Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Watch the whole debate, and let's discuss this. This might go into a larger discussion about free speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Watch the whole debate, and let's discuss this. This might go into a larger discussion about free speech Then it should go into debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 *Milo [Yiannopoulos] Thought for a sec that mido9 was in newsworthy trouble. xD As for Milo he's since issued a clarification that he was not advocating pedophilia: “I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst,” Yiannopoulos stated. “There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.” I suspect this is another hit job in the same vein as "PewDiePie is a Nazi". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Establishment republicans are the filth of the filth They always leak tapes like access Hollywood and this to score political slanderous hits Cowards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm personally not surprised. He has defended someone accused of pedophilia in the past, and in that instance he never made a clear statement along the lines of disavowing it.Whether or not he was being serious is up to debate however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm personally not surprised. He has defended someone accused of pedophilia in the past, and in that instance he never made a clear statement along the lines of disavowing it.Whether or not he was being serious is up to debate however.No he did not It was about his personal life as a abuse victim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Good, it's about time that little gremlin got what was coming to him. Milo Yiannopoulos brings nothing to the table besides his troll-ish attitude. I never honestly heard him say something wasn't either ignorant or uniformed, and it was about time people stopped giving him the time of day. Good riddance Milo, you will not be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Having watched the offending bit of the debate that people have taken issue with, I find myself torn. Milo's point on consent in fairly valid, that a defined arbitrary guideline for the age of consent is stupid, because people will be in different mind sets and be 'capable' of giving it at either younger or older ages. It's a fine argument, that the word of law shouldn't be absolute in all cases, and that consent should be somewhat flexible. So I agree with the point he is making there. The issue is, he picked a hell of a weird way to frame that argument. Like even if you know what he says he was refering too (I.e. 16 or 17 year olds instead of 12-13 year olds), you can see where people are getting the idea of him being in favour of pedophilia because his phrasing does him more harm than good. I wonder if it might be based in rationalisation of his own abuse as a child, but that's a point for a different matter. Essentially whilst I don't think he did any wrong here, I see why he stepped down from Briebart because there's enough vaguarity in what he said to damn his public image a little. Which is unfortunate, because the man frequently raises good points. Downside of the digital age; It gets really hard to e a public figure given anything and everything you say can be scruitinised well after the fact out of context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Good, it's about time that little gremlin got what was coming to him. Milo Yiannopoulos brings nothing to the table besides his troll-ish attitude. I never honestly heard him say something wasn't either ignorant or uniformed, and it was about time people stopped giving him the time of day. Good riddance Milo, you will not be missed.So you're ok with defamation if it's someone you don't like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So you're ok with defamation if it's someone you don't like?He's frequently done the exact same to others, and despite being a huge proponent of free speech, engages in personal attacks on anybody who dares to disagree with him, and broad stroke generalizations of entire groups of people. Quite frankly it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Stay on topic and stop flaming each other. Maintain the decorum and act like adults, please. You want me to stay out of your threads, then please grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 He's frequently done the exact same to others, and despite being a huge proponent of free speech, engages in personal attacks on anybody who dares to disagree with him, and broad stroke generalizations of entire groups of people. Quite frankly it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine.you do know that free speech means personal attacks are not off the table right? milo, for all his trollishness, has spread light on many a subject, and does not shy away from the title of provocateur. while i have not always seen eye to eye with the man, he gives as much as he gets, the broad strokes are likely as accurate as the narrow ones, unless you wish to point out ones that are not. as for medicine, it's not like he's fallen from grace, he's simply stepped into another firefight, this one no worse than any that he's already been involved in, just at a different angle. other than that, it's business as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Quite frankly it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/02/milo-yiannopoulos-leaves-breitbart-news-235237 He left Breitbart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/02/milo-yiannopoulos-leaves-breitbart-news-235237 He left Breitbart No he did not It was about his personal life as a abuse victim It's too much to ask some people to read the thread it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/02/milo-yiannopoulos-leaves-breitbart-news-235237 He left Breitbart ""This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies," Yiannopoulos said. "They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail."" that about sums up this entire debacle. the media doesn't care what it was he said, or else they would never be running so exclusively with this one angle. the story ran with, demonstrates the intent of the writers. and not one of the liberal media has granted benefit of doubt, or even benefit of context. it's yet another with hunt, to damage the image of a powerful opponent. hell, there's even still idiots who believe trumps tape was admittance to sexual assault and not just a description of common groupie behavior. we've seen it for years, and fact is, it's only helping more people wake up to the half truths, and blatantly spinning lies spread in the media these days. this kind of dishonest reporting is exactly why the title of "fake news" hangs about. It's too much to ask some people to read the thread it seemshe at least brought a separate source. so it doesn't matter much whether or not he read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 there's even still idiots who believe trumps tape was admittance to sexual assault and not just a description of common groupie behaviorGrabbing others by the genitals without direct permission is not common groupie behavior. It is possible Milo was referring to his own experiences instead of encouraging others. But to apply the same logic to trump's tape doesn't match up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Grabbing others by the genitals without direct permission is not common groupie behavior. his words were that they would give you permission to do whatever you wanted. "...and they'll let you do X..." already implies consent. his statement directly said, that the people he was talking about, were the kind who would let you do such things. unfortunately the context was ruined by the reports, watch the full video, still ignorant bragging, but it is by no means the barbaric tape that the media makes it out to be. same goes for milo, his following words, that directly oppose the media's main narrative, are cut out, so that the media can have its slander festival. he clearly does not condone pedophilia, and states as much, but the media didn't add that bit, they merely took the start, and left the follow up to blow away in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 his words were that they would give you permission to do whatever you wanted. "...and they'll let you do X..." already implies consent. his statement directly said, that the people he was talking about, were the kind who would let you do such things. unfortunately the context was ruined by the reports, watch the full video, still ignorant bragging, but it is by no means the barbaric tape that the media makes it out to be. same goes for milo, his following words, that directly oppose the media's main narrative, are cut out, so that the media can have its slander festival. he clearly does not condone pedophilia, and states as much, but the media didn't add that bit, they merely took the start, and left the follow up to blow away in the wind. In those cases why don't you just post the words they said so we can know this is true? (But you may want to put a warning against people under age 18) EDIT: his words were that they would give you permission to do whatever you wanted. "...and they'll let you do X..." already implies consent. He might have said they consent, he might even believe they let him/consent, but that doesn't mean they actually consent. Keep in mind we are talking about a man who built his campaign and is building his presidency largely on lies and hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Uh no, if they let you, that's consent. I'm sorry, if you're being raped you don't sit quietly and spread your legs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 He might have said they consent, he might even believe they let him/consent, but that doesn't mean they actually consent. Keep in mind we are talking about a man who built his campaign and is building his presidency largely on lies and hyperbole."You think you do, but you don't" is not a thing when it comes to consent, especially when you're fully mentally developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 In those cases why don't you just post the words they said so we can know this is true? (But you may want to put a warning against people under age 18) EDIT: He might have said they consent, he might even believe they let him/consent, but that doesn't mean they actually consent. Keep in mind we are talking about a man who built his campaign and is building his presidency largely on lies and hyperbole.for now i will say the same of the media, but i will have those words for you after i get off work, [spoiler=the video in question ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8U0IaMsRf4listen to it, it's literally just regular dudes on a bus, 1:04 is where the main discussion, the often focused-on part is, but listen to the context though, the entire video, and tell me, is that a man admitting to sexually assaulting, or a man who's bragging about getting hot women to jump his bones? you don't brag about rape, any man with half a brain and a working set of limbs can rape a woman, you brag about consent, getting women to want you on their own. we've seen it time and again, milo is just the newest incarnation of the tactic, michael, trump, cosby, the list goes on. throw accusations about children or women at him, and topple him with slander. at this point, if there's no verdict, then i've stopped believing the tale. for now though, the second bit is what deserves attention he was not discussing anybody in particular, he was being general in his statement, and the media just kept running with their lie, but even then, tell me, his statement, under proper context, implies that he would not do anything that he described, without consent, and following that, what exactly, leads you to the conclusion of an illusion, you have taken his statement, and the clarification, and moved them into grounds where you yourself would never wish to have your name placed, even upon correcting the falsehood, you turn it into a slander. his statement was at first twisted out of context, and you bought it full body, and now, when corected, you do nothing more than twist it back so that it fits the same definition you were comfortable with the first time. is that not a little unfair? to take a mans words, and throw the claim of sexual assault at him? regardless of whether you like him, or if you think he's a liar, you are, by your own words, calling him a rapist. and that is leagues above what you have compared said claim to. i can tolerate a liar, but to call a man a rapist, simply on the whim of words, is to verbally strip him of all morality, are you sure that is your position? and if so, reverse it, say somebody called you a rapist, how well would that stand with you? regardless of all other transgressions, even if you were a liar, would you tolerate the title of rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Uh no, if they let you, that's consent. I'm sorry, if you're being raped you don't sit quietly and spread your legsIf you don't resist an unwanted sexual advance out of fear of authority, wealth, or anything of the like, that's still sexual assault. That being said, I don't think Milo did anything wrong. He made a career out of saying stupid sheet and this is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.