Milo "Finally" Crosses The Line

In case nobody's seen it, Milo's explanation on FaceBorg:

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/851826321621931

='[.]'=

yet libs won t condemn The marriage of a 9 year old little girl and a prophet or the incest in the Noah s family .

"

Head_Less wrote:

yet libs won t condemn The marriage of a 9 year old little girl and a prophet.

Let me just take a quick poll of all the "liberals" I know (i.e. my family and pretty much all of my friends and acquaintances).

...

...

Results are in, and fucking everybody thinks that that's awful.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

In Germany, the age of consent for adults is not 14. If I had sex with a 14-year-old, I would very likely go to prison. The law demands "coercion", but in practice this standard is broad and very easy to find support for. Even if you didn't go to jail for it, you would very much be seen, societally, as a pedophile.

I assumed Wikipedia would be an okay source for things as straightforward as age of consent. However, I admittedly was a little lazy and just looked at the map before writing my post.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

"

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense by itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against abuse apply until the age of 18 (under Section 182(1), it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 "by taking advantage of an exploitative situation."

So given the legal context, 14 is the relevant age here. Yes, sex with a 14-year-old seems to get one jailed in Germany if the 14-year-old but wishes it. But we're assuming they don't wish it for this scenario.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

In conclusion, I think Milo was wrong on this, but not monstrously wrong. Not "we must shun you from all public life" wrong, not "unemployable" wrong, not "exile to Wraeclast" wrong. I just can't quite bring myself to hate over this issue alone, even if I disagree quite strongly.

Well to be fair, I agree - if the vile homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny coming out of him wasn't enough, I don't see why this should be the straw to break the camel's back. I said as much in the OP. It's just another in a long list of egregiously terrible things Milo Yiannopolous has said in his career as the single most self-refuting campaigner for free speech I have ever seen.

I've established earlier that you don't understand trolling. You somewhat accurately describe Milo as a chantard — he's not the chantard, he doesn't represent all 4chan, but he is one of many — yet you don't really understand 4chan. You do hate it, though.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Nobody cared back then because it was Milo being Milo.

Well, back then he wasn't nearly as relevant as he was few days ago. It's like after he tried to step on the mainstream stage(like the interview with bill maher) people decided unearth things that he said in his past.

If you look on the internet there must be lots of people that think the same way as milo, or are even more extreme, but nobody makes a fuss about them because they are irrelevant.

-

About countries like mexico having that kind of age of consent, f**k, can we really do something about it? It's like muslim countries that still stone people to death on the streets, we hate it, but besides talking about it what can we do? I think that not accepting this kind of thing close to you is a good start, instead of giving up in fighting this kind of thing on your backyard, just because your can't also fight it while is happening on the other side of the world.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Looks like ex-CIA guy and meme presidential candidate Egg McMuffin spearheaded the smear campaign. He posted a unfavourably edited version of the video and then every publisher in his mailing list released the news in waves.

I saw people claiming: "it is an edited video that they used to make him look bad!", people say this A LOT about various things, and what I hate is that in some cases they don't try to show you what the unedited video was supposed to mean. "It was taken out of context" and then you look at the whole context and see that the meaning didn't change.

I watched a 5 min long version of the podcast and what I understand is that milo is not asking to change the age of consent, but he is saying that it shouldn't be black and white, that in some cases a boy that is 13 years old can have relationships with older man and benefit from it, which I find absurd.

He said something about puberty, like: "pedophilia is when they haven't reached puberty yet" if he saying that then I can assume that he think it's okay after the kid reached puberty right?

I'm sorry but that sounds horribly stupid to me, because the problem with pedophilia is not just about the body being ready to have sex, it's about having the mental maturity, some kids get a mature body way before they get a mature mind to have sex.

So it's impossible that a boy have a mature mind and body at the age of 14? No, it's not impossible, but who should judge that? Who should decide that the kid is ready for sex? The kid?(People that saw "American Beauty", know that some kids pretend to be mature but deep down are nothing like that)

The parents should decide then? As if there won't be any of them pimping they kids?(Ted Nugent case maybe?) Or the horny adult that is looking for sex?

Milo implying that the laws about consent could be flexible was just stupid IMHO.

He might not be directly advocating to pederasty, but he tried to sneak in a rhetoric that would benefit no one else but pedophiles and pederasts.

-

He said that gay boys having sex with older man can be beneficial to them...

Look, I understand that some kids suffer a lot when they start to discover their sexuality, they are confused, and they need help. That is true, but you DON'T NEED to have sex with them to help.

"Come here kid, lower your pants and I will make every one of your problems go away."

Disgusting.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Results are in, and fucking everybody thinks that that's awful.

So, would you make this book forbidden for apology of pedophilia too?

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Results are in, and fucking everybody thinks that that's awful.

So, would you make this book forbidden for apology of pedophilia too?

Since when people ban anything that they think it's awful? First we start banning this, then we ban books about the slavery and holocaust, because those things are bad too, and we keep doing that until the only thing left we have is "Dora the adventurer".

"

soneka101 wrote:

He said something about puberty, like: "pedophilia is when they haven't reached puberty yet" if he saying that then I can assume that he think it's okay after the kid reached puberty right?

I'm sorry but that sounds horribly stupid to me, because the problem with pedophilia is not just about the body being ready to have sex, it's about having the mental maturity, some kids get a mature body way before they get a mature mind to have sex.

By that standard, undergraduate college students in the US probably shouldn't be allowed. Seriously, crayons to deal with Hillary losing? Mental maturity is something we actively protect our precious offspring from in our overprotective parent culture.

The way I see it, 15 shouldn't just be the age of consent — it should be the age of adulthood. They should be able to vote, join the military, purchase and consume alcohol, become employed, and drive without restriction. They wouldn't be legal dependents, so their parents couldn't get credit for them on their taxes and wouldn't need to house them. They'd still have a right to complete public high school, but no duty to do so.

At 15 you should be mature mentally — still foolish like any young adult, sure, but responsible for your own actions — and if you're not, if you can't handle responsibility, then you're developmentally delayed. Period.

We've become a culture that tries to procrastinate adulthood as much as possible, instead of creating adults efficiently. We were better at this shit a hundred years ago.

I feel sorry for him. We learned in psychology (feel free to google) that many children who fall victim to abuse at a young age become predators when they grow up. This is not a general statement, this is neither a theory or a hypothesis. We also learn that young adults do not acquire their own distinct "personality,' before puberty.

It's the frailness of the mentality of young adults that needs to be protected. Whether this character was trolling is besides the point. Let me make it very clear, anyone who feels it's okay to damage a child in anyway and justifies it by statistics, politics, majority, minority, beliefs and or religion has a perverse and predatory mindset whom should considered dangerous around children/young adults.

This however does not mean these individuals can't be productive members of society. In other words vigilance should be used however let's not as society ostracize victims of abuse but rather help them.

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Results are in, and fucking everybody thinks that that's awful.

So, would you make this book forbidden for apology of pedophilia too?

No. We don't "ban" books. Or opinions. Or people. But I probably wouldn't invite it to speak at a political convention, and I probably would think poorly of anyone who held it up as "holy".

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So given the legal context, 14 is the relevant age here. Yes, sex with a 14-year-old seems to get one jailed in Germany if the 14-year-old but wishes it. But we're assuming they don't wish it for this scenario.

We are, but even then, parents are a thing. The key thing here is not even so much the law, but the social implications. Make no mistake, if I went and fucked a 14-year-old, even one who wanted it, people would not be happy about it. Add the lax rules towards alcohol, and the fact some people lie about their age, and it gets really, really dicy. It's technically legal (assuming the kid doesn't change their mind), but it doesn't make you less of a social pariah.

"

I've established earlier that you don't understand trolling. You somewhat accurately describe Milo as a chantard — he's not the chantard, he doesn't represent all 4chan, but he is one of many — yet you don't really understand 4chan. You do hate it, though.

Please stop using "trolling" to minimize and excuse shitty behavior. Being a bigoted fuckwit is not somehow made better if you turn around and say "LOL look at how mad all those people I just insulted got! #Triggered #Snowflakes". It's particularly bad when the asserted ambiguity between humor and flat-out bigotry is used to defend what otherwise reads as just straight-up hate speech. "No, see, I'm saying the same things as the kind of women-hating bigots would say, but my tongue is in my cheek! And I'm viciously attacking a transwoman based on her being a transwoman, but that's just a joke! And I'm spreading dishonest lies and propaganda against minority groups, but it's okay because I might be just joking, even though it's blatantly obvious that my fanbase takes me perfectly seriously to an almost rabid degree!"

Fuck that noise.

Milo isn't a "troll". He's not a brave warrior fighting the PC police. He's not even insightful or interesting or even really funny. He's just a bigot.