re: Milo Yiannopoulos says he was not supporting pedophilia

quote:

---

You don't write books with 50 pages of foot notes to be outrageous.

---

I agree, I don't think Coulter is ONLY playing on outrage appeal, I think she's legitimately deranged and ideologically driven. I also think she's pretty intelligent, and I'm sure she knows she's profiting from readers' enjoyment of her brutal takedowns (and hysterical meltdowns).

quote:

---

Why neverTrumpers like Bhoey are joining them, is beyond me.

---

Milo is not a conservative. Milo is a fraud. When conservatives defend him, they harm conservatism.

quote:

---

BTW: What does your sig image mean? Are you a Deacon/priest?

---

That is Patriarch Sviatoslav. The rest are the logos of my three major soccer clubs, plus LSU (the logos of my two rugby clubs didn't work with the background).

update:

quote:

---

I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics. And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture.

I'm partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.
As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended. Nonetheless, I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes that I think the current age of consent is "about right."

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error.

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly.

---

Previous statement: LINK

quote:

---

He is the left's enemy

---

He is off a lot of their plantations.

It's so typical that you would hate the gay guy

The problem with people who think, is that they often think aloud. Thus you will hear many intellectual arguments about taboo subjects when you hang out with intelligent people who don't take taboo topics off the table because they assume you respect free speech enough to know that they aren't necessarily advocating a position by discussing it, things like the age of consent (which varies radically across the first world), whether or not it is appropriate to be sexually attracted to an underage person, whether a gorgeous female teacher seducing a willing 15 year old male is the same thing when the genders are reversed, etc. These things get discussed in one way or another on this board all the time, and a lot of pretty intelligent people have all kind of different opinions. Moralists always jump on them selectively. In my 13 years on this board, there has been an interesting shift of this selective outrage from the right side of the political spectrum to the left.

Sam Harris gets a lot of bullshite for that kind of philosophical way of reasoning where you ask the most ridiculous question aloud.

No nuance...racist
Too much nuance...racist

quote:

---

So are you saying that it was an intellectual discussion and MY doesn't really advocate sex between men and boys?

---

I can't answer your question because I'm not fully informed. I'm just talking in general. Libertarians for instance, tend to bat around all kind of taboo topics that have to do with human behavior and the proper size and scope of government.

Milo is done. It's over

Absolutely. It will be entertaining to see how far this can go. Maybe Franklin Graham will come out today for Nambla.