay? Now run along.

  • David Nolan||

    Why are you stalking me down the page -- with purely personal attacks and aggression?
    Did your parent raise you to be like that?
    Are they proud of what you've become?

  • #NotMyReason (Krabappel)||

    "seemed to condone pedophilia"

    Sure, if you're a dishonest hack who didn't watch the video or his response to the controversy.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Reason doesn't condone pedophilia it just thinks that it shouldn't carry a stigma or require an offender registry.

  • David Nolan||

    a dishonest hack who didn't watch the video or his response to the controversy.

    I saw the video. You're full of shit. Proof of your shameless lie starts at 4:00 in this video.

    He denies he was defending pedophilia in the video, saying that term refers to younger children, not "someone who is 13-year-old, who is sexually mature." He also says, "We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults."

    A man in the video asks him: "You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?" Milo responds: "Yeah, I don't mind admitting that."

    I challenge anyone else who has been brainwashed to simply see and hear ... the inconvenient truth.

  • Jickerson||

    I don't see anything about pedophilia in the part you quoted. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Once you understand that, maybe you can be taken seriously. And please don't talk about the colloquial usage of the term; the general public is as ignorant as you are, but that doesn't make it alright to be wrong.

  • DarrenM||

    I believe the term is pederasty. I can understand the general public being ignorant on this. I'm not letting people for whom words is their profession off the hood. They should know better and I can't say they don't.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My understanding is that the term for those who are attracted to young teens is Hebephilia. Yes?

  • David Nolan||

    The relevant term is ILLEGAL .... in every fucking state of the union.

  • David Nolan||

    I challenge anyone else who has been brainwashed to simply see and hear ... the inconvenient truth.

    A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children

    Then the goober dismisses both the dictionary definitions -- AND THE FUCKING LAW!

    the general public is as ignorant as you are,

    Goobers all claim to be geniuses!

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Don't be mean to dreamy hero!

  • Trigger Warning||

    How about Shikha, then?

  • Acosmist||

    Shikha? We're sorry, man. She just sucks at free speech. But since she's your hero, maybe we can go easier on her.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Honest criticism of the older male child molesters of the world must include condemnation of the 13 year-old boys that entice them.

    See how easy false equivalencies are, Shikha? You can make them all day long, about anything......

  • David Nolan||

    See how easy false equivalencies are, Shikha?

    Is my sister's mini-skirt an enticement to rape her?

    See how easy false equivalencies are, Shikha?

    For you perhaps. But many of us have moral principles.

  • WakaWaka||

    Dude, maybe you should read what Shikha wrote that this comment references. Click on my name to see her despicable comment.

    You're making yourself look silly right now

  • David Nolan||

    Dude, is my sister's mini-skirt an enticement to rape her?
    I clicked your name and saw a totally different issue.
    Try again, with something even remotely relevant to this thread -- like, Is my sister's mini-skirt an enticement to rape her?

  • Careless||

    yes, according to Dalmia.

  • David Nolan||

    Yes, according to Dalmia.

    Your repeated bullshit is actually shameful. As documeted here.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

  • d_remington||

    Man, watching desperate loser David Nolan getting his ass handed to him is a pleasure and a delight.

  • David Nolan||

    desperate loser David Nolan

    Check the link, chump.
    Have a 10-year-old read it to you. (smirk)

  • DarrenM||

    Wouldn't it kind of depend if she was wearing it?

  • David Nolan||

    It's shamelessly stupid either way.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    @ David Nolan

    "For you perhaps. But many of us have moral principles."

    You're defending someone totally without them. Shikha thinks it's totally cool to beat people and burn shit to suppress speech. To her, doing those things is the equivalent of saying mean things.

    And you're phrasing stuff incorrectly. In Shikhaspeak, it would be "honest criticism of the guy that raped my sister must include condemnation of her for the mini-skirt she wore". See? Easy peasy.

  • David Nolan||

    For you perhaps. But many of us have moral principles."

    You're defending someone totally without them

    I attacked his totally stupid comment. Now yours.

    And you're phrasing stuff incorrectly.

    Your turn to be ridiculed!

    In Shikhaspeak, Honest criticism of the older male child molesters of the world must include condemnation of the 13 year-old boys that entice them.

    Bullshit. And shame on you. This is what she says here ... the only thing you could have HONESTLY referenced.

    But if Republicans have a right to invite Yiannaopoulos, others have the right to judge them for the company they keep

    Try again?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "But if Republicans have a right to invite Yiannaopoulos, others have the right to judge them for the company they keep"

    But if Shihka has a right to defend violence that denies the right to free speech, others have the right to judge her for the violence she defends.

    See how it works? Logic has to be consistent or it really isn't logic.

  • David Nolan||

    But if Shihka has a right to defend violence that denies the right to free speech

    Shameless bullshit.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773333

    But haters gotta hate.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    You haven't addressed a single point I've made. You think you're ridiculing people, but you're actually embarrassing yourself. Your link back to your post dissing Milo has nothing to do with Shihka's attitude toward speech, which is what I'm ridiculing. As Andy said to the warden, how can you be so obtuse?

    I get it - you don't like Milo. Hey, neither do I! But he's got the right to speak without a bunch of violent leftists burning down Berkeley and beating the crap out of people to try to stop it. Even if Shihka and you (and I) don't like what he's got to say.

    So you're like Shihka - in your opinion the right to free speech extends precisely to the point that you agree with the speaker, but no further. And THAT'S the shameless bullshit here.

  • DesigNate||

    Dont bother, it's Hihnfected and hasnt bothered to read the tweet that you were obviously basing your comment off of.

    For fucks sake, the idiot thinks you're referring to the actual article.

  • David Nolan||

    and hasnt bothered to read the tweet that you were obviously basing your comment off of.

    Jams that up your ass

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

  • David Nolan||

    As Andy said to the warden, how can you be so obtuse?

    Excuse me while I make an ass out of you.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

    Howzat?

  • David Nolan||

    You haven't addressed a single point I've made.

    Where did she defend violence?

    You think you're ridiculing people, but you're actually embarrassing yourself.

    Where did she defend violence?

    Your link back to your post dissing Milo

    Sorry, wrong link

    has nothing to do with Shihka's attitude toward speech, which is what I'm ridiculing.

    Speaking of ridicule, THIS link is the one that proves you full of shit.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

    Sorry for my error. Where's YOUR apology?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Or to express it simply, so that maybe you'll get it, you ask "Dude, is my sister's mini-skirt an enticement to rape her?" You don't seem to recognize that as what SHIHKA was saying about Berkeley.

    To paraphrase her tweets back then - "Dude, you invited an asshole to speak so you deserve the beating you got."

  • David Nolan||

    You don't seem to recognize that as what SHIHKA was saying about Berkeley.

    How many times must I jam the truth up your ass?

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

    To paraphrase her tweets back then - "Dude, you invited an asshole to speak so you deserve the beating you got."

    Same link, chump. Haters gotta hate.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And Hihn has gotta be unHihnged, right?

  • David Nolan||

    And Hihn has gotta be unHihnged, right?

    Agree, bevis is a total dumbass. And I proved it!
    Reason is the ONLY major political site that refuses to monitor its comments. So like any other market all the cyber-bullies wind up here ... in their "safe zone."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The only one? You clearly haven't been to topix.com. Now go take your meds Michael.

  • David Nolan||

    (smirk) That's hardly a major political site, dumbass stalker.
    It's not even political!

    So your latest fuckup proves my point exactly, one-who-is-PROUD-to-be-a-shitlord.
    "Reason is the ONLY major political site that refuses to monitor its comments. So like any other market all the cyber-bullies wind up here ... in their 'safe zone.'"

    Plus over a dozen purely personal attacks on this page ... but doesn't know what a "political website" is.

    Topix launched new entertainment-focused slideshow based sites Stars and Offbeat and has continued to launch additional new sites since 2015

    In addition to the Topix Local content, the company has other category-specific sites which are subdomains of topix.com

    Stars (Celebrity and Entertainment)
    Offbeat (Pop Culture)
    Wellnest (Health and Wellness)
    Sideline (Sports)
    Blackbeat (Black Entertainment)
    Parenthood (Parenting)
    Pawsome (Pets)
    Estrellas (Spanish Language Entertainment)

    That's why he stalks me with personal attacks. When he adds content ... he gets publicly humiliated!

    Apparently, he can even be "triggered" in a "safe zone."
    So he whines even more than a Proggie!! (lol)

    Since I always prove things (gasp), see his buffoonery with your own eyes.
    http://topix.com
    And join me in ridiculing the bully.

  • damikesc||

    Have to wonder how linking to Milo is, in any way, an excuse for Shitka justifying the Berkeley riots, which she quite publicly did on Twitter.

  • David Nolan||

    Liar.

  • David Nolan||

    But if Shihka has a right to defend violence that denies the right to free speech,

    How many times will you repeat your shameful bullshit?

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

    See how it works?

    Yes, I see how your raging hatred and eagerness to be brainwashed works... even to denying facts and elementary literacy.

  • d_remington||

    Man, watching desperate loser David Nolan getting his ass handed to him is a pleasure and a delight.

  • David Nolan||

    desperate loser David Nolan

    Denies proof??? (lol)
    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    And stalking bullies run around posting multiple childish insults. And giggling.

  • David Nolan||

    Bellowing blowhard claims this is a political website: http://topix.com
    Now a Trump-like denial of his own words!
    But he's not a stalker and bully.
    And he doesn't care if you check his link and see he's a psycho liar..
    Haters gotta hate. Bullies gotta attack. Blowhards gotta bellow

    (This is response to aggression and personal attacks)

  • The Grinch||

    Why don't you pop over his way and beat his ass Shika or do you draw the line at encouraging others to commit violence? At least CPAC held him to account for something they found to be immoral. When will Reason do the same to you?

  • David Nolan||

    Ummm, what did she do that's immoral?

    or do you draw the line at encouraging others to commit violence?

    Obviously you do not draw such a line. Do you have a point?

  • The Grinch||

    First question-She was tweeting support for riots and the attendant violence at Berkeley a couple of weeks ago.

    Second question-That's hyperbole, hers was not. The point is that she is an apologist for, and actual encourager of, political violence directed at speech she disagrees with.

  • The Grinch||

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

    shikha sood dalmia‏@shikhadalmia Feb 3
    When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!

  • David Nolan||

    The Grinch
    From her Twitter:
    Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.

    So you confuse criticism with violence!!!! Then again, a disturbing number of comments on that page committed the same retarded error.

    Next, you simply lie about what she tweeted.

    The lie: When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    The truth: No matter what the moral rot on the left, the right always manages to outdo it! Sad!
    When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    1) "sad" should tell even a retard that she's CONDEMNING brute force!! duh
    2) When Donald says "sad" is HE endorsing or condemning? Your double standard is ... proggie.
    3) In an HONEST quote of her words. she's criticizing "the right" You lose.
    4) STILL confused? Who dismissed "alternative facts?" THE RIGHT!!!

    So all the goobers here are actually proving her CORRECT ... that the right is just as bad as the left that they whine about. Sad.

    But haters gotta hate.

  • The Grinch||

    This is a direct copy and paste job from her Twitter feed. You're compressing multiple tweets into a made up tweet in order to try to butress your position. Again, what I posted is a verbatim tweet from her, you are the being deceptive here.

    "When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!"
    -Shikha Dalmia

    Have a good night Hihn (I recognize your particular brand of INSANITY anYWhERe, ya goober).

  • David Nolan||

    THE GRINCH IS TOTALLY CLUELESS HOW TWITTER WORKS .. WHICH IS WHY HE'S SO EASILY MANIPULATED

    You're compressing multiple tweets into a made up tweet in order to try to butress your position.

    (LOL) Pay attention.
    1) Twitter posts are limited to 140 characters.

    2) For longer thoughts, it's QUITE COMMON to split them into consecutive posts. Trump does it often, as do many people, but one must be even MILDLY informed to know. that.

    3) I posted consecutive quotes -- on the same date.

    ONE MORE TIME FOR THE AFFLICTED: "SAD" SHOULD TELL EVEN A RETARD THAT SHE WAS CONDEMNING "BRUTE FORCE"

    WHEN TRUMP ENDS WITH "SAD" .,.. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE HE'S ENDORSING WHAT HE DESCRIBED? YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD IS .... JUST LIKE A PROGGIE.

    But haters gotta hate.

  • The Grinch||

    Sorry guy, I don't really do Twitter which is for morons and narcissists. Regardless, her tweet previous to that one doesn't absolve her. It is not at all clear that she was condemning the violence. The way I read it she was justifying it by saying the right is worse than the left but feel free to argue dishonestly and be a complete jackass. It is your right afterall.

  • David Nolan||

    Twitter which is for morons and narcissists.

    Like I said -- your bullshit traces froom your ignorance.
    And now we see a total lack of conscience for your fuckup.

    1) You lie and slander somebody based on your ignorance.
    2) Now you BRAG about your ignorance. TO EXCUSE YOUR IGNORANCE!

    Regardless, her tweet previous to that one doesn't absolve her. It is not at all clear that she was condemning the violence.

    SHE SAID THE VIOLENCE IS "SAD" YOU PATHETIC LIAR.

    The way I read it

    You're the dumbass who said it was two different tweets ... BRAG that "I don't really do Twitter" to excuse your fuckup.

    The burden of proof is on YOU. And you FAIL. It's called slander. But you have NO shame.
    Haters gotta hate,.

  • David Nolan||

    First question-She was tweeting support for riots and the attendant violence at Berkeley a couple of weeks ago.

    So you agree he was babbling incoherently. Yt's chilling how many here lie so shamelessly about what she actually said THEN .... and ignore what she says HERE.
    But haters gotta hate.

    Now to expose you bullshit. This is the tweet.

    Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.

    For how long have you confused criticism with violence?

  • The Grinch||

    I didn't say she was violent, I said she was encouraging it-those tweets posted are copy and paste jobs from her Twitter feed. I see you mention the first tweet and ignore the second. Pretty convenient you but I'm sure you just overlooked that one.

  • David Nolan||

    I didn't say she was violent,

    I never said you did. (sigh)

    I said she was encouraging it-those tweets posted are copy and paste jobs from her Twitter feed.

    AGAIN: YOU CONFUSE CRITICISM WITH VIOLENCE.

    I see you mention the first tweet and ignore the second. Pretty convenient you but I'm sure you just overlooked that on

    Learn how to read time stamps and indents. YOUR CLAIM ABOUT THE SECOND TWEET IS AN EVEN BIGGER LIE.

    Next, you simply lie about what she tweeted.

    The lie: When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    The truth: No matter what the moral rot on the left, the right always manages to outdo it! Sad!
    When facts are always "alternative," brute force is all that's left in settling with intellectual opponents!

    1) "sad" should tell even a retard that she's CONDEMNING brute force!! duh
    2) When Donald says "sad" is HE endorsing or condemning? Your double standard is ... proggie.
    3) In an HONEST quote of her words. she's criticizing "the right" You lose.
    4) STILL confused? Who dismissed "alternative facts?" THE RIGHT!!!

    So all the goobers here are actually proving her CORRECT ... that the right is just as bad as the left that they whine about. Sad.

    But haters gotta hate.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

    Anything else?

  • The Grinch||

    Go to her Twitter feed you and take a look. What you're claiming is just flat out not true.

  • Contrary Ian||

    "YOU CONFUSE CRITICISM WITH VIOLENCE." - You're talking complete nonsense.

    If someone says that condemnation of violence must include condemnation of someone who organized a talk, then that's implicitly making a moral equivalence between violence and speech. It's also suggesting that the people engaging in speech bear responsibility for the violent actions.
    Both ideas are really f@#ked up and IMHO absolutely indefensible.

  • Contrary Ian||

    "'sad' should tell even a retard that she's CONDEMNING brute force!! duh" - It tells, you that and maybe you';re a retard- however- for someone with better reading comprehension it says that she finds it lamentable that use if 'alternative facts' makes use of force necessary.

    "she's criticizing 'the right;" - Indeed, she's criticizing the right and excusing the left's use of force because she believes it to be justified by what she is criticizing the right about. You lose.

  • The Grinch||

    The fellow posting this stuff is a guy named Michael Hihn, a confirmed lunatic and, as you can see, a complete asshole. He doesn't argue in good faith and why I bothered to go down the rabbit hole after I realized who he is is beyond me. Don't bother.

  • David Nolan||

    The fellow posting this stuff is a guy named Michael Hihn, a confirmed lunatic

    This "confirmed lunatic" jammed it up you ass seven times here.
    Now eight!

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773458

    Haters gotta hate. It's an obsession.

  • David Nolan||

    "'sad' should tell even a retard that she's CONDEMNING brute force!! duh" - It tells, you that and maybe you';re a retard-

    You are one sick fuck

    however- for someone with better reading comprehension it says that she finds it lamentable that use if 'alternative facts' makes use of force necessary.

    Bullshit already refuted.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

  • David Nolan||

    Contary Ian
    You're talking complete nonsense.

    One more brainwashed puppet.

    f someone says that condemnation of violence must include condemnation of someone who organized a talk, then that's implicitly making a moral equivalence between violence and speech.

    That's not what she said, chump.

  • David Nolan||

    Go to her Twitter feed you and take a look. What you're claiming is just flat out not true.

    I'm calling out the bullshitter. (Fourth time here)

    https://twitter.com/shikhadalmia

    Go to the feed. Scroll down to the dates. Feb 2 and Feb 3. Then see DOCUMENTED PROOF of the bullshit here.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

    Haters gotta hate. It's an obsession. Even on the wacky right.

  • The Grinch||

    Ah Hihn, you are really a lying sack of shit. How exactly does saying the moral rot on the right is worse than the moral rot of the left equate, and they are both certainly morally rotten, to a condemnation of the violence that night? If anything it reads more as a justification of it.

  • David Nolan||

    Go to her Twitter feed you and take a look. What you're claiming is just flat out not true.

    Been there. Jammed it up your ass .. seven times now.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6773469

    You babble. I prove.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Grinch, you're just giving Hihn more material for his wank bank.

  • David Nolan||

    Grinch, you're just giving Hihn more material for his wank bank.

    (snicker) says that immediately after proof that he's full of shit.
    Hatred trumps logic to goobers.

  • WakaWaka||

    This guy is either Tulpa, Shikha, or Nick Gillespie. Either way just a reactionary progressive.

  • David Nolan||

    Either way just a reactionary progressive.

    Merely one who keeps jamming it up your ass. (lol)
    And I'm very far right .,.. so you get ANOTHER trophy for pathetic fuckups!

  • DarrenM||

    YOU CONFUSE CRITICISM WITH VIOLENCE.

    I notice there's a whole lot of that going around.

  • David Nolan||

    I notice there's a whole lot of that going around.

    Haters gotta hate. And goobers gotta conform to it.

  • d_remington||

    Man, watching desperate loser David Nolan getting his ass handed to him is a pleasure and a delight.

  • David Nolan||

    desperate loser David Nolan

    Denies proof??? (lol)
    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    And stalking bullies run around posting multiple childish insults. And giggling.

  • Warren||

    By inviting him to speak at universities around the country, many college Republicans apparently thought they were taking a brave stance against the forces of political correctness, and scoring one for free speech. In fact, they were discrediting their own movement by allying themselves with a vicious troll — demonstrating that they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles.

    Or maybe they were trolling the SJWs who hold their campuses hostage as has been oft reported here at Reason.
    Now they've jettisoned Milo and are moving on. It's not a tattoo.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Well, at least I figured out what it would take to make me side with Milo -- this outrageously dishonest blather from Dalmia.

  • David Nolan||

    Better for you to defend pedophilia?

  • Cloudbuster||

    That's exactly the kind of dishonest blather I'm talking about.

  • David Nolan||

    That's exactly the kind of dishonest blather I'm talking about

    Excuse me, while I expose you s a lying sack of shit. FULLY DOCUMENTED

    Proof of the shameless falsehood starts at 4:00 in this video.

    He denies he was defending pedophilia in the video, saying that term refers to younger children, not "someone who is 13-year-old, who is sexually mature." He also says, "We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults."

    A man in the video asks him: "You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?" Milo responds: "Yeah, I don't mind admitting that."

    The truth is SO inconvenient to the wacky right.
    And haters gotta hate.

  • Fascist loofa-faced shitgibbon||

    "But what these invitations say about Republicans is not that they are some brave anti-PC warriors scoring one for free speech, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia—but that they hate their liberal enemies more than they love their alleged principles. And that's a sure-fire ticket to moral bankruptcy."

    I cannot follow Shikha's reasoning, ever. Is it possible her brain is installed upside-down?

  • David Nolan||

    The hatred is obvious. You just proved it!!

  • juris imprudent||

    The list man - don't forget The List!

  • David Nolan||

    The list?

    1) Facsist loof-faced shitgibbon
    2) juris imprudent

    Haters gotta hate

  • damikesc||

    Good god, are you in love with Shitka? Do you owe her money? Are you a sock puppet?

    Not seen anybody on a writer's nuts the way you are.

  • David Nolan||

    It's called thinking.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Cool story bro. Board of trustees, hi, I can save you some money. If you pay this author some kind of stipend or salary, I can take care of having a freelancer from Bangladesh do the same thing for 10% of the overhead. Lemme know!

  • Jerry on the sea||

    And this was all because a tape surfaced

    A tape didn't surface. The interview has been available on Youtube since September 2015.

  • wareagle||

    sort of like the Trump/Billy Bush tape "surfaced" and how all of Herman Cain's accusers in the last cycle "surfaced" only to recede into the background once the damage was either done (Cain's campaign basically ending) or there being no impact (Trump being unaffected).

    In that sense, Hillary's emails "surfaced" along with those of John Podesta and the DNC through WikiLeaks though, for some strange reason, those held a bit higher news value.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Yea, but the DNC leaks were bad for proggies, thus were wrong to leak.

  • dan'o en barrel||

    Was going to mention the same. Its dishonest of Shikha to frame this as some sort of revelation when hundreds of thousands of people had already seen either livestream.

    Having watched the footage in its full context, I've concluded his comments sound like a coping mechanism of a sexual assault victim. Especially since he had some physical enjoyment from the abuse, he decided to frame the event in his mind as being the aggressor rather than the victim. Factor in his "I'm so outrageous" performance shtik and the creepy-ass things he said make sense.

  • David Nolan||

    A tape didn't surface. The interview has been available on Youtube since September 2015.Below the surface. (lol)
  • Social Darwinist||

    "But if "nothing goes" in the leftist moral universe, "anything goes" in Milo's and his fellow alt-right trolls'. And that, too, is a big problem."

    So you're not for free speech? His speech may be detestable but as a libertarian I support his right to say it. I'd much rather have an "anything goes" free speech rather than a "nothing goes" controlled speech.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure, support his right to say it.

    But you can simultaneously boycott his financial backers and say he's a horrible troll of a man.

    To claim the two are contradictory is to imply that I don't have a right to say "it" (where "it" is criticism) and that he's obligated to my financial support whether I like it or not.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Dead thread fucking again, troll?

  • David Nolan||

    Why does Migrant Log Chipper REPEATEDLY make a total fucking fool of himself ..., the same way ... over and over?

    The retard ALWAYS accuses people he disagrees with of "fucking a dead thread" .... as he .... FUCKS A DEAD THREAD!
    (OMG)

    What else to expect from from an aggressive thug who celebrates feeding humans into wood chippers???

  • David Nolan||

    Need PROOF that Migrant Log Chipper is a raving psycho?
    Potty mouth pisses and moans that this thread is dead here: 2.27.17 @ 1:27PM
    Now scroll to the bottom, and count how many totally new threads began LATER.

    Plus ... show of hands ... how can a THREAD be DEAD, when the PAGER is still quite active?
    Anyone else so totally ignorant of how online forims/comments/etc have worked for the past quarter-century? Or just the bully?

  • Trigger Warning||

    Has she started deleting comments like Robby?

  • The Grinch||

    Has that really been happening?

  • GILMORE™||

    They post-facto deleted references to Milo as an "Alt Right Leader", sans any editorial note.

    people immediately pointed out in the comments that the claim had no basis; apparently they later decided it was too-obviously stretching the truth.

    its part of a general "media-demonization by consensus" attitude which Reason has participated in. Just regularly make handwaving references to "these people are widely agreed to be awful by everyone" and never cite the specific reasons they deserve this social-condemnation. It makes the later "look! = they're a pedophile too!"-accusations sound more convincing in context.

    Pointing out that this is slimy journalism, ethically-dubious, etc. means you will be accused of "Defending" these people (see: Crusty). Because that pretends the problem is actually w/ people pointing these things out.

    I think its actually true that people like Milo/Gavin etc. deserve criticism. But the way Reason has gone about it has been to avoid letting people make their own minds up for themselves from the evidence, and instead participated in cheap smear-campaigns.

  • The Grinch||

    Stealth editing is fine as long as credibility doesn't enter into your business model so it should suit this site just fine. What a shame.

  • GILMORE™||

    btw i don't know whether the above claim of "deleting comments" is true or not. different story. maybe that's true as well, don't know. harder to prove, obviously.

  • The Grinch||

    What you pointed out is arguably worse.

  • Trigger Warning||

    I gave Robby shit on a Trump post (the one that finally caused me to be done with him), and he memory-holed it, along with a reply or two. Nothing major. Pretty lame, though.

    I think Robby is a smart guy, but whatever college did to him hasn't worn off yet. He's really young, and the shit he posts and the way he writes it show it. His hedging and dissembling are tiresome. He has no business getting published here. It's stuff that should be on a personal blog.

    Anyway. Yeah. It happened. Done with Robby articles. And Shikha. I wish Cavanagh and Balko would come back.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Libertarians shouldn't qualify their support for free speech--or any other freedom.

    It's hard to believe this place once hosted an "Everybody Draw Mohammad" contest.

    Yeah, people use guns to commit crimes--we support gun rights anyway.

    Yeah, people use religion to bad ends--we support freedom of religion anyway.

    Yeah, people use speech to commit fraud, make violent threats, and say things that hurt people feelings--we support free speech anyway.

    No apologies.

    I even have a qualitative preference for freedom independent of other considerations. I make no apologies for that either.

    This is what being a libertarian is about. We prefer freedom.

    Please don't apologize for supporting free speech. It is unseemly for libertarians to do so. Our support for free speech requires no qualification.

    "They all hate the left's political correctness and multiculturalism not because it offends America's commitment to individual rights and universalistic notions of justice, but because it . . .

    Since when do libertarians predicate support for free speech on the goodness or lack thereof in the speaker's heart?

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Preach it, brother

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Preach it brother! When your job fires you because you say gay men give better head because they were taught in their early teens by the priest that's violating someone's free speech. Episode 1,456,246 of douchy conservatives playing the victim.

  • WakaWaka||

    I think you need a refresher on what 'free speech' is or, judging by your remark maybe an introduction to 'free speech'?

  • GLEEMORE™||

    A private company firing someone because of what they say in public is a free speech concern? On what planet?

  • David Nolan||

    "They all hate the left's political correctness and multiculturalism not because it offends America's commitment to individual rights and universalistic notions of justice, but because it . "

    Since when do libertarians predicate support for free speech on the goodness or lack thereof in the speaker's heart?

    Umm, she wasn't taking about libertarians.
    '

  • Ken Shultz||

    She's a libertarian.

    She's a libertarian who's faulting other people's support for free speech because the speaker lacks goodness in his heart.

  • David Nolan||

    This is what happens when one exposes a aggressor/thug like Shultzs!

    Schultz quotes her, then goes off the rails totally (again)
    "They all hate the left's political correctness and multiculturalism not because it offends America's commitment to individual rights and universalistic notions of justice, but because it . "

    THUG: Since when do libertarians predicate support for free speech on the goodness or lack thereof in the speaker's heart?


    L:ITERATE-ONE: Umm, she wasn't taking about libertarians.

    THUG: She's a libertarian.

    She wasn't talking about libertarians, Sluggo.

    She's a libertarian who's faulting other people's support for free speech because the speaker lacks goodness in his heart.

    (snicker) Here's what YOU quoted ,.. and fucked up. (my emphasis)

    "They all hate the left's political correctness and multiculturalism not because it offends America's commitment to individual rights and universalistic notions of justice, but because it ... "

    I can understand that Ken would refer to HIMSELF as "They" ... but why does he assume everyone else is that wacky?

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Since when do libertarians predicate support for free speech on the goodness or lack thereof in the speaker's heart?"
    Since libertarians/Libertarians were human like the rest of us.

  • David Nolan||

    Since libertarians/Libertarians were human like the rest of us.

    1) Bad answer.
    2) To total bullshit.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I guess no one has a sense of humor. Well, I like Milo. I consider him apart of the long history of political comedians. I doubt that half the folks criticizing him have really watched or listened. He doesn't offend me. (I wish someone could.) Clearly this was a hit job by the left but no conservative seems to care. Guess I can add libertarians to that club. No one died folks. That, Reason Magazine is one of the reasons I have been wondering where your heads at lately.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    All the world's a psyop.

  • American Memer||

    >implying Reason writers are libertarians

  • David Nolan||

    How would you know?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    ^ This.

    Milo's political views are somewhere between mainstream conservative and libertarian. He is probably more restrained in his comments than the Reason comment section, and his more outrageous statements are usually self-deprecating references to his own sexuality.

    Whether you agree with Milo's statements or not, the idea that someone who is musing about his own sexual abuse as a thirteen year old by a Catholic priest is condoning pedophilia is offensive. Shikha Dalmia's analysis is deplorable.

  • David Nolan||

    Once again, Rational (sic) Exhuberence comments on something he knows nothing about. Or did he lie?

    the idea that someone who is musing about his own sexual abuse as a thirteen year old by a Catholic priest is condoning pedophilia is offensive.

    Are you ignorant or a liar?

    Proof of the shameless falsehood starts at 4:00 in this video. (at 5:00 you'll puke)

    He denies he was defending pedophilia in the video, saying that term refers to younger children, not "someone who is 13-year-old, who is sexually mature." He also says, "We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults."

    A man in the video asks him: "You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?" Milo responds: "Yeah, I don't mind admitting that."

    The truth is SO inconvenient to the wacky right.

    Shikha Dalmia's analysis is deplorable.

    Intentional slander is more noble to your ilk.

    "Pants on fire" (Those words go into all his repeated bullshit by my stalker on this page. Do a page search – to escape the two-link limit)

  • IStandWithMilo||

    I am a feminist and single mom by choice who loves Milo. Why? Because he makes me laugh. Interestingly. I find very few of the comedians whose political beliefs I agree with to be funny.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Clearly this was a hit job by the left but no conservative seems to care"
    Unless you count CPAC, Breitbart, the GOP, and all those conservative/conservative-leaning organizations.

    I mean seriously dude, if "the left" were so able to influence the opinion of Conservatives, don't you think they would have used said influence to get Conservatives to drop Trump back in November? Take some fucking responsibility.

  • David Nolan||

    I consider him apart of the long history of political comedians.

    Me too, but you seem to suffer severe denial of his defense of pedophilia -- even if we agree his comment regarding the priest was a joke.

    And his denial is totally full of shit ... because he KNEW to refuse stating his age, multiple times, when the priest blew him.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    "(short of a targeted call for violence)"

    That's a cute little qualifier you got there. Not ready to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats yet? Give it time, to be sure.

    Hack.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is a missed opportunity.

    Ultimately, in a system of single member districts, the most likely scenario for libertarian influence is one of two parties lifting libertarian ideas.

    The Democrats' open hostility to free markets and capitalism makes them natural enemies of libertarians on that front, and since Obama took office, the Democrats embraced progressivism with its open hostility individual rights, as well. After all, the whole purpose of progressivism is to use the coercive power of government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good--and there isn't anything libertarian about that.

    We have much better prospects in the Republican party, since, ostensibly (anyway), they aren't opposed to capitalism, fiscal conservatism, deregulation, etc. Unfortunately, the Reagan coalition also brought a slews of social conservative issues into the GOP, and after Reagan took office, the social conservatives started acting like they owned the place. People started to associate the GOP primarily with issues like abortion and gay marriage.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    This is a missed opportunity.

    Sure is, it could be a rant against Obama, for example

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you Tulpa?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Everyone is Tulpa.

  • David Nolan||

    Shitlord is Tulpa????

  • GLEEMORE™||

    "We have much better prospects in the Republican party,"

    Laughable. There's one political party looking to deport Mexicans by the millions and tie women to their gurneys during an unwanted pregnancy. It ain't the Democrats.

  • american socialist||

    Obama deported over 2.5 million fyi

  • buybuydandavis||

    Fake news.

    Obama changed the meaning of "deport".

  • ||

    Obama changed a lot of definitions.

  • David Nolan||

    Obama changed the meaning of "deport".

    That is really pathetic.
    But haters gotta hate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Republicans appear to be trying to buck that--and this was their apparent motive in inviting Milo to speak at a conservative event. Inviting Milo to speak allowed the conservatives in the GOP to accomplish two things. First, it let them demonstrate that being gay isn't such a big deal in the GOP anymore, and, second, it let them demonstrate that they are more tolerant that the social justice warriors in the progressive movement.

    In other words, here's the Republican party trying to become more libertarian--both in demonstrating their tolerance for gay speakers and in trying to make a sharp difference between themselves and the progressives on the issue of free speech.

    We libertarians should be congratulating the GOP for embracing libertarian ideas. If, instead, we condemn them for embracing free speech because of the speech's content, then not only are we acting like anti-libertarian progressives, we're also acting in a way that is objectively pro-progressive. Libertarians should want the GOP to embrace free speech regardless of its content.

    Libertarians should want the social conservatives to embrace free speech as an issue--despite its content--like we do.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    here's the Republican party trying to become more libertarian--both in demonstrating their tolerance for gay speakers a
    When Milo's appearances are attributed to his gayness and not, for example, his misogyny or transphobia, well that's PEAK LIBERTARIANISM

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it's pretty clear that the conservatives were distinguishing between their own tolerance and the social justice warriors intolerance--and I think Milo being gay is part of that, yeah.

    It wasn't long ago that CPAC banned gay conservative organizations from participating or sponsoring the event. In fact, it was just the year before last. So, yeah, that's a big difference.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Likewise libertarians made their bed with Republicans and they m...wait they are already lying in it.

    Say hi to Milo.

  • Sam Haysom||

    You'll be glad to know that the libertarians are rapidly being removed from influence in the Republican. They are your hot potato now.

  • WakaWaka||

    The word 'libertarian' means nothing so long as Shikha can claim to be one

  • Walter Peck||

    The left has made discussion of too many issues taboo and vastly narrowed the terms of discussion on those that are allowed.

    Don't act like you aren't part of the problem Shitka.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Cucktarian psychodrama is to believe they are the valiant opposition of the Statism while they fight any effective opposition to Statism.

    Making sure liberty loses in the name of "muh principles" is how they go to Heaven.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    That it took these pedophilia comments for conservatives to finally turn on Yiannopoulos speaks volumes about how low their movement has fallen.

    Milo didn't make "pedophilia comments"; he was saying what many gay teenagers believe, namely that they are capable of judging for themselves whether they want a relationship with an older man or not. You are free to argue about whether that is true, and you are free to argue about whether Milo was simply saying that to cope with childhood sexual abuse by a priest. But to accuse him of condoning pedophilia over his comments is outrageous and despicable.

    But if Republicans have a right to invite Yiannaopoulos, others have the right to judge them for the company they keep.

    Well, and I judge Reason and Libertarians by they company they keep. Shikha Dalmia is a homophobic, self-righteous, statist prick, and no decent libertarian publication should keep people like her on staff.

  • David Nolan||

    Milo didn't make "pedophilia comments";

    You don't know what it means .,.. which is quite clear in your "explanation."

    But to accuse him of condoning pedophilia over his comments is outrageous and despicable

    It's illegal.

    Yes, Mary was most likely 12-years-old when she carries Jesus ... based on human action at that time ... but it's illegal today.

    I'd be sympathetic if you argued for making pedophilia legal ,... but you deny or ignore that it IS illegal ... which makes you as self-righteous as a Santorum or Huckabee.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I'd be sympathetic if you argued for making pedophilia legal ,... but you deny or ignore that it IS illegal

    I didn't "deny" or "ignore" anything. I explained to you, and I'm quoting, "what many gay teenagers believe".

    If you want to talk about legality, I think the age of consent should be 18 (it was 14 where I grew up).

    which makes you as self-righteous as a Santorum or Huckabee

    You're being the self-righteous prick here, throwing around random and completely unfounded accusations of endorsing pedophilia. But, then, of course, that is the same b.s. people have been trying to character assassinate Milo with.

  • David Nolan||

    Ratiionla (sic) Exuberance called out AGAIN as a pathetic, lying cyber-bully (vomit)

    You're being the self-righteous prick here,

    (smirk) Wait for it ....

    But, then, of course, that is the same b.s. people have been trying to character assassinate Milo with.

    You were PROVEN a liar ... with links to original sources ,,, here

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6775000

    "Pants on fire" (Those words go into all his repeated bullshit by my stalker on this page. Do a page search – to escape the two-link limit)

    Fucking thug.

    (Posted in response to repeated aggressions by a serial bully)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I've never watched a Milo video, or read anything he wrote, but fuck if I won't buy his book when some other publisher picks it up. Maybe I'll send it to Shikha as a gift.

  • DarrenM||

    Look him up on YouTube. Whether you agree with him or not, he is entertaining. People who argue with him just aren't used to getting challenged like that.

  • David Nolan||

    Or raped.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If you dose do it to her, at least end it postage due.

  • jdd6y||

    This writer definitely is no libertarian. I sentence her to 6 hours of listening to No Cure for Cancer over and over again.

    The author lets slip her Bernie sympathies with the propagandist label of "protective authoritarianism" as a description of the left. Protective of what? All those people in the world that starve because production is lowered based on phony science or burdensome regulation? The left is just authoritarian with socialism. The left is "protective" in the same way the mafia is "nice business, shame if something happened to it."

    And since when is nihilistic anarchism some bad thing? Or wrong? Isn't that basically Sarte? Life is absurd. Death is absurd. Existentialism is the alt-right now?

    Milo is right that you should be able to say anything about anyone if that is what his position is. If it is "mean" then society can judge you. Individuals can judge you. The government shouldn't. Milo seems really boring and I don't know why anyone cares.

    Libertarianism is about freedom as a value. This author doesn't like freedom because its mean. She is writing for the wrong magazine.

  • The Grinch||

    The decision makers at Reason apparently agree with her and want to provide her with a platform-it is the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn. She's right at home here which is unfortunate.

  • jdd6y||

    Next time I'm at the foundation I will try and find out wtf is going on. There are a lot of great people at Reason. This broad ain't one of 'em.

  • David Nolan||

    Milo is right that you should be able to say anything about anyone if that is what his position

    That's what she said, Sluggo. Strike One.

    Libertarianism is about freedom as a value.

    Why is WHY CPAC had a right to cancel his ass. So that makes you a thug -- denying CPAC's freedom,
    THIS is libertarian, sonny boy.

    Berkley is a public university and is required not just by the First Amendment but its own mission to be a broad purveyor of ideas to create a "safe space" for Yiannopoulos. And CPAC is a private gathering that can put whomever it wants on its roster — and also remove those same people

    Strike Two

    This author doesn't like freedom because its mean

    Are you illiterate or a liar? Strike three.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    Reason has gone full leftard.

    Really sad, because they used to have their own voice.

  • Vernon Depner||

    There's an elephant in the room. Why is sexual freedom for adolescents off limits for discussion among libertarians? Yes, there are obvious practical issues, but I thought libertarians were all about following principles and damn the torpedoes.

  • buybuydandavis||

    *They* can talk about it, because they are good Cucktarians selling out peasants to the Ruling Reptiles.

    *Milo* can't, even when he is talking about his own experience of abuse, because he is against Open Borders Uber Alles. Boo! Hiss!

  • David Nolan||

    If you weren't so chickenshit -- you'd argue to make pedophilia legal.
    Already, assholes like you have caused the libertarian brand is rejected by even 91% of libertarians (per Cato)

    good Cucktarians selling out peasants to the Ruling Reptiles.

    FUCK YOU -- you two are GRAVE threats to MY liberty.

    If you piss, moan and attack any notion of having "political sense" -- as you always do -- then your "principles" make you an accomplice to the Ruling Reptiles. Because you have NOTHING to stop them but ... talk ... the same holier-than-though attitude as the Santorums and Huckabees of this world/

    I thought libertarians were all about following principles and damn the torpedoes.

    Some are. The one who totally destroyed the movement ... squandering a magnificant opening in last year's election.

    There are only two ways to create a free society.
    1) Seek and get elected, and begin expanding personal liberty and getting elected.
    2) Your way, which is ..... what?

    No more TALKING about liberty. How do we ACHIEVE IT?

  • Vernon Depner||

    "No more TALKING about liberty. How do we ACHIEVE IT?"

    I don't believe we do. At this point, the power elite is so strong and entrenched that it can't be dislodged by democratic processes or popular uprising. It will take some catastrophic external force so disruptive that the regime can't cope with it to put them out of power—something like a world war, or a natural disaster like a plague, a massive solar flare, or an asteroid strike. Then, there will be an opportunity to rebuild as a freer society.

  • David Nolan||

    "No more TALKING about liberty. How do we ACHIEVE IT?"

    I don't believe we do.

    Proving my point!.

    At this point, the power elite is so strong and entrenched that it can't be dislodged by democratic processes or popular uprising.

    Umm, Sparky? 60% of the electorate is libertarian .. and YOU reject policy solutions THEY ARE ALREADY EAGER TO ACCEPT ... based on psycho bullshit?

    YOU are the biggest threat.

  • Number 2||

    The utter lack of self-awareness of an author of despicable, hateful words about white people being authoritarian thugs and violence being an acceptable form of social discourse condemning someone else for allegedly uttering despicable, hateful words is astounding.

  • David Nolan||

    I realize that haters are compelled to hate. But geez, wipe the drool from your chin.

  • aajax||

    Milo who?

  • Dadlobby||

    As Milo is attacked for "promoting pedophelia", which he readily denied and stated publicly the pedophelia is wrong, we daily see the "Abuse Excuse" employed for females pedophiles who prey on young boys. The "lucky stud" myth is used to justify their actions and if they are among the rare who are held accountable they employ the "pussy pass" used by women to receive reduced sentences (it was HIS fault, they have children at home, etc.). How about this raped "lucky stud" http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....14953965/.

    Milo was an admitted "shock performer" and his schtick designed to "offend" the PC and easily offended on college campuses. BTW, I liked his schtick, I look at Breitbart and find much of their stuff centrist, and found this piece to be a piece of worthless left wing drivel, more akin to the NY Times. But hey, it isn't the first time an alt-left wingnut labeled me as "right", "racist", "misogynist", or "deplorable" for holding the view that all people be treated the same and left free to do what they please.

  • DarrenM||

    Well, when the NTY descends far enough, I'm sure they'll consider picking up Dalmia.

  • David Nolan||

    As Milo is attacked for "promoting pedophelia", which he readily denied

    But the video exposed him as a pathetic liar ... just as they do to Trump (over 100 times)

  • Africanis||

    A bed, doesn't Shilma know anything about zee gays. The Conservatives and Milo can save a trip and hit the bathroom in the local park.

    In nature as soon as the individual is able to pro create it is an adult. We humans have decided that teens are dumb/naive/inexperience. Their bodies and minds are not fully developed so we have decided to slow everyone down a bit when it comes to the cherry picking. Milo answered a question and in no way did he endorse pedos or otherwise he would have been expelled long ago.

  • David Nolan||

    Milo answered a question and in no way did he endorse pedos

    Shame on you.

    or otherwise he would have been expelled long ago.

    He was expelled within hours of his views being made public,
    Now that you're back on Planet Earth, there's a lot to catch up on from while you were gone.

  • Snort||

    I agree the Republican students have a right to have him come back. I would like to see them invite him to come. But I also would not only like the active Republican students to have their fill but I would like to see all Republican students come too. I'm certain it would be a learning experience for some of them.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • David Nolan||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective

    Who told you that CPAC is Leftist?

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • David Nolan||

    It all traces to that fucking Kenyan Muslim's time in the White House!
    Let's you and I track down and hang Obummer from a tree -- as we did for his type before pussies took over America!

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • Hooha||

    +9

  • DirkBelig||

    This screed is meaningless because it is little more concern-trolling from the Left's perspective. The paragraph about GamerGate is completely false and parrots the Official Narrative of the corrupt media whose secret mailing list - through which they coordinated stories and illegally blackballed writers who didn't play ball with - was exposed by Milo in reports at pre-Trumpbart Breitbart in September 2014. Just like all Leftists, they couldn't deny that they were operating a narrative factory, so they whined about how their privacy and ability to conspire was impinged. This hack just regurgitates the myths to demonstrate her fealty to the media masters.

  • GLEEMORE™||

    "Republican students have a right to invite whomever they want to say whatever they want"

    Yep, and they should be judged for whom they invite, which is why I was happy to see this...

    "demonstrating that they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles "

    Yep. All in all, I think this article is right on.

  • XM||

    So if I felt it was OK to invite an actual white supremacist to speak his viewpoint at a debate, I should be "judged" for that?

    One of the women's march organizer is Sharia sympathizer who felt it was all right for Saudia Arabia to forbid women to drive since they offered them paid maternity care. If the alt-right staged riots to intimidate her from speaking, I would be outraged. The idiocy of her position is a moot point. You cannot try to minimize someone's loss of freedom speech by saying "I still have a right to judge you for accepting his bigoted opinion". That's the sort of rationale that creates a "freedom of speech" out of someone painting graffiti or defacing posters on the wall.

    As for hating their enemies more than their alleged principles.... that's you an your pals in the last 8 years. Pretty much.

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Yeah, ok... I admit it. I FUCKING HATE THE WARMONGERS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT KILLED A MILLION PEOPLE IN THE M.E!! I'm sorry, ok?Blinded, I am.

    I'm a libertarian and believe in free speech. I don't have a problem with inviting a white supremacist or a Shariah sympathizer to a college campus. It's when you ally yourself with said White supremacist/Shariah sympathizer and repeatedly allow them to play the victim that you invite someone to judge you by the company you keep.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    This 'million killed' BS statistic is tiresome. The truth of 100k+ is more accurate & bad enough, it doesn't need to be abused like global warming.

  • David Nolan||

    Were you born full of shit or grow into it?

  • David Nolan||

    .... demonstrating that they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles.

    That's been true for decades. But still a Pulitzer-worthy comment with today's New McCarthyism on the right. Now including the left, as shouting down opponents has become routine on both the left and the right -- and Fake News also manipulates both competing tribes.

  • ron73440||

    To the Reason staff:

    I realize you probably don't care, but I quit.

    I never posted but always enjoyed the articles and comments.

    The articles are getting worse (see this one for an example) and most of the good commenters have left.

    You have lost your minds over the last year and I am done.

  • DOOMco||

    Brilliant, you guys. Double down again.

  • Sewblon||

    Milo was never part of the alt-right. Gamergate was never about Misogyny and always about corruption in games journalism. Sure what Milo said about pedophilia was wrong. But so is spreading lies about people.

  • David Nolan||

    But so is spreading lies about people.

    So stop.

  • Carlos Inconvenience||

    "they hate their enemies more than they love their alleged principles"

    Not unlike how Reason moves further and further to the left simply because they dislike Trump.

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Nice article, Nick. The ones here tearing up their subscriptions never were libertarians anyway. The only integrity they had was rooting for the right team. I think you are doing a good job. Keep it up, please.

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Shit... Shikha. I never read the things anyway.

  • DOOMco||

    Change your name.

  • XM||

    Breitbart is pro-Trump, but they're not "alt-right". Not even close.

    Let's not forget that the libertarian standard bearer for most of the early 2010s was a man who edited a racist newspaper and refused to return donations from hate groups. The "alt right" Shikha denounces had a quiet but noticeable connection to the Ron Paul campaign and his brand of hard libertariansim. Had deranged leftists prevented from speaking and I rallied by his side, should I be ashamed for having kept "bad company"?

    I think Shkiha only has surface understanding of "Gamergate", which wasn't about criticizing female developers "feminizing" their product. White the original gamergaters might have been white, many Asian gamers are now tiring of SJW criticism of cosplay cultural appropriation and other forms of attacks on the gaming industry. I haven't seen tweets in which Milo urged his followers to harass Jones, who's a bit of a Milo herself.

    What should be the standard for me to "judge" others who keep bad company? If the GOP elected a member of a NAMBLA as a presidential candidate, I would leave the party. If they rallied around a right leaning shock artist because his 1A rights were attacked by leftists but chose to shun him in response to a controversial comment, I would take that as a error in judgment or an unfortunate development. The reason why championed the shock artist doesn't become any less compelling.

  • Contrary Ian||

    "If they rallied around a right leaning shock artist because his 1A rights were attacked by leftists but chose to shun him in response to a controversial comment, I would take that as a error in judgment or an unfortunate development."

    >Especially given that even even the author admits, ' in Yiannopoulos' appearances on campuses and elsewhere, there is often nothing particularly objectionable about him.' Milo's campus visits are performances. If you ask a singer to an event you're probably going to listen to their music first, but would you necessarily track down their online activity to see whether it's too rude/offensive.

  • David Nolan||

    Especially given that even even the author admits, ' in Yiannopoulos' appearances on campuses and elsewhere, there is often nothing particularly objectionable about him.'

    Why is that an "admission." It's the tone of her entire piece. Best read it again.

  • David Nolan||

    BINGO. Ron Paul is PURE alt-right. The fucker even BRAGS to his cult that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA -- the first person to deny constitutional defense to an entire group since the shame of Jim Crow.

    But even Steve Bannon said Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, so you blew that part.

  • american socialist||

    So cons have sins because they had invited milo and now cant be washed away?

    Wtf

  • GLEEMORE™||

    No, dumbass commie, they used free speech as a cudgel to push an agenda and then played the victim when Leftists showed up to push back against that agenda.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    If I ever wanted to see shit like this I'd go to a pig farm. Fuck off Shihka.

  • Joe p||

    All of his sources link to left-leaning websites that buy into the "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" Mentality and this article seems to support that left-leaning idea. Whats even worse is that the article drips with anti-free speech implications! For a libertarian website how is this ok?! As someone who's a fan of freedom myself this is very embarrassing.

  • Joe p||

    All of his sources link to left-leaning websites that buy into the "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" Mentality and this article seems to support that left-leaning idea. Whats even worse is that the article drips with anti-free speech implications! For a libertarian website how is this ok?! As someone who's a fan of freedom myself this is very embarrassing.

  • Contrary Ian||

    Shikha Dalmia says,
    "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."

    >Alt-Right? WTF? It was about people trying to compel the manufacturers to alter a product consumers enjoyed for the sake of feminist politics.

    "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."

    >It wasn't about 'feminizing.' It was about imposing feminist ideology on a medium where the consumers didn't subscribe to the ideology.

    "Yiannopoulos tweeted and wrote constantly in support of the gamers, joining them in their attacks and depicting them as the real victims — a political jujitsu that he has now perfected to an art."

    >Not victims- just people standing up for their rights as consumers. People who didn't want a 3rd party to be able to impose itself between producers and consumers and police the content for what they deemed to be 'unacceptable.'

  • Contrary Ian||

    Gamergate was about people trying to restrict entertainment that other people were enjoying because a minority felt they had the moral authority to impose THEIR values and cultural outlook onto everyone else. It's happened before:

    -Tipper Gore's crusade against 'offensive music'
    -'family values groups' against sex in movies and film
    -religious groups against "satanic" music and games
    -congress against 'bad taste' in comic books
    -U.S. Customs vs 'obscene' novels

    It's not the first time videogames were targeted. Parent's groups previously targeted them for being to violent rather than for having 'sexist' content. How was gamergate any better than that? Unless it's that crusades led by feminists are okay where similar crusades against freedom of expression are bad if led by conservative groups. This wasn't the first time feminists have had a go at restricting expression either. In the 80's they attacked porn.

    Your analysis uses the lens of identity politics to make it seems as if the villains were the people who wanted to be able to continue to get entertainment they enjoy without some third party trying to impose standards and restrictions on the producers of the content. That just doesn't belong in a libertarian publication like Reason. It belongs in Buzzfeed or Salon!

  • tonilene||

    Sad what passes for "reason" these days.

  • Spinach Chin||

    "To be sure, this regime needs attacking. It has become impossible to challenge leftist orthodoxy on race, gender, sexuality, and other issues without being dubbed a racist, sexist, and bigot."

    Isn't this exactly what you're doing?

    Not at all ironic...

  • LibertarianJRT||

    "Yiannopoulos and his fellow alt-righters don't just abuse leftists and their symbols. ... But because he is anti-Trump and Jewish, alt-righters flood him with anti-Semitic tweets replete with references to gas chambers."

    Same paragraph. Which is it? Is Milo a member of the alt-right or is he a target of it?

    Why is it that holding up traditional American/British cultural norms as an ideal a bad thing? What cultural model has had the most success and caused the most progress in the modern world? Modern Progressivism is not possible without the classical liberal period of the American Revolution. Very simply, the idea of egalitarian universal freedom and universal sufferage has the root first in the idea that commoners (yes heterosexual Christian white male) have egalitarian "brotherhood". Without this revolution, the current progression of humanism is a nonstarter.

  • DOOMco||

    Oh, hihn is here. Great!

  • Jimbo||

    That was the cherry-on-top you were waiting for?

  • DOOMco||

    *blushes*

  • IStandWithMilo||

    I stand with Milo. He had the courage to talk openly and honestly about what happened to him when he was 13. As a childhood rape victim, I think that is time we stop blaming the victim.

  • Jimbo||

    Exactly! Frame it that way and the left will have brain implosions that are picked up at CalTech.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Nah, lefties have industrial-grade cognitive-dissonance compensators built into their brains.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Milo is being held to standards that no one else is.

    If Milo wasn't on the Right, no one would be bitching about how he chose to spin his own "Narrative" of his abuse.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Oh, Shikha. You lying, brainless hack.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Milo fights for free speech in America.

    Shikha, with the rest of Reason, fights to import a permanent big government electoral majority to America.

  • AlbedoAtoned||

    I tried reading the whole article, but this I just couldn't finish it due to shit like this:

    "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. Yiannopoulos tweeted and wrote constantly in support of the gamers, joining them in their attacks and depicting them as the real victims — a political jujitsu that he has now perfected to an art."


    This is a sign that the writer doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. There were certainly toxic people in the movement, but that is true about any movement. The majority of gamers, especially in the gamerGate crowd had finally had enough of gaming journalism being corrupt. A sjw game dev screwing her way to success for good reviews was just the last straw. At that point was when the whole feminism and sjw thing got mixed into the debate. Ironically, I'm not on either side, I never joined in or labeled myself either way, but because I never did I got to see both sides fairly equally. That's why I can say that while there may have been an element from the gamergate side that was toxic, for the most part the toxicity came from the SJWs.

  • AlbedoAtoned||

    Part 2:

    If I hadn't already been disgusted by them what would have done the job was when they attacked TotalBiscuit on social media after he had won an award. What was his crime? What drew the ire of the anti-gamergate crowd? Well it was because he remained neutral on gamergate, he didn't join the anti-gamergate crowd in denouncing the gamergate crowd. So TotalBiscuit won an award for "Trending Gamer" at "The Game Awards" ceremony, but was unable to actually make it to the show due to his cancer. He gave a speech via video however and rather than make the speech about himself, he dedicated it to a child with cancer. So with one speech this man revealed himself to be a caring and humble individual. He has consistently shown himself to be of high ethical character, even turning down free things from developers that many would love to get, because it would be unethical for him to do so, hurting his credibility, and despite being quite influential in gaming, he doesn't abuse his "power". But because he didn't refer to gamergate as an abomination unworthy of existence and the cause of every great calamity like the anti-gamergaters wanted, they took to social media to denounce him. They said such things as:

    "If TotalBiscuit wins this award at the VGAs I will strangle every single self proclaimed "gamer" into the dirt with my tiny, feral claws

    — Ram (@TheMightyPunram) December 5, 2014"

  • AlbedoAtoned||

    They revealed just how hateful sjw's really are and the toxicity espoused by the extremists in gamergate didn't even hold a candle to just how putrid anti-gamergate side could get.

    But again, the main crux of gamergate was ultimately about ethics. The whole SJW and feminism angle is something I believe to be separate, and is still a problem. What I mean is that the issue isn't that games are meant to be only for males or cater only to them. Games have always been a matter of "Hey, I've got this idea, and I'd like to make it into a game and sell it." And "Hey, that sounds like a good idea, I'd like to check it out and possibly buy it if I like it." Feminists and SJWs however want to stand between those two concepts. They very much want to influence what is okay and they have actually had considerable influence in the gaming industry, causing several games to be censored or even miss localization. But what really ires gamers though is that after sjws and feminists get what they want, they are still unsatisfied, and it is revealed that most of them have no interest in gaming anyway.

  • AlbedoAtoned||

    And last part:

    The way I see it, if SJWs have an idea they would like seen done in a game, it certainly isn't a bad idea to ask for it as an option. Or if they don't like it they can ask for it to be an optional thing. Like if I don't want to see blood, many games offer that as an option to toggle on and off. Or if I want to play a game as a certain character, I very much appreciate the option to choose. The problem is that when it comes to sjws and feminists, the solution isn't more, it's less. They are offended by x so x should be removed period in their opinions and the fact that x is even an option offends them. The lack of malleability or ability to compromise will always put them at odds with gaming's main audience. And that audience has always been gamers and always will be gamers. And no, like I said, it's not something that is exclusive to males. Most of my siblings play games, and most of them are female. My younger sister for instance is just as big of a gamer as I am and doesn't give a shit about whether a feminist is offended by some game or another.

  • 10mm||

    I'm lost, I think I accidentally browsed to HuffPo. Can someone point me in the way of Reason?

  • David Nolan||

    Can someone point me in the way of Reason?

    No, you'd just pollute it.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Playa Manhattan contribution 2016: $1000

    2017: Not a GOD DAMNED PENNY. You guys need to get your shit together NOW.

    This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. How is it possible that things went so wrong so quickly?

    Heads need to roll at this point. Don't take my word for it; wait until the monthly analytics.

  • David Nolan||

    I'm sure some organization of sexual predators will be glad to accept your money.

  • ||

    Pathetic. How is Reason posting this rubbish?

  • Yakub||

    You Reason folks are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

    You write about Milo using terms such as abuse, when he is doing no more than use elements of free speech, which include sarcasm and verbal provocation. He and his analogue Ann Coulter are decidedly less offensive than the mass of braying, insulting, and mendacious leftists, from Madonna to Dunham to Democratic Party leaders. And many of those, from Dunham to Silverman, have made at least as provocative comments about molestation.

    As for Leslie Jones, her remarks - then and more recently - are far more violent than anything Milo has ever said.

    You are not naive and must know what you are doing when you use the slippery term "alt-right" to unreasonably tar the Breitbart-Milo crowd (which is not racist and includes quite a few Jews) with the crimes of the Spencer crowd (which is indeed racist).

    You also work against your own freedom, and ours. Given the massive weight of much of society's elite - from the near whole of the media to Hollywood to the whole of academia to the Democratic Party itself - in favour of a highly censorious, freedom-limiting political correctness, Milo's role is important.

    Are you jealous that he seems to have accomplished more in one year to challenge the Orwellian scourge of political correctness, than has Reason is a decade?

  • David Nolan||

    You Reason folks are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

    What IS your problem?

    Oh. now I see. Pedophilia is fine with you ... if it's from your own tribe.
    Excuse me while I vomit.

  • ||

    Who will take conservative praise of civility, tradition, family values, manners, honor, moderation, and dignity seriously if a 31-year-old, out-of-control adolescent is their champion?

    This is most hilarious part of Shikha's consistent ass raping of Reason. Either Shikha is championing a conservative society that still has arranged marriages, caste-related violence, top-down induced fiscal meltdowns, persistent corruption, inherent pro-government limits for free speech, pre-arranged marriages, routine discrimination and even unchecked violence against women, etc. or she's more rabidly pro-White, pro-Christian, and alt-right than Bannon and Rove combined.

    It's like Reason has some pent up self-loathing and feels the need to meet some manner of 'conservative' quota and, rather than kindling a normal, healthy conservative 'friends with benefits' relationship, goes out and finds Shikha Dalmia and pays her to beat the shit out of and then fuck them. Then, right before she leaves, she whispers in their ear "I love you."

  • David Nolan||

    This is most hilarious part of Shikha's consistent ass raping of Reason

    You can't see even the most blatant of sarcasm?
    Get a brain scan. If may be totally missing.

  • Nico-B||

    The description of gamer gate, gives this lady away. Reads like it was written by a Salon writer who barely understands the issue but wants to attack conservatives anyways. Get your act together Reason. You are better then this identity politics BS.

  • HoppeanSnake||

    ^^

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    Reason has gone full retard/SJW (redundant i know)

    This is Vox/Buzzfeed levels of nonsense. FFS I disagree with Milo on plenty but he is nothing like he's being portrayed hee

    And he's drawing attention to the authoritarian anti free speech campus left (along with Shapiro)

    A VERY good thing

    What Bill Maher said about hebephilia was WAY more extreme

    And I've heard many sex assault victims like Milo say similar stuff to rationalize their abuse

    Bfd

    Reason has lost it

    Sad

  • Domina Elle||

    I am agreeing with you on all points. Thanks for expressing it so I don't have to write as much LOL

  • David Nolan||

    And I've heard many sex assault victims like Milo say similar stuff to rationalize their abuse

    How many sexual assault victims have you heard justifying ... sexual assault? And pedophilia?
    Do those voices appear in your head during daylight hours?

  • Hangin' with Agent Cooper||

    I believe the words "Fuck off, slaver" are appropriate here for the author.

  • Hangin' with Agent Cooper||

    "seemed to condone"

    in the same way that Reason seems to be libertarian?

  • Steven L||

    What the ***** is this? Sometimes Reason seems more like a forum than a magazine written by people with a united view. Some of the points here are valid, but this is far from libertarian news, this is closer to liberal editorializing. I much preferred the points of "everyone should have free speech" and "the more you attack them, the stronger they get" made by other Reason articles. I hate when people tear others down through straw men arguments and taking what they said out of context. Even if Yiannapoulos was a pedophile himself, that has literally noting to do whatever points he has to make. I don't agree with anything he had to say, but it's clear that Breitbart didn't fire him because he wasn't doing his job, they fired him because they were scared to be associated with what the public now sees as a pedophilia condoner. Is that what we've fallen to? Fear of discussion and guilty by association? All of the sudden these people are "bad guys" and the same arguments that they could have made a week ago unchallenged are now beyond consideration?

  • ||

    Lena Dunham still has plenty of work.

  • David Nolan||

    Typically brainwashed Alt-Right/Breitbart puppet. They fired him because so many more valuable writers and editors. threatened to quit. There was literally an open revolt. You might consider treatment for your addiction to Fake News.

    And, at what level of delusion do you assume the average Breitbart puppet would defend pedophilia?

  • Steven L||

    Are you calling me a typical Alt-Right puppet? If so you are spewing exactly he kind of **** I was just talking about. I had barely even heard of Breitbart until recently and have never read anything by them, in fact I have never listened to or read anything by the Alt-Right. I find it hard to imagine they have brainwashed me.

    The writers went into revolt because of exactly what I just said, fear of being associated with a pedophilia condoner. They had known and written with Yiannapoulos' for some time, so if they disagreed with him they would have revolted before. In fact this isn't even about what he said, because he gave the speech in question some time ago, and if they disagreed they would have revolted *when he gave it*. It has nothing to do with that, obviously, it's about fear of association with a now publicly hated figure.

    The main news I read is Reason... is that fake?

    Censorship is wrong, no matter what. Even if the person in question has said other despicable things.

  • DarrenM||

    You can be forgiven for not knowing what pedophilia is since English is your second language. Many native English speakers are ignorant on this matter, too. (Nick Gillespie being one of these.) However, I suggest you look it up and educate yourself. If you're going to be a writer, it still behooves you to learn the correct words to use and their definitions. The alternative is that we must assume you are being deliberately dishonest to future a political narrative in which case we'll know you can't be trusted and to just ignore you.

  • David Nolan||

    You can be forgiven for not knowing what pedophilia is since English is your second language. Many native English speakers are ignorant on this matter

    Check the law ... in all 50 states ... THEN wipe the egg off your face.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Check the law ... in all 50 states ... THEN wipe the egg off your face.

    NH allows marriage at age 13, Kansas at age 12, many more states at age 14. Large parts of Europe have an age of consent of 14 (even without marriage).

    I think those ages are too low.

    Let me repeat that to get it through your thick skull: I think those ages are too low.

    However, that's the actual law in the US and abroad.

  • David Nolan||

    MORE bullying and bullshit by Rational (sic) Exhuberance (aka my stalker)

    New Hampshire
    "Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire without parental approval and a judicial waiver. Brides must be at least 13 years of age and grooms must be at least 14 years of age before their parents can apply for a judicial waiver.

    Kansas This one from those socialists at FOX NEWS (snicker) ... a new law 10 years ago!! OOOPS

    15-year-old could marry only if a district court judge decided it was in that person's best interest.

    Those who are 16 or 17 could marry if they met one of three conditions: permission from a parent or legal guardian and judicial consent; permission from both parents and any legal guardian; or permission from judge if the parents are dead and there is no legal guardian.

    Currently, Kansas has no minimum age for marriage if the minor has parental or judicial approval.

    Note that his "age 12" is also bullshit.

    "Pants on fire" (Those words go into all his repeated bullshit by my stalker on this page. Do a page search – to escape the two-link limit)

  • Rational Exuberance||

    MORE bullying and bullshit by Rational (sic) Exhuberance (aka my stalker)

    Your stalker? The only reason I see your crap again is because you changed your handle and responded to my postings.

    Back into the kill file you go.

    Seriously, Hihn, get some professional help.

  • David Nolan||

    behold the "rational" (sic) psycho -- documented as a PATHETIC liar here:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6775000

    Back into the kill file you go

    Because I called out your shameless bullshit about marriage laws? (smirk)

    The only reason I see your crap again is because you changed your handle and responded to my postings.

    Stalker is also a PATHETIC liar. You launched an aggression here ,,,

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6774960

    ... with a lie ... that got jammed up your ass. Haters gotta hate. Blowhards gotta bellow.

    "Pants on fire" (Those words go into all his repeated bullshit by my stalker on this page. Do a page search – to escape the two-link limit)

  • Bischkva||

    So the right is screwed for disavowing Milo? If you've observed that particular dynamic you'd know that Milo's connection with the right was always tenuous. He can be charming, witty, and knowledgeable but he can also be a jerk. His over-flaunting his gayness during his appearance on Bill Maher was a disaster. And let's face it, there are only so many conservatives who can stomach Milo's constant whining about loving black cock for only so long. His true colors came out in his "pedophilia" tape and that was that. Career ruined. I don't feel that sorry for Milo because his insults, particularly to his genial co-guests on Maher, turned off the Milo switch inside me for good. He deserves what happens to him. But enough of the Schadenfreude regarding conservatism, Breitbart, alt-right, etc. Come back when you loony libertarians get more than a couple of percent of the vote in some election.

  • Domina Elle||

    First they railed against 'constructs'.
    But of course the next thing they did was to demand that their chosen constructs be established as the 'right' way to think and feel. It's not that constructs were all together bad- just the ones they didn't agree with or those that they found offensive.

    Is it being assumed that most humans aspire to think and behave according to an ever evolving awareness and an altruistic desire to better oneself and the world?

    Is this what gives people permission to force their world view on others? It's for a 'good cause' in their minds? Whether talking about left-right, Christians-atheists-pagans-insert religion here,

    Milo is being screwered. Took his opposition long enough! He has been making fools out of people. I've watched many of the videos where people would try to debate him and I can't remember a single video where someone was able to debate him successfully. Of course they had to dig up something dirty to discredit him. I find it very telling. Using his baggage (every human has baggage) invoking 'pedophilia' was the way his opposition had to take him down. They couldn't do it intellectually. Too many people were agreeing with the guy.

    This is now the age of disinformation and silencing

  • Spooky||

    Aaaaand, I'm done with Reason.

  • David Nolan||

    You never should have been here.

  • ||

    Speaking of Pedophilia, aren't the Oscars a Where's Waldo of this sort of behaviour? Didn't hear a single speech calling out the decades of pedophilia in Hollywood this year...

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Pedophilia isn't "rape rape" if the pedophile has the right (leftie) politics. You know that.

  • David Nolan||

    Speaking of Pedophilia, aren't the Oscars a Where's Waldo of this sort of behaviour?

    What are you on and how do I contact your dealer?

    Didn't hear a single speech calling out the decades of pedophilia in Hollywood this year...

    The lefty bastards also gave no speeches on prostitution, anal sex or sheep-fucking.
    Not even Benghazi!

  • David Nolan||

    Why are so many here lying about Milo's defense of an adult having sex with a 13-year-old?
    Are they lying? Just repeating tribal myths?

  • Madoc||

    I didn't vote for Trump and yet I find the increasing frenzy of baseless attacks on him and his supporters to be an unsettling thing.

    Sadly, this is something I'm probably going to have to be saying for a while longer yet.

    Dalmia's article is yet more of that. Yes, it's about Milo but he's a proxy for Trump here. The way the Left tried destroying Milo is wholly repulsive and should be a warning for everyone of just what depths the Left will go to in order to have its way.

    Instead, Dalmia goes to great lengths trying to justify her "carry the water" for the Left in the character assassination of Milo. It's a disgusting thing to see that. And it's apparent that Dalmia's hate for Trump and for anyone who defends Trump has otherwise clouded her judgement.

    Unfortunately, this approach has also afflicted the rest of Reason.com as well. It has become a rabidly anti-Trump platform to the point of discarding reason and logic in the process. I used to be able to rely on Reason.com as being a good voice of reason. Now it's just a place for biased spewings that are as worthless as anything coming from the rest of the mainstream media.

    In your haste to take down Trump you have given up your credibility. Nicely done folks. Nicely done...

  • ifthenwhy||

    Indeed.

    And while there is much to lament concerning some of Trump's policies, I remain saddened that my favorite political site seems to agree with the Left's long-held assumption that Nationalism is a dirty word.

    Like him or not, Trump continues to expose the Left's hubristic control of language, why Reason does not celebrate this is curious if disappointing.

  • David Nolan||

    the Left's long-held assumption that Nationalism is a dirty word.

    Reagan was a lefty? WOW!

  • ifthenwhy||

    I find this author's snide take on Milo to be sadly in line with those who would choose to silence him, simply because he doesn't particularly care if he hurts people's feelings.

    The man is a free speech champion.

  • Perry de Havilland||

    Shikha Dalmia's characterisation of Gamergate demonstrates beyond a doubt she does not have the slightest idea what she is talking about & can be safely ignored.

  • BWM||

    Wow. I had to go look up my login just because I felt the need to come say that. Wow. This is the worst article I have ever read on Reason. It does nothing but regurgitate objective lies peddled by mainstream media. There is no research here at all, it's god awful. Thanks, Reason, for calling me a sexist; I thought maybe you really were different from the SJW perpetually offended crowd, but apparently you guys are just slightly less histrionic about imaginary misogyny than Jezebel. I mean, fine, don't like Milo, but you called ME a sexist troll, which entitles me to tell Shikha she's a judgmental, ignorant twat.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online