MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Will Controversy Kill Milo Yiannopoulos's CPAC Debut? *Update: Yes, He's Uninvited

The Conservative Political Action Conference is already a clown show.

MiloLeila Navidi/ZUMA Press/NewscomThis post has been updated: see below.

It's been a whirlwind 48 hours for Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who was recently announced as the keynote speaker for the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

Yiannopoulos, an out-gay man, may not seem like a natural fit for CPAC—an organization that once refused to let pro-gay Republican group GOProud serve as a co-sponsor. In 2015, the organization gave a freedom-of-speech award to Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, who believes AIDS is God's way of punishing the gays.

But that was then, and this is 2017. The modern conservative coalition isn't a set of beliefs, it's a cult of personality around Donald Trump and Trump-esque figures. It doesn't matter whether they hold conservative views. It doesn't even matter if they're Republicans. To be a right-wing hero in today's right-wing bubble, all you have to do is bash the left and say Make America Great Again.

Or so it seems. Yiannopoulos, however, is suddenly in hot water, now that video footage of some of his past controversial statements has surfaced. Specifically, Yiannopoulos is accused of defending—or seeming to defend—pederasty: sexual relationships between adults and boys as young as 13. (Many in the media incorrectly characterized his comments as a defense of pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to people younger than 13. While not quite the same thing as pedophilia, pederasty is of course despicable and rightly illegal.)

Yiannopoulos called the videos "selectively edited… as part of a coordinated effort to discredit me."

It's not clear whether Yiannopoulos's unearthed opinions about pederasty are beyond the pale for CPAC: the American Conservative Union, which hosts the conference, has not announced any change to its speaking lineup. But according to The Blaze, several ACU board members are upset.

Keep in mind that this debate—whether or not to include Yiannopoulos at CPAC—has nothing to do with free speech. CPAC is a private organization that can invite and disinvite people at will. Just as the organizers of the International Students for Liberty Conference had every right to eject a provocateur who wasn't invited and isn't a libertarian, so too would CPAC be justified in choosing someone else to represent the modern face of millennial conservatism.

In a very narrow sense, it's a good thing CPAC finally decided that gay conservatives exist, and should not be shunned. On the other hand, Yiannopoulos is well-known for making disparaging remarks about women, minorities, and transgender people. He's hardly the right spokesperson for a more tolerant, inclusive GOP.

David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, had this to say:

Once upon a time speakers like Ronald Reagan and Jim Buckley gave important speeches at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. This weekend CPAC and the American Conservative Union announced that Steve Bannon and Milo will take the podium that once hosted Reagan. CPAC should now be known as CARPAC, the Conservative/Alt-Right Political Action Conference. Trump and his creepy entourage are dragging American conservatism to a place its modern founders insisted they didn't want to be. And it's time for conservatives to decide: do you believe in liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution? If so, you don't belong in the same movement with Milo. Get out of the shadow of racial identity politics and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights with liberty and justice for all.

But let's keep in mind that CPAC gave a platform to Robertson. It gave a platform to Ann Coulter. It gave a platform to Sheriff David Clarke. Would a Milo-free CPAC be less repulsive? Perhaps, but there's still plenty of hate to go around.

*Updated at 1:30 p.m.: ACU Chair Matt Schlapp has rescinded his invitation for Yiannopoulos to speak at CPAC.

CPACSchlapp

Photo Credit: Leila Navidi/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Keep propping up Milo and ensuring he's trending.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Some cockroaches obviously are genetically deficient and down scurry out of the light--like you for example.

  • White Tennis Balls, Jr.||

    One very good reason to not respond to trolls: their comments get whacked and now it looks like Rational is insulting Gozer.

  • DarrenM||

    So, if you must, quote the comment you are replaying to?

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Milo is a douchebag. I'd love to hear your drivel justifying his existence.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I guess we can't all be as erudite, insightful and polite as you obviously are.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    You're ready to suck Milo's dick (quite possibly you have and are looking forward to the next ingestion of throat yogurt) and have the audacity to refer to me as not being polite?

    But nice to see you couldn't produce a drop of justification for Milo's existence (maybe you swallowed it all).

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah I would be hard pressed to name any of the six dozen Republican presidential candidates from the last election cycle who could answer affirmatively to:

    do you believe in liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution?
  • Homple||

    "do you believe in liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution?"

    Revealed preferences show that very many people don't care about, or even know or think much, about, these ideas. Politicians are just following the crowds. It's crowd's lack of interest that is most worrisome.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Among recent candidates, I prefer Ted.

    *shrug*

  • Eddie Socket||

    Literally everyone who has ever run for office would say "yes" to that.

  • David Nolan||

    Well having a few libertarian positions .... does not a libertarian make

    But if the surname is Paul, then they're "libertarianish" -- thus just as bad.

  • rudehost||

    I'll generically agree with this. We should generally view people as allies if they are moving the football in the right direction. I still dislike Johnson but I would be happy to see that walking clown car in power.

  • David Nolan||

    We should generally view people as allies if they are moving the football in the right direction.

    That would be virtually everyone ... since you seem to endorse moving the ball in two opposing directions at once.

    I still dislike Johnson but I would be happy to see that walking clown car in power

    That says it all!

  • David Nolan||

    I don't understand the constant rejection of people with like-minded views on liberty for not being the "perfect" libertarian.

    That's hardly the issue.

    Rejecting Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, for instance, is foolish and leads to a libertarian party/movement which is never relevant in any real political scenario because nobody passes the litmus test.

    Umm, Gary stands with over 60% of American voters. But he's a liberty lover, not a gummint hater, which pisses off our 2% of the electorate.
    Rand is a "big government libertarian" -- as bad as "big government conservatives.".

    "Perfect libertarian" is a ventriloquist gimmick used by non-libertarians. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- for over 40 years now. One must be BOTH to not endorse government force. That's not perfection, it's a definition, with all sorts of variety WITHIN the definition.

    Extreme fiscal AND social conservatim is .... conservative!
    For all of human history, government has served only two purposes. Mandate conformity to one set of values by force. Or (more recently) defend equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

    Both are better candidates than the candidate from either party going back at least 50 years.

    1) Again, you confuse libertarian with the lesser of three evils.
    2) Are you among those totally brainwashed about Reagan? That's a slam dunk (for the informed).

  • Hihndication||

    More corpse fucking by the big BULLY Hihn.

  • David Nolan||

    You're still here. (smirk)

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

    Definiiton: bully.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    No, lumping Rand Paul with Gary Johnson is why libertarians are not taken seriously when they value liberty

  • David Nolan||

    True. Ron is a shameless authoritarian.

  • Trainer||

    They are "first person libertarians" and the liberties never seem to make it to the second person- *I* have freedom so *I* can do whatever I want even if it hurts you.

  • TGGeko||

    I agree we should keep those figments of your fevered imagination out of the libertarian movement.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    People like Milo and Peter Theil are quick to call themselves 'libertarian'

    Even you have claimed to be a "libertarian", when you're actually just a troll and a slaver.

  • Mcgoo95||

    You and Michele Hihn need to get a room....or maybe you're already in the same room.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Hihn is a senile old fool.

    And you? You're seriously defending the idea that dajjal is a libertarian???

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I see you also subscript to the social justice warrior idea that merely stating a negative opinion of you amounts to "aggression".

  • Bob Boberson||

    Hmmmmm Mike, I seem to recall you dressing down plenty of commenters whom posted statements that were not posted in response to yours, in which you freely referred to them as 12 year olds [implying mental inferiority], 'Paulisitas' [pejorative]; generally berating their opinions and intellects, etc. (Citation: Just about any thread you ever posted on). Please explain how your words how this is not attacking one's self-concept per the definition you provided. I'm genuinely curious.

    Also, I've also observed you calling out people for posting anonymously while arguing with you, as you deem it ignoble since you post under your real name. Why are you posting under "David Nolan" and "John Galt II" lately then?

  • Bob Boberson||

    For any other retards, aggression is an unprovoked attack.

    Actually, couldn't this be construed as general aggression toward anyone who reads it? Isn't that a direct attack on the intellect of anyone who does not know the definition of verbal aggression?

  • David Nolan||

    Isn't that a direct attack on the intellect of anyone who does not know the definition of verbal aggression?

    That would be a retard. By definition. OTHER retards means in addition to your own ignorance of what aggression means. (smirk)

    One more time for any other retards. This was aggression by you.

    "Hihn is a senile old fool"
    (said the aggressor).

    Must I also repeat WHY it us?

  • Bob Boberson||

    Ummmm.....I wasn't the one who posted that, I'm just asking for you to differentiate between that and what you do.

  • David Nolan||

    Hmmmmm Mike, I seem to recall you dressing down plenty of commenters whom posted statements that were not posted in response to yours, Not personal attacks, you lying thug.

    (Also in response to aggression)

  • Bob Boberson||

    Get To Da Chippah|7.10.16 @ 6:38AM|#


    Yeah, Matt! What are you going to trust? A poll result from this year, or one from ten years ago?!


    Michael Hihn|7.10.16 @ 7:59AM|#


    Yeah, Matt! What are you going to trust? A poll result from this year , or one from ten years ago?!

    Umm, the one that asks the right questions -- instead of inventing libertarian where the pollster never did? Goobers are So eager to be manipulated!

    For example, why does this one (unwittingly) insist the numbers are even worse today??!!??
    Does it even know what a Brand Preference survey is, and why they are so critical?
    Suffering such severe denial, is it also a Birther?

    A sampling found in about 2 seconds......You call GTDC a goober and a birther in response to a post that was in no way directed at you.......so please again Mike, explain how he is the aggressor here? Or for that matter how I am? I was just called a "thug" because I asked a question.

  • Bob Boberson||

    Insults & name calling from me directed at you so far this thread: 0

    Insults and name calling directed at me: lying thug, retard, dumbfuck, ass.

    Yep, definitely justified "self-defense"

  • Bob Boberson||

    Really? Aside from you sidestepping calling someone (or an entire group of people if it wasn't directed at GTDC) a goober and projecting it as my interpretation I'm still waiting for a reasonable justification for insulting someone who did not level an insult at you.

    It's called a good faith argument Mike, I'm actually trying to have one with you.

    Oh, and lets ad "liar" to the list of ad hominem attacks leveled at me by you.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Honest question: is Milo's schtick particularly "hate-filled"? I've heard him say some very un-PC things, but nothing I'd characterize as racist in a Bull Connor sense. Then again, I haven't had a lot of exposure to the guy and I don't really pay attention to him.

    Also, these things--"liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution"--haven't been relevant in the conservative movement for a long time now.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Milo is more important IMO to the right than a troll would be, since he actually has a pretty articulate, pro-Constitutional platform behind his shock tactics, but his main value is as a provocateur and not as some serious philosopher/thinker.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I don't think he even cares about the Republicans. From what I've seen, his main effort is to fight back against the Thought Police on college campuses.

    -jcr

  • J Mann||

    He doesn't much care if he hurts people's feelings, so you can probably find some things that make him sound like a jerk.

    I'm not crazy about him calling out a transwoman U-W student by name and photo, for example. The student was fully out - she had been the subject of local coverage over her opposition to a campus ruling that she should keep her penis and testicles covered while in the women's locker room, so her name and phot were already public, but Milo's shtick about her was extremely mean.

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1.....aukee.html

  • Voros McCracken||

    According to him, when he did that speech, she was no longer a student there. She also was, by any reasonable standard, a public figure after her lawsuit.

    I don't think that necessarily absolves him for being a dick about it, but it is different from the narrative of "he outed a transgender student in order to target her for abuse." That's clearly _not_ a fair description of what happened.

  • J Mann||

    Agreed - I linked nymag because they had a fairly complete description of the call-out, not because it was an "outing."

    As to the "in order to target her for abuse" - I think in the age of internet shaming, people should be sensitive to that. I'm not saying Milo is responsible for everything his fans do, but I do think he should be thoughtful about when he can make his point without holding someone up to a potential internet pile-on.

  • Voros McCracken||

    But, and this of course is a significant real criticism of him, that would make him someone other than what has made him popular right now.

    He's a troll. You could argue (even though I still don't) that, under the current environment, a troll is what is called for, but that would still mean that his methods would inevitably bring out that sort of thing.

  • J Mann||

    Woodchipper was asking for whether Milo's really "hate-filled" - I don't know if it rises to hate, but I offered the time I think he was farthest over the line.

    I think he could have done the same routine, just with a blurred out face and name. He'd still be provocative and offensive. Similarly, the Leslie Jones insults got needlessly personal.

  • GeoffB1972||

    I think he self-identifies as a troll. What he's said about pedophilia vs. ephebophila is a bit controversial, but nothing that the left wouldn't celebrate were he, eg, a liberal film director. What's unfortunate and stupid is that CPAC had seemed to be all set up to show they were more open-minded than Berkeley. Then folks on the left and right made their move. If one thing has been accomplished - and this is why I think it's a joint soc-con, left effort - it is to have the right stop identifying as more open-minded than the left.

  • DarrenM||

    I've heard a lot of "comedians" who were dicks. If you look at Milo as an entertainer, he's not any worse.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    J Mann, there are no chicks with dicks. Only dudes with tits. So 'she' is a 'he'.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    so her name and phot were already public, but Milo's shtick about her was extremely mean

    I don't think it was "extremely mean". That person looked like a man and demanded access to the women's locker room. That was an absolutely ridiculous demand, and it deserved to be ridiculed.

    The left engages in insults, name calling, character assassination, trolling, and doxing; the left follows Rules for Radicals. I think young conservatives and libertarians are concluding that they can't continue to play nice if they want to win.

    However, while Milo says mean things about people, unlike attacks from the left which are often entirely fabricated, he seems to stay grounded in reality.

  • Trainer||

    He could agree with every political and cultural position that I held and I would still find him a repulsive human being.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    And what have you done to advance libertarian and conservative causes?

    He's taking big risks doing what he is doing, and he's having an impact.

  • Trainer||

    Well darn! Here I am so good looking with great hair and a charismatic personality and I'm wasting my millions by keeping my mouth shut about how important liberty is to me, my family, our economy and the country. Because, you know, the only way to make an impact is to be a celebrity. I mean, all the work I do on a personal and local level just doesn't count unless you know about it.

    On a positive note, at least my small efforts to advance liberty are actually efforts to advance liberty unlike this reprehensible creature who has never said anything honestly libertarian that I have heard. And being mean for $$$ is not taking a big risk- it's just being mean. I think libertarian causes are more effectively advance through positive means.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Because, you know, the only way to make an impact is to be a celebrity.

    Milo isn't a celebrity who found politics, his entire life revolves around advocacy.

    I mean, all the work I do on a personal and local level just doesn't count unless you know about it.

    You're still saying nothing.

    And being mean for $$$ is not taking a big risk- it's just being mean. I think libertarian causes are more effectively advance through positive means.

    Well, since you obviously have never listened to him and just go by hearsay, your opinion is worth... nothing.

  • Trainer||

    I love to watch his interviews. So witty! So biting! So mean! They are about as entertaining as trolls on a libertarian website.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Well, in that case, you aren't misinformed, in that case you're simply a troll and a liar, based on how you mischaracterize him.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Honest question: is Milo's schtick particularly "hate-filled"?

    I've watched a bunch of his talks. In short, no. He holds progressives, socialists, feminists, and fat lesbians in contempt and delights in insulting them and making fun of them. He also points out (correctly) that progressive views on race are racist, harmful, and demeaning to blacks.

    He uses some pretty coarse language at times, simply because he is speaking to young audiences. He's what the conservative movement needs. CPAC are fools if they don't invite him. But, then CPAC are the fools that tried to win the last election with Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.

  • David Nolan||

    Very perceptive, Robby, linking Trump's wackos with Milo's.
    Raging hatred seems to be in season.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    But that was then, and this is 2017. The modern conservative coalition isn't a set of beliefs, it's a cult of personality around Donald Trump and Trump-esque figures.

    Not necessarily: if this actually was the case, conservatives wouldn't welcome Trump skeptics like Shapiro or old-school liberals like Dave Rubin with open arms like they do. What's actually happening is that the SoCon branch is losing a ton of influence, and it is slowly evolving at the youth level into the free speech party. In that context, Milo fits the new GOP perfectly.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You got it.

  • Sam Haysom||

    This is pure wishcasting the alt right and social conservatives get along very well and are collaborating and the long-needed purge of globalist libertarianism form the Republican. Which isn't to say there isn't a role for libertarians in the Republican Party it's just a small and preferably near silent one.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Two flaws with this thinking:

    1. Alt-righters and Daily Stormers are few and far between - go to your average college Republican/YAL meetup, and the vast majority of young conservatives hold mostly libertarian beliefs.

    2. Libertarianism is not related in any way to globalism; in fact, they usually go head to head against each other.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Libertarianism is not related in any way to globalism;

    Reason and Hillary share the same dream of Open Borders and Open Markets.

    I agree it is not libertarian, but Reason keeps calling it that, so you should understand the confusion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The modern conservative coalition isn't a set of beliefs, it's a cult of personality around Donald Trump and Trump-esque figures. It doesn't matter whether they hold conservative views. It doesn't even matter if they're Republicans. To be a right-wing hero in today's right-wing bubble, all you have to do is bash the left and say Make America Great Again."

    The Republican establishment just evaporated like that, huh? And the Tea Party people are all about Trump, too? The Rubio people, the Cruz people, the Rand Paul and Amash people, they're all about Trump now?

    This is horseshit.

    Why did Flynn resign and Trump's appointee for Labor Secretary withdraw last week? Was it because they were afraid of establishment Democrats?

    I don't think so.

    Meanwhile, are we bashing the Republicans for not discriminating against a gay speaker now?

    Who wrote this piece anyway?

    Oh. That explains it.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Robby is once again generalizing and painting with a broad brush when it's not appropriate to do so. Two-party systems are all about building coalitions among factions/voting blocs that often have very different goals and interests. The Trump worshippers are still a minority among the right.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Meanwhile, are we bashing the Republicans for not discriminating against a gay speaker now?

    Milo is a terrible choice for the keynote -- has nothing to do with where he likes to put his dick. He's a fucking troll, and the stuff he says is NOT something the conservative movement wants to be associated with.

    He has the right to say it, but that doesn't mean CPAC has to offer him a platform.

    CPAC is falling into the trap of assuming anybody liberals don't like is one of them.

  • Brochettaward||

    I really, really love how whenever someone on the right has personality and appeals to young people, there's a shit ton of assholes there who are nominally on the right to wag their finger and tell us all how improper it is. The left engages in the same sort of raunchy, intentionally offensive rhetoric and no one bats an eye. Someone with charisma on the right does it and entertains people? Heaven forbid! Shun him from places of supposed serious discourse!

    Loosen the fuck up. Milo is more intelligent than the bulk of the people they'll have speaker. And he's helped bring a whole lot of people into the fold.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's something to the suggestion that the GOP will line up to listen to anybody that drives the SJWs crazy.

    That doesn't mean they've given up on their own issues.

    However, if the GOP were starting to embrace free speech as a cause that differentiates them from progressives, then that's a positive development from a libertarian perspective. We should celebrate that and free speech without apologies.

    Have you ever seen Robby champion free speech without apologizing for the terrible things some people say? Libertarians routinely apologizing for freedom is mighty unsightly.

    In addition, if the GOP is no longer making as much of a wedge issue out of orientation, then that's a positive development from a libertarian perspective, too.

    If Robby damns the conservatives for not making a wedge issue out of Milo's orientation, then he's talking in circles--if he's also knocking the conservatives because they supposedly don't stand for anything anymore.

    It's horseshit. This piece is full of typical Robby horseshit.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Milo is a terrible choice for the keynote -- has nothing to do with where he likes to put his dick. He's a fucking troll, and the stuff he says is NOT something the conservative movement wants to be associated with.

    "The conservative movement" is a bunch of pearl-clutching senile idiots who nearly gambled away our government and SCOTUS to Hillary Clinton by nominating another inept candidate.

    What do you think would have happened if Clinton had given amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and her progressive SCOTUS nominee had upheld it? Democrats would have been in power for decades to come. That's in addition to her perpetuating ACA, letting in millions of Syrian refugees, and paying off Soros and Steyer. That's what the conservative movement set us up for.

    He has the right to say it, but that doesn't mean CPAC has to offer him a platform.

    Yeah, and anybody who cares an ounce about libertarian or conservative values should stay away from CPAC, because the conference is obviously run by idiots.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    CPAC types were, by and large, not Trump supporters.

    Frankly, he was nominated because Democrats wanted him to be the GOP candidate, because he was the weakest option.

  • Mark22||

    You don't seem to understand how presidential candidates get selected: no, the Democrats had nothing to do with Trump's primary win.

  • racer X||

    Who is Jim Buckley?

  • B.P.||

    Precisely my question.

  • Social Darwinist||

    I looked him up. He was the William F. Buckley's older brother and had quite a list of impressive accomplishments.

  • DrOtto||

    LuAnn Platter's boyfriend - He died in the Megalow Mart explosion.

  • Fluffy||

    liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution

    Milo sure must speak out against the above list of things very often.

    I'm sure Robby has lots of quotes.

    Right, Robby?

  • Fluffy||

    Robby posted the quote approvingly and in support of his own position.

    Surely he would not do so unless he was sure it was true?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Wow, it's Fluffy!

    Where have you been?

    Nice to see you. Heard about the schism?

  • Fluffy||

    What schism?

    Sounds AWESOME.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Over the last week, there's been a commenter revolt. A good chunk of it about stuff like this from Robby.

    no www

    type "glibertarian"

    add .com

    Everybody's doing it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sorry, that's "glibertarians" with an "s".

  • Fluffy||

    Oh OK. I tried it in the address bar and got nothing.

    So then I tried it in the comment window thinking maybe it would set off sparkly stuff or accuse Robby of blowing goats or something.

  • Fluffy||

    glibertarian.com

  • YourMom||

    Schism is a great Tool song.

  • x'); DROP USER Tony;||

    ALL Tool songs are great Tool songs.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Most of 10000 Days sucks pretty hard. :(

  • Trigger Warning||

    Ugh, no. I have got to disagree. Too much dicking around.

    The Pot is the worst Tool song ever. I don't count Wings 1 and 2 because I refuse to consider twenty minutes of self-indulgence, guitar wankery, and HOLY SHIT THIS SONG IS STILL GOING AND IT'S BORING AS FUCK an actual Tool song, not even with Lustmord trying his best to save it.

    MJK phoned it in on that entire record. He sounds so bored on most of it. It's going to be even worse on the new one.

    It doesn't matter. He could sing about taking a shit, and it would sell a million copies. He could sing a song called "Me Fans are Stupid Pigs" and Tooltards would try to diagram it on the Tree of Life and align their chakras with it.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Milo sure must speak out against the above list of things very often.

    Does he ever speak FOR those things?

    And if you have to google to find some quote where he mentions any of them, that proves my point. He's a troll whose claim to fame is trolling, not advocating conservative or libertarian principles. Hence a terrible choice for the keynote.

  • Fluffy||

    Sure he's a troll.

    But the type of troll he is is absolutely necessary, at this particular moment in America.

    The anti-free-speech collectivist left has been trying for generations to find the magic set of words they needed to shut down the speech of everyone on the right.

    A few years ago, they found it: they roll around like soccer players taking a dive whenever anyone disagrees with them, and scream out that they don't "feel safe". And assholes like Robby help them.

    The most important thing to be done right now for the future of freedom in the world is for us to let "women, minorities, and the transgender" know that their fucking worthless feelings aren't important enough for anyone to lose a molecule of liberty over them. If we can hold that line, we can fix the rest over time. If we can't, we'll lose everything, and probably in my lifetime.

    The only way to do that is Milo's way. I was convinced of that before he even started, and having watched him proceed I'm even more convinced of it now.

  • Nyarlarrythotep||

    I would like to read your best historical justification for this concern.

  • Fluffy||

    Because a combination of our anti-discrimination laws and Title IX are within inches of allowing the complete lockdown of our education system and all private and public sector employment any time some obese purple haired cunt says she doesn't feel safe.

    When you can lose your job as a public school teacher for encouraging your Facebook friends to support immigration laws because it doesn't "make everyone feel welcome" it's clear that we're much, much farther gone than we were when a handful of cities banned Tropic of Cancer or when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and then never used.

  • Nyarlarrythotep||

    Yes, I get your concern there, more or less; I'm asking for a historical justification. One that suggests that these trends you see could result in an outcome like the one you're worried about.

  • Nyarlarrythotep||

    I mean a time where similar trends resulted in a similar outcome.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Baloney. The "anti-free-speech collectivist left" throws a fit over far more restrained right-wing opinions than Milo's. Hell, they even throw fits over other leftists who don't give enough emphasis to their particular hobbyhorses. We don't need to embrace creeps like Milo to show the world the puerility of the modern left.

  • Free Society||

    Does he ever speak FOR those things?

    And if you have to google to find some quote where he mentions any of them, that proves my point.

    If you asked me if Ron Paul spoke for those things and you wanted an answer more descriptively than "Yes", I'd be doing a quick google search to find a quote. But I guess that would only prove your point...somehow.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Does he ever speak FOR those things?

    Yes, constantly, almost every talk he gives. "Liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution" are the main points of his talks, and he particularly emphasizes the First Amendment.

    He's a troll whose claim to fame is trolling, not advocating conservative or libertarian principles.

    You're the kind of "conservative" he hates, someone who is uninformed, sits on his thumb, and lectures from the sidelines while people like Hillary turn the US into a progressive and socialist shithole.

  • Jake Stone||

    Yiannopoulos is well-known for making disparaging remarks about women

    No, Robby, he isn't. He is however well known for making disparaging (AKA truthful) remarks about third wave feminists.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Shorter Robby: Why NOT go full retard?

  • Fluffy||

    Milo is well known for making disparaging remarks about women in academia who demand that the rest of us lose our free speech to protect their fucking worthless feelings.

    Unfortunately, those are people Robby likes to hang out with.

    "Cocktail parties now, cocktail parties tomorrow, cocktail parties forever!" - Robby Soave

  • J Mann||

    Does anybody have links to Yiannopoulos's most outrageous comments?

    The summary I've seen was that he said that he thought that consent laws were "about right" where they are, but that individual kids are probably capable of consenting and he doesn't regret his own relationships with older guys when he was young.

    On the one hand, I feel icky writing that, but isn't it probably true? We don't have consent laws because no kid anywhere is mature enough to consent, nor do we seriously believe that 15 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex with 17 year olds but not with anyone a year older - we have consent laws because most kids aren't mature enough, and we don't want older people to put kids at risk by trying to guess. And also because it's icky, but as libertarians, most of us don't support "that's gross, dude" as a basis for a law.

  • Fluffy||

    And this makes sense, because Milo is clearly a narcissist.

    I say this as a narcissist myself. So I know what I'm talking about.

    I'm a straight male, so I can't compare it directly to his context. But I do know that when I was 13, 14, whatever...if an "adult" woman I'd actually been attracted to had wanted to have sex with me, I can assure all of you that I was 100% capable of giving legitimate consent.

    I'm actually kind of insulted by the proposition that I would not have been. Who the fuck are these people telling me I wouldn't have been? State legislators? I would have been better at the job of state legislator at age 13 than any of the fucking corrupt hacks in New York State, I know that much. I would have been better than just about any adult I knew at every last job other than surgeon. The idea that I needed those assholes (half criminal, half retard) to protect me from my own mind is absolutely ludicrous.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But I do know that when I was 13, 14, whatever...if an "adult" woman I'd actually been attracted to had wanted to have sex with me, I can assure all of you that I was 100% capable of giving legitimate consent.

    I'm not sure a straight male is capable of not giving consent in this situation. You're pretty much walking around in full consent mode around 100% of the time.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm a straight male, so I can't compare it directly to his context. But I do know that when I was 13, 14, whatever...if an "adult" woman I'd actually been attracted to had wanted to have sex with me, I can assure all of you that I was 100% capable of giving legitimate consent.

    I don't think I know an adult man who didn't incessantly dream of screwing older women when he was in his early teens, and wouldn't view a memory of actually achieving it as a cherished dream come true.

    Really, who wasn't Hot for Teacher? VH1 declared this anthem of "pedophilia" the 36th best hard rock song of all time in 2009. Glee made their own version in 2011.

    The pearl clutching is ridiculous.
    GLEE - Hot For Teacher (Full Performance) HD

  • lafe.long||

    The summary I've seen was that he said that he thought that consent laws were "about right" where they are, but that individual kids are probably capable of consenting and he doesn't regret his own relationships with older guys when he was young.

    After reading the actual video transcript, this was exactly my takeaway from it.

    ... but, them pants ain't gonna shit themselves, dammit - so let's go with "condoning pedophilia".

  • Brochettaward||

    We have consent laws because we are a prudish society that looks down on older people sleeping with teenagers. Especially if it's your teenager (as a parent). Morally, that may be a correct position. It doesn't mean it is the correct legal position. The bigger issue isn't consent for me, but adult figures who are in positions of authority over said teens.

    'Children' throughout most of human history in these age brackets have been married off and/or fucking.

  • Bubba Jones||

    He said he was grateful to the priest who taught him how to give great head.

  • J Mann||

    I assume that's a joke, but even if not, are we supposed to be offended if Milo himself doesn't feel victimized by having sex with older dudes?

    I'm a little skeeved out by him distinguishing pedophelia by saying that if you're attracted to a post-puberty 13 year old, you're not a pedophile. I guess it's semantically correct to distinguish pedophilia from hebephilia, but ick.

  • jouissance||

    The majority of Europe's countries age of consent is 16 and below (to 14). Are you saying all those countries are "ick"?

    Most have provisions with regards to abuse (of authority) which punishable by law, and/or significant age difference situations.

    All (I am pretty sure at least) have child porn as illegal for everyone under 18 at least.

    I guess it's a matter of perspective, as in '40 year old with 14 year old' as opposed to '19 year old with 14' - and I do agree the ick factor (and the legality of it in some European countries) is hugely different... but as far as I understand USA laws in states where AoC is 18, it is the exact same offence under the law. Both would still go on the sex offender list if found guilty?

  • Jickerson||

    I guess it's semantically correct

    That's the best kind of correct. Society needs to stop being cowardly, insane, and irrational about subjects that involve children. You think being correct about this is "ick"? Then you're irrational too.

  • DarrenM||

    Does anybody have links to Yiannopoulos's most outrageous comments?

    Go to Youtube and search for "Best Milo Yiannopoulos".

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Note that the age of consent is 14 in places like Germany and Austria.

  • TW||

    Whenever someone labels a person as being some type of "-phobe" for disagreeing with them on a particular issue, it's usually because they're afraid that the "-phobe" is right.

  • PersephoneK||

    Being against or criticizing Islam is not the same as being an Islamaphobe. It has lazily morphed into that as a way of chilling speech against the "ideas" of Islam. All religions deserve scrutiny and criticism as they are essentially a collection of ideas that can influence behavior. That is far from hating people who believe in the religion as a whole. This lack of nuance and inability to understand important distinctions is one of the worst behaviors preventing real dialogue online.

  • DarrenM||

    It was the same with "homophobe". it's the same playbook. First, -phobe indicates "fear", which is inaccurate to begin with. Criticism of homosexuality or Islam does not involve "fear" or "hate" or any other emotional response (though it could). It's just criticism. Your comment can apply to either.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Milo is also a vicious Islamophobe

    Well, and you are a slaver and a homophobe. So what?

  • Blackboard Monitor Vimes||

    Is Robby trying to out-Chapman Chapman?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Whoa, did I miss the Israel angle of this piece?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Strike that. I confused Chapman with Richman.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'd say if anything's gonna kill Milo's career, it's overexposure on Reason.com.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The modern conservative coalition isn't a set of beliefs, it's a cult of personality around Donald Trump and Trump-esque figures.

    Concern troll is concerned.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm not saying Robby Soave is a pederast, that is unproven. But if he is, should he really be writing for Reason? Granted, the magazine no longer represents a set of principles, but is a amalgam of various viewpoints centered around being pro-immigration. It doesn't matter whether they hold libertarian views. It doesn't even matter if they're Libertarians. To be a libertarian hero in today's libertarian bubble, all you have to do is bash Trump and tout open borders.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Brother, you just made my day. LOL!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Making a troll cry is reward enough.

  • J Mann||

    Can you parse this statement for me, Daijal?

    Read literally, it sounds like you're saying that Fatty should have some kind of orgy with a group of shallow libertarian acquaintances, but that seems like a non-sequitur, so I assume you ascribe some other meaning, but don't get it.

  • Acosmist||

    To be sure.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Know all Men by These Presents:

    The Reason Commentariat, henceforth and forthwith, gives, devises and bequeaths half of its interest in comment handles to Glibertarians, provided that the Glibertarians provide for the necessary expenses of all the trolls in Reason's Comments section in perpetuity, or until such time as the trolls migrate to Glibertarian lands.

  • Free Society||

    wasn't invited and isn't a libertarian,

    So like Robby at a cocktail party.

  • Shinin' Pete||

    ouch!

  • Free Society||

    But let's keep in mind that CPAC gave a platform to Robertson. It gave a platform to Ann Coulter.

    Oh my goodness! Because of course Robby knows that Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter aren't real conservatives, they're fascists! He knows this because all of his leftist friends told him so. I'm sure Robby finds their views "vile" and "loathsome" with no further explanation being necessary.

  • FXKLM||

    Trump and Bannon are still on the speaker list, and both are far less defensible than Milo. They should keep Milo and ditch Trump and Bannon. All three are offensive, but at least Milo is witty and has some notion of what he's talking about.

  • Brochettaward||

    Robby is a god damn embarrassment who would get humiliated by Milo if he ever debated him. Milo would figuratively rape him and Robby wouldn't be able to put up much, if any, fight (I'd imagine a literal rape would go down in a similar fashion).

    To see libertarians or at least conservative leaning libertarians, to include those at Cato, simply lump conservatives they disagree with all under the ridiculous label of 'alt-right' is an even bigger disgrace than Robby alone ever could be. Milo is not alt-right. Bannon is not alt-right. This is the tactic employed by the progressive media establishment to slander those they disapprove of. Lest the useful idiots/Robby's of the world forget, they, too, have been at various times lumped in with the alt-right. They should be fucking careful before they make use of a tactic that can and will be used to tar them in the future. But that would require some wisdom, and it they'd be ostracized from their cocktail parties even sooner.

    Attaching the label alt-right to someone is just a way to dismiss their arguments without actually having to tackle them intellectually. It's pathetic to see Reason publish articles that do this. It's akin to calling someone a racist...well, fuck, it's practically just synonymous with racism these days.

  • Fluffy||

    There's no evidence that Milo is a racist.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Has a fact ever stopped the person you are responding to in the past?

  • Fluffy||

    I don't know this dajjal person. I think she's after my time.

  • DOOMco's Ref Chipper||

    Has he tried to shut anyone else up?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Milo? Nope. He lets them rant on their silly questions and paint their faces red at his speaking engagements and then points out to everybody how silly they are.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Oh paleeeese! We should support Robby in any competition with Milo. How else can we hope to get him into the match? Debate, jousting, whatever. Go Robby Go!

  • J Mann||

    I think some kind of Zoolander style hair modeling walk-off seems the the best use of everyone's time.

  • DarrenM||

    Milo certainly isn't. I'm not so sure about Bannon.

  • Voros McCracken||

    Is it just me, or shouldn't CPAC consider having one of the most high profile conservatives in the Western world speak at that conference be a boon? I mean, regardless of what his views are, he's important right now, no? This is not a fringe figure at this point, even if folks wish he would be. Richard Spencer is, but not this guy.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Bah, I hope they unrescind the invite. The two deserve each other.

  • DOOMco's Ref Chipper||

    Reason should interview him. I might knock the whole fake holocaust denial thing off google suggestions.

  • DarrenM||

    Milo is out of Reason's league. Bill Maher interviewed him.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

  • Brochettaward||

    There's one of the biggest issues Republicans/conservatives and libertarians face. They live in a world dominated by their ideological enemies. They listen to these supposedly serious left wing establishment institutions and personalities who shrilly make demands of them. It's absolute madness, and it's even crazier to me to see libertarians who complain about Republicans being just the same as progressives join in on the game.

    A bunch of out of touch hacks informed by the Washington Post and NYT's run the GOP. They forget why people elected them and its why after a month they've put, what, one bill across a Republican President's desk to be signed into law? They are squandering the biggest opportunity the GOP has had in over a generation. Perhaps since the 1920's.

    I'm sure Fox has re-added Milo to their blacklist now, as well.

  • ElDuderino||

    I want to know what it is about open borders that is libertarian. I understand the basic concept of freedom of movement, however, there is also the basic concept of self-defense. In reality, you either have nation-states, or you have anarchy. I am fine with both in-so-much-as the nation state is small and limited or the alternative anarchy has the cultural capability to respect property rights, the individual and contractual obligations. If we are to have a nation state, with limited government, it won't last long if this state does not have a means to control its borders. If we have anarchy, then the private property rights of people will be protected by means of preventing others from entering your private property. I could do this by saying that I don't want the following people... So, how again are open borders libertarian and at least not contradictory to the rights of individuals to protect their own property?

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: ElDuderino,

    I want to know what it is about open borders that is libertarian.


    Yes, borders open to trade of goods, services, capital and labor.

    there is also the basic concept of self-defense.


    The fact that my neighbor is engaging in peaceful trade with an immigrant does not justify any defensive action from my part, so clearly there's something else, something irrational about that feeling or "need".

    In reality, you either have nation-states, or you have anarchy.


    Leaving aside the false dichotomy, how do you reconcile libertarianism which entails complete freedom for individual humans of will, with the "nation-state", which is antithetical to that?

    So, how again are open borders libertarian and at least not contradictory to the rights of individuals to protect their own property?


    Individuals are only precluded from protecting their own property by the State, not by immigrants.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, borders open to trade of goods, services, capital and labor.

    And coercion, so long as immigration and voting are so closely related.

  • Tony||

    The fact that brown people happen to vote for Democrats is not an excuse for your having no principles.

  • american socialist||

    Can you help me out?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's rich coming from your typical ends justify the means libtard. And I don't feel the need to import any more western europeans either. They can manage their decline into senescence right where they are. They don't need to bring me along for the ride.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The fact that I am forced to pay for the schooling, health care, welfare, and retirement of brown people, however is a good reason to oppose open borders.

  • Brochettaward||

    Let's also add that I saw precious little outcry on the left when Slate and Salon ran articles defending actual honest to god pedophiles. Not in the sense that Reason does, but in the sense that they actually ran sympathetic pieces about normalizing sexual attraction to children.

  • Jickerson||

    Well, we shouldn't make such a big deal out of someone merely for having a sexual attraction. No one should be making a big deal out of any of this, and instead we should have rational conversations about the topic.

  • Cyto||

    I note for the record that Robby finally went out and found an example of Milo saying something offensive and controversial.

    I would say "see, that wasn't so hard!", except he only bothered to grab one, so perhaps it was tougher than I thought.

    I noticed a couple of links in this article at the Huffpo the other day. Maybe that'll get you a leg up on that article that you can whip out whenever the commentariate challenges you about your asides.

    The big points they have seem to be that he called out Leslie Jones for being bad in Ghostbusers (she was, IMHO) and for being ugly - which isn't really very civil - which plays into the "he's racist" charge.

    The other big item seems to be his antipathy for the cause of Transgender bathroom rights. He has the temerity to insist that being transgender is a mental disorder, which is a dispute over terminology rather than a dispute over anything real - regardless of how important that terminology is to the people affected.

    And then there's the "islamophobia" thing which seems to be centered around his assistance that since a large chunk of people are running around killing non-muslims and gay people and setting up theocratic governments and local tribunals to enforce adherence to sharia law, we should be opposed to that group of people.

    So... some questionable stuff. But not really wacked-out unprintable.

  • Fluffy||

    He has the temerity to insist that being transgender is a mental disorder

    Since every transgender activist organization has stipulated in amicus court filings on many occasions that transgenderism is a mental disorder of such horrifying severity that it's unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment if the taxpayers don't pay for sex changes for incarcerated prisoners...I think it should be beyond dispute that it's a mental disorder.

    You don't get to claim something is a pathology when you want to steal my money to treat it but then turn around and claim it's not a pathology when me repeating your position back at you hurts your feelings.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I find it odd for a homosexual to claim that transgenders have a mental disorder, but not homosexuals.

    I take that back. It's entirely predictable that they would claim it.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Almost all homosexuals are aware that the persons to whom that they are attracted are, in fact, the same sex.

  • MarkLastname||

    I consider Foucauldianism a mental disorder.

  • JeremyR||

    I am reminded of Blake's 7, where Blake was labeled a pedophile to discredit him.

  • Ron||

    The right always falling on the swords of the left before the truth is known. its not the first or last time the those on the left have edited stories to destroy people

  • Tony||

    Do you morons ever take responsibility for anything?

    When your tire goes flat, do you blame the nearest liberal?

    What sad, pathetic testicles you all are.

  • american socialist||

    Do you use fossil fuels?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Get back to me when you're willing to cut welfare. What was that about taking responsibility?

  • Sevo||

    This *is* rich. Tony wouldn't get out of bed in the morning without some gov't official telling him it is required and therefore not prohibited.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Except I didn't say "fudge."

  • BunkerBill||

    "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will." - Mary Ruwart

    Mary Ruwart is a fine upstanding Libertarian and former would be Libertarian Party presidential candidate, while Milo is a evil Nazi pervert because he had sex as a legal 17 year old and isn't willing to engage in sufficient walling and gnashing of teeth about it.

  • J Mann||

    Here's Reason's last article on Mary Ruwart.

    Unfortunately, it was pre-Soave, so it doesn't include a "to be sure, Dr. Ruwart's views are reprehensible, and she makes me throw up a little when I see her photo, but . . ." disclaimer.

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

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

  • XM||

    Milo claimed that he was extolling the value of older men having a platonic relationship (providing security and safety) with younger men, which came out all kinds of wrong since he made that comment during a larger conversation about the age of consent.

    He also got in hot waters because he said some younger teens might be mature enough to consent to have sex. Which isn't controversial in and of itself. The age of consent is (mostly?) 18 in this country, and it could be somewhat lower or higher elsewhere. A 17 year old might be more mature than a 19 year old. Milo later clarified that he did not include preteens (13,14 year olds) in the age of consent group.

    Some libertarians (Jacob Sullum) suggest that pedos simply looking at naked pics of boys should be decrminalized. I'm not heartened by this thought, but it's a defensible position. Certainly less controversial than anything Milo said.

    I don't think Milo is a pedo and he probably doesn't condone it. But the guy obviously doesn't have the discipline to articulate his viewpoint in a way that doesn't provide fodder for his mortal enemies. He's just like Trump in that way.

  • Henry Buttal||

    XM , it doesn't make any difference how he articulates his position- there will always be misuse of the words in his viewpoint, or even just his presence at say, a college campus. Putting aside his shortcomings as a personality and a communicator of ideas, he is a nightmare for the left. Gay, young, out, conservative (though as much as an attention enabler as anything), flamboyant. And unashamed of all of it. The left will do anything to impede and discredit him. I've actually become somewhat impressed on how he has dealt with adversity. I think he has grown to meet the challenges (he was a shit show several years ago when he started on British television, but not now, deals with hecklers fairly well, and is showing more adaptability than the old Republican guard.

    I've seen no indication he is racist, a misogynist, and I don't read his comments as anything else but a rational discussion on consent. You better hope the left or the idiot part of the right don't shut him down, because not many people could cause the CNTRL-Left to look so bad.

  • Tony||

    I don't think this discussion should be as taboo as it is. But, it is. So the champion of free speech ran up against the line that even nihilistic Republican assholes won't cross (hits too close to home, perhaps, what with Dennis Hastert et al?). He figured out that society does run by quasi-arbitrary taboos and that he's not actually clever enough to get around them just by asserting that he is.

    If he had been a real comedian with real talent he could have.

  • XM||

    Are you calling republicans assholes for disinviting Milo, or because they treated this line of discussion as "taboo"? Muddled point.

    Surely, you're not under some illusion that the fringe of the left hasn't championed pedophilia for years.

  • Sevo||

    ...nihilistic democrat assholes won't cross (hits too close to home, perhaps, what with Anthony Weiner et al?).

    Fixed, scumbag.
    And let us know when the left is willing to support free speech. I got all day.

  • DarrenM||

    With the advance of computer technology, child porn will be able to be created that does not use real children and so is legal (I *think* it would be legal). That should solve the problem.

  • Tony||

    John, oh John!! This is what it's going to feel like when your unqualified support for Trump makes you look like a fucking idiot, times 100.

  • american socialist||

    Someone is butthurt

  • american socialist||

    Someone is butthurt

  • Rational Exuberance||

    "Looking like an idiot" to Tony is a compliment.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look in the mirror.

  • Tony||

    I've offered no support to any politician or political commentator who's condoned diddling children, that I'm aware of. I leave that to Republicans.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, you support a party trying to pass laws protecting them.

    And are you now claiming trump is a pedophile?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.20.17 @ 8:26PM|#
    "I've offered no support to any politician or political commentator who's condoned diddling children, that I'm aware of."

    So you certainly corrected that second-order hag Streep, right?
    "To highlight just one example of Streep's shocking hypocrisy, what about the 2003 Oscars when she leaped to her feet and gave child rapist Roman Polanski a standing ovation after he was announced as winner of Best Director for The Pianist?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z4ZHTdXUhj

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robby is deleting posts now. Wow. Virtue signal on, Robbo.

  • MarkLastname||

    No "to be sure" now, Robby?

  • John C. Randolph||

    do you believe in liberty, limited government, equality under the law, the rule of law, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution? If so, you don't belong in the same movement with Milo.

    Hold on, when did Milo ever disparage any of these principles?

    -jcr

  • Mark22||

    It's fascinating: if you search the web for quotes on Milo and the Constitution, all you'll find is articles debating whether his kind of "hate speech" is permitted by the Constitution. When you actually listen to his talks, they are actually all about protecting liberty, limited government, the Constitution, and the rule of law. His only offense is that he opposes progressivism and socialists.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that the biggest thing the leftards have against him is that he says Bruce Jenner is a man.

    -jcr

  • Mark22||

    Wake up people. The left and the Washington power structure character assassination of everybody who doesn't follow in ideological lockstep with them or who threatens their power.

    According to Democrats and progressives, all Republicans and libertarians are racists. They tried to smear Trump, Bannon, Milo, and Breitbart with the "white supremacist" label. Now they are trying to stick the "pedophile" label on Milo, for remarks that are obviously not endorsing pedophilia.

    Establishment Republicans and libertarians are going to continue to fail until they actually start standing up for themselves. I mean, how dense do you have to be that after being called a racist yourself, after reading "Rules for Radicals", and after peegate, you still for the same propagandistic b.s.?

  • block30||

    This!

    Oh, and Fluffy, we need to hear more from you.

  • vek||

    Seriously. I first read a MSM article about what Milo said. "Evil PEDO!!!" They said. Then I read a supposed "full transcript" of it, which edited out relevant stuff, and basically implied he was a dirty pedo who kinda tried to back pedal when he realize what he'd said. THEN I actually watched the video. Yes he's stating non culturally non acceptable things (mostly just in the overly touchy western world, especially prudish America), but he's right. I'm not into 13 year olds or anything myself, but uhhh to say that teenagers having sex with someone say over 20 automatically makes them some kind of horrible, vile, inhuman monster... Not quite reality.

    Both men and women are genetically designed to be popping out babies by the time we're about 13-15 depending on the individual. This normal activity continued in the western world until basically the middle of the 20th century in many places, and STILL carries on in many other parts of the world. In Spain to this day the age of consent is like 12 or 13 or something as I recall. We in the modern world can say that it's a little skeezy for a 30 year old dude to go after a 15 year or chick or whatever, but that's all invented social stigma stuff. Biologically there's nothing horrible there, that's just natural behavior.

  • vek||

    We can "afford" to have extended childhood in the modern industrialized world, and so society has seen fit to alter what is perceived to be acceptable sexual behavior, but I do not buy that there is anything inherently bad, maladjusted, or degenerate about anyone being sexually attracted to a fully developed POST pubescent person.

    When you're talking about being turned on by a 6 year old THAT is a mental malfunction/aberration, but not thinking that a hot 16 year old chick is hot. That's just normal biologically programmed behavior that has been decided to be "wrong" by the thought police for whatever ridiculous reason they originally cooked up for convincing everyone a natural act was wrong. I do think it's skeezy and stupid for someone who is considerably older to be gunning for some early to mid teens teenager, but as I said I wouldn't say it is criminal or supremely degenerate so long as it's all consentual. That's what I got out of what Milo said, so I guess I have to say I agree. He is a shit stirrer for sure, and he's said some things I don't agree with, but much of what he says is correct, even if it is stated in an intentionally inflammatory way.

  • Michael Price||

    "Yiannopoulos is well-known for making disparaging remarks about women, minorities, "
    Such as? He makes disparaging remarks about FEMINISTS not women. He makes derogator remarks about Muslims but that's because they throw people about him off buildings.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Triangulation time.

  • ForcaShqipnia||

    "Rightly illegal"

    Ass covering I see.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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