Milo "Finally" Crosses The Line

"
What even makes Milo a thing, anyways? Why is this person famous? Why are they getting book deals? I'm reminded of the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton - someone who's famous because they're famous, and willing to say or do outrageous things. Except that he's not the heir of some fortune, doesn't have a bod you could bounce marbles off, and most of his "outrageous" statements sound like they come from 4chan /b/ or 8chan /pol/. He's painted as this intellectual leader of the right wing, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Nothing he says is interesting, and he's not saying it in an interesting way. Is it just because he pisses off liberals? If so, congratulations, the right wing has reached the level of intellectual discourse of a second-grader. But I can't for the life of me figure out why he's popular.


Although I haven't paid him too much attention, my impression is his popularity is owed to a large extent to a bunch of social warriors raising all kinds of noise against him. The commotions at UC Berkeley? He couldn't have had a better popularity campaign.

Yet another demonstration of a complete lack of understanding for some principles of marketing and group psychology. You might want to research Tucker Max's books and how they got popular. In brief: his marketing guy orchestrated a large-scale feminist campaign against them. Worked like a charm.
The Wheel of Nerfs turns, and builds come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the build that gave it birth comes again.
Last edited by Bars on Feb 21, 2017, 10:26:47 AM
"
Bars wrote:
"
What even makes Milo a thing, anyways? Why is this person famous? Why are they getting book deals? I'm reminded of the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton - someone who's famous because they're famous, and willing to say or do outrageous things. Except that he's not the heir of some fortune, doesn't have a bod you could bounce marbles off, and most of his "outrageous" statements sound like they come from 4chan /b/ or 8chan /pol/. He's painted as this intellectual leader of the right wing, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Nothing he says is interesting, and he's not saying it in an interesting way. Is it just because he pisses off liberals? If so, congratulations, the right wing has reached the level of intellectual discourse of a second-grader. But I can't for the life of me figure out why he's popular.


Although I haven't paid him too much attention, my impression is his popularity is owed to a large extent to a bunch of social warriors raising all kinds of noise against him. The commotions at UC Berkeley? He couldn't have had a better popularity campaign.

Yet another demonstration of a complete lack of understanding for some principles of marketing and group psychology. You might want to research Tucker Max's books and how they got popular. In brief: his marketing guy orchestrated a large-scale feminist campaign against them. Worked like a charm.



agree with that, Milo was giving his speech in front of 300 ppl max most of the time. He went to the national TV and on Radio and his book sales went skyrocket after the Berkeley's riot.
"
What even makes Milo a thing, anyways? Why is this person famous? Why are they getting book deals? I'm reminded of the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton - someone who's famous because they're famous, and willing to say or do outrageous things. Except that he's not the heir of some fortune, doesn't have a bod you could bounce marbles off, and most of his "outrageous" statements sound like they come from 4chan /b/ or 8chan /pol/. He's painted as this intellectual leader of the right wing, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Nothing he says is interesting, and he's not saying it in an interesting way. Is it just because he pisses off liberals? If so, congratulations, the right wing has reached the level of intellectual discourse of a second-grader. But I can't for the life of me figure out why he's popular.


You realy dont know? People make a fuzz about him thats why. I dont pay him any attention and if everyone would do the same he would just go away. No audience = no book deals and no fame.
"
Bars wrote:
"
soneka101 wrote:


It's not shaming tactics, if you are an adult that goes after kids these are the only motivations I can imagine that one could have.


See, that's the thing. You saw me agreeing with something Scrotie said, which had nothing to do with adults going after teenagers, and you immediately assumed we're both raging pedos. Classic brain shutdown.


The whole topic is basically about pedophilia or adults going after teenagers, am I that wrong in assume that you cited the age of consent to justify adults going after teenagers?

"
Bars wrote:
"
soneka101 wrote:

You were twelve and you liked well developed girls, I suppose you had your adventures and nothing negative resulted from it, but that was your experience, can you speak for others as well?


I try not to speak for others and determine what they should/could do, think and feel. I suppose this is a strange concept to you.


Yeah yeah right, I am such a terrible human being.

"
Bars wrote:
"
soneka101 wrote:

As an adult, and not taking in consideration your past, do you really think there is valid reason that an adult should be able to go after teenagers? It has to be kids? Can't go after anyone else?

In your case, you were 12 and liked well developed girls, would it be bad if you had to wait? How bad?


First off, teenagers are not kids. Second, as I and Scrotie already mentioned, the legal age of consent in most of the world is lower than in the USA. As far as the reasoning goes, it's pretty simple. A teenager already has all the biological machinery and capabilities to procreate - this means nature considers them ready to have sex.

Besides, why shouldn't a teenager be able to have sex with someone older? Spare me the vestigial religious pseudo-morality which somehow makes sex an immoral and dirty deed. In fact, if you're inexperienced, your first few times will be much better with a more experienced partner.

The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You want to impose restrictions and tell people what to do. You have to justify your position.


Now you are putting words in my mouth, where did I imply that sex is immoral or dirty? And you ask why a teenager shouldn't be able to have sex with someone older? I gave my opinion already about that, I won't keep on repeating myself. About having an experienced partner, you can do that without having to pick someone old enough to be your father/mother

"The burden of proof"? Are you using something like "Internet fight for dummies"? Can't I give my opinion on the internet based on my experience and my beliefs? No, I have to provide links because this is how every internet fight goes!!

Besides, you say "trying to impose restrictions" as if it doesn't exist, it does, and I'm here giving my opinion on why I think it's valid.
I'm not "justifying". Large parts of the world outside of the US think there's no problem and it's written in the legislation.

You might also want to research the definition of pedophilia. Pedophiles are people attracted to children who haven't developed sexually. Not people attracted to teenagers who could often pass for twenty-somethings, especially the girls.

Anyway, I'm out of here, I don't think you're up for a rational discussion. Have a nice day.
The Wheel of Nerfs turns, and builds come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the build that gave it birth comes again.
Last edited by Bars on Feb 21, 2017, 11:14:22 AM
"
Bars wrote:
"
solwitch wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Spoiler
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.
This is not a normal sentiment... I would not leave my children alone with you.
Why, he might try to infect them with independence and a more mature world view?
How utterly abnormal of me.

Hey, I understand that You Guys are going to mature your offspring at the speeds you find appropriate. It's just that I'm going to work hard to (hopefully) have my children ready for adulthood years before your schedule. I think it's imminently doable and is equivalent to adding years to my children's lives. But hey, if you think some extra years with the training wheels on and individual agency limited is helping your kid then hey, do that. I won't rush you, or them.

Just remember: as parents, your job is to assist vulnerable, dependent children in transforming into strong, self-sufficient adults. Do your job.
"
Snorkle_uk wrote:
I wasnt mature or responsible enough to deal with being an adult with an adult job when I first went out and got a job, that was a reality I just had to adjust to. I think if I waited another 4 years I wouldnt have been any closer to being adjusted to it all, the time I was going to be ready to deal with it all was probably always going to be 6 months after I actually had the job.
The entire post was good, but this was the best part. Giving your kids skills isn't like letting plants grow; it's a series of learning experiences, not the simple passage of time. When parents (or their grown children) prevent their grown children from moving on to the next step out of fear of failure, the time of that child is wasted, time they'll never get back. Effectively reducing the amount of time one has on this earth is equivalent to shortening one's lifespan. Idleness is a slow and insidious killer. Patience is not a virtue, it's a vice that steals the credit due to thoroughness and perseverance.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Feb 21, 2017, 11:44:00 AM
"
Bars wrote:
"
What even makes Milo a thing, anyways? Why is this person famous? Why are they getting book deals? I'm reminded of the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton - someone who's famous because they're famous, and willing to say or do outrageous things. Except that he's not the heir of some fortune, doesn't have a bod you could bounce marbles off, and most of his "outrageous" statements sound like they come from 4chan /b/ or 8chan /pol/. He's painted as this intellectual leader of the right wing, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Nothing he says is interesting, and he's not saying it in an interesting way. Is it just because he pisses off liberals? If so, congratulations, the right wing has reached the level of intellectual discourse of a second-grader. But I can't for the life of me figure out why he's popular.


Although I haven't paid him too much attention, my impression is his popularity is owed to a large extent to a bunch of social warriors raising all kinds of noise against him. The commotions at UC Berkeley? He couldn't have had a better popularity campaign.

Yet another demonstration of a complete lack of understanding for some principles of marketing and group psychology. You might want to research Tucker Max's books and how they got popular. In brief: his marketing guy orchestrated a large-scale feminist campaign against them. Worked like a charm.


Right, but then what? I get how such actions might draw eyes to him, but what keeps people there? Pure tribalism? "Hey, this guy on our side said shitty, assholish things, and now people are throwing him out! QUICK, RALLY TO OUR SIDE!" If I ever do that, do me a favor and bitchslap the stupid out of my face. If the first few whacks won't do it, continue until it starts to draw blood.

"
morbo wrote:

Far-leftists have been experimenting with attempts to normalize pedophilia for a while now, among other weird shit like necrophilia and incest. That site has given a platform to pedphiles several times, ofc. only pedophiles who "have never touched a kid". Or so they claim.

A lot of "progressive liberals" will tell you that sex between consenting 13 yo and a 30 yo adult, is ok, cause it's just love. More or less in line with Milo's blunder.


No. They won't. This really isn't a hard concept. "Gold Star" pedophiles are pedophiles who are attracted to children, but who recognize that their desires are extremely harmful and don't give in to them. These are the people who wake up each morning with an urge to fuck children, and go through each day not doing so. Some go as far as chemically castrating themselves to remove their sex drives. Absolutely nobody is condoning sex with minors. Find me one "progressive liberal" of any note who will tell you what you just said. I think you're lying, personally.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Just remember: as parents, your job is to assist vulnerable, dependent children in transforming into strong, self-sufficient adults. Do your job.

How's leaving your 14 yo daughter in the hands of a 30 yo man gonna transform her into a strong adult? Or leaving your 14 yo boy who thinks he may be gay, to go around fuck 10 years older men? Is that gonna help him growing up or maybe destroy him for life?

You guys seriously think that 14 year old teens having sexual relationships with 10 or 20 years older adults is healthy? Don't you see the potential for abuse here? The taking advantage of and the dominant influence that a grown up man can have on a confused teen? Do you really want your daughter to be "pumped and dumped" by some twice divorced guy... -_-

14 yo are far from being mentally / emotionally mature, even tho they may be sexually mature. Now, we can argue why it is so, and if & how this should be "fixed" in western society. But allowing older people (esp. men) to take advantage of teens is not the right way to "teach life lessons".
When night falls
She cloaks the world
In impenetrable darkness
Last edited by morbo on Feb 21, 2017, 12:01:54 PM
"
morbo wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Just remember: as parents, your job is to assist vulnerable, dependent children in transforming into strong, self-sufficient adults. Do your job.

How's leaving your 14 yo daughter in the hands of a 30 yo man gonna transform her into a strong adult? Or leaving your 14 yo boy who thinks he may be gay, to go around fuck 10 years older men? Is that gonna help him growing up or maybe destroy him for life?

You guys seriously think that 14 year old teens having sexual relationships with 10 or 20 years older adults is healthy? Don't you see the potential for abuse here? The taking advantage of and the dominant influence that a grown up man can have on a confused teen? Do you really want your daughter to be "pumped and dumped" by some twice divorced guy... -_-

14 yo are far from being mentally / emotionally mature, even tho they may be sexually mature. Now, we can argue why it is so, and if & how this should be "fixed" in western society. But allowing older people (esp. men) to take advantage of teens is not the right way to "teach life lessons".


I agree with you, in fact you worded way better than I could.
"
Bars wrote:
I'm not "justifying". Large parts of the world outside of the US think there's no problem and it's written in the legislation.

You might also want to research the definition of pedophilia. Pedophiles are people attracted to children who haven't developed sexually. Not people attracted to teenagers who could often pass for twenty-somethings, especially the girls.

Anyway, I'm out of here, I don't think you're up for a rational discussion. Have a nice day.


Man, if you want to say that we can't agree, okay, that's alright, I think the same, and that's not a bad thing, it happens once in a while, but saying that I'm not "up for a rational discussion" just because I don't nod at what you are saying, is kinda douchey.

I may have used the word pedophilia when I shouldn't (and I apologize for that, I was wrong), I may have been stubborn and heated on my position, but I have been far from being irrational. I didn't name call, the only time I remember of using sarcasm was when you made me look like an a-hole, and the times I made some questions it wasn't rhetorical questions, I was expecting answers and I wouldn't crucify you even if you gave me answers that I would frown upon.

Well, but that doesn't matter now as it seems the discussion came to an end. I will won't on my skills so the next time we disagree you won't see me in such way.

Be well, and see you another time.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info