Milo Uninvited to CPAC

 

Well, that was quick. A message from ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp:

Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

We realize that Mr. Yiannopoulos has responded on Facebook, but it is insufficient. It is up to him to answer the tough questions and we urge him to immediately further address these disturbing comments.

We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.

Conservative social media exploded over the weekend concerning the invitation of Milo, a right-leaning provocateur who has been met with protests and banning from college campuses. As people registered their opinions, pro and con, The Reagan Battalion released a recording of Milo defending pedophilia on the popular Joe Rogan podcast.

Published in General
Tags: ,
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 234 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    I watched both videos including Joe Rogan. While there are things I enjoy about him, I feel CPAC made the right decision. Heading there this week, I know he would’ve been nothing but a distraction. Good call.

    • #1
  2. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Oh, boy! The Berkeley “anti-fascists” fascists have just been handed a talking point. Why not have Milo there, have him give his speech. Let others speak in opposition and demonstrate support for free speech. CPAC didn’t need to give Milo a forum but now they have made it worse.

    • #2
  3. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Wow.  Always thought the guy was a prick.  Now we know.

    • #3
  4. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    So dumb.

    This is how you get more Trump.

    • #4
  5. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Good.

    He can find other forums to speak freely, and conservatives should defend his right to do so — but we don’t need to encourage free speech by providing additional forums for speakers simply because they provoke outrage.  Give a microphone to voices who build up the best in America — whether they provoke a reaction from the Left or not.

    • #5
  6. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    And thus CPAC disappears from the consciousness of the public for another 12 months until the next media-driven outrage about who they do or don’t invite.

    Giving in to media and twitter outrage – how terribly pre-Trump.

    • #6
  7. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Wow. Always thought the guy was a prick. Now we know.

    But can we certify that CPAC has always been “prick free”?

    • #7
  8. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Wow. Always thought the guy was a prick. Now we know.

    But can we certify that CPAC has always been “prick free”?

    Hardly.  But I’m not sure Milo adds much of substance.  He’s little more than a Kardashian of the right, isn’t he?  A guy who’s famous for being famous?

    • #8
  9. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Wow. Always thought the guy was a prick. Now we know.

    But can we certify that CPAC has always been “prick free”?

    Hardly. But I’m not sure Milo adds much of substance. He’s little more than a Kardashian of the right, isn’t he? A guy who’s famous for being famous?

    But if the objective was to highlight that free speech includes offensive speech (which CPAC must have considered to be the objective in the invite), the correct response to your questions is “So”?

    • #9
  10. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    I watched both videos including Joe Rogan. While there are things I enjoy about him, I feel CPAC made the right decision. Heading there this week, I know he would’ve have been nothing but a distraction. Good call.

    I agree.  If someone wants to have Yiannopoulos in a stand-alone event, I don’t care.  But 80% of the reporting on the whole conference would have been about this one guy and his controversies.

    • #10
  11. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    genferei (View Comment):
    And thus CPAC disappears from the consciousness of the public for another 12 months until the next media-driven outrage about who they do or don’t invite.

    Giving in to media and twitter outrage – how terribly pre-Trump.

    More likely a lot longer than 12 months.

    • #11
  12. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Oh, boy! The Berkeley “anti-fascists” fascists have just been handed a talking point. Why not have Milo there, have him give his speech. Let others speak in opposition and demonstrate support for free speech. CPAC didn’t need to give Milo a forum but now they have made it worse.

    Yeah, but as you point out, the mistake was inviting him in the first place.  They couldn’t have believed Milo would contribute something they need.  He was invited because my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

    BTW, can we finally stop saying that?  My enemy’s enemy may make a suitable ally, but that’s a stupid way to pick friends.  Kauṭilya was much too smart to say what we commonly attribute to him.

    • #12
  13. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Wow. Always thought the guy was a prick. Now we know.

    But can we certify that CPAC has always been “prick free”?

    I certainly hope not.  We need pricks.  But we also need to recognize that not all pricks measure up.

    • #13
  14. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Given his apparent endorsement of pedophilia I’m not too troubled by this. There are better options to represent the alt-right: Bannon, Miller… pick one of them.

    • #14
  15. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    I watched both videos including Joe Rogan. While there are things I enjoy about him, I feel CPAC made the right decision. Heading there this week, I know he would’ve have been nothing but a distraction. Good call.

    I agree. If someone wants to have Yiannopoulos in a stand-alone event, I don’t care. But 80% of the reporting on the whole conference would have been about this one guy and his controversies.

    I don’t understand the moral equivalence voiced by Milo supporters. Yes, free speech and leftist totalitarianism is an important issue, which Milo has successfully brought to our attention. That’s a good thing. However, his unnecessary attacks on groups doesn’t help conservatism (watch Maher… he’s become a cartoon). Whatever, I always thought he’s a self created brand and will likely grow tiring. But now we’re talking about his own words. These were unedited, undoctored and frankly beyond disgusting. As parents and supposed conservatives… hell, just human beings, how could ANYONE condone what he said?

    • #15
  16. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    Guruforhire (View Comment):
    So dumb.

    This is how you get more Trump.

    We’ll be making jokes about statements like these in a few years’ time. If CPAC stood by Milo’s “intergenerational sex” silliness, the jokes would’ve started within one month’s time.

    • #16
  17. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    It seems to me as if CPAC was unnecessarily leaning into the pitch …. why go out of your way to turn up to 11 the ensuing media outrage machine over one guy who claims he is not even a Conservative … doesn’t seem worth it.

    • #17
  18. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    It’s an endorsement of hebephilia not pedophilia. Attraction to 11-14 year olds is hebephilia and anything younger is pedophilia.

    • #18
  19. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    genferei (View Comment):
    And thus CPAC disappears from the consciousness of the public for another 12 months until the next media-driven outrage about who they do or don’t invite.

    Giving in to media and twitter outrage – how terribly pre-Trump.

    Giving in to conservative outrage.  Big difference.

    They already knew liberals would detest the pick — that’s the whole reason they made it. I think we can safely conclude Matt Schlapp isn’t afraid of those people and was not surprised by their response.

    So if he changed his mind, it was because of the conservative response. I’m more than happy for CPAC, President Trump, Congress, or anyone else to “give in” to genuine outrage from conservatives offended by something un-conservative.

    • #19
  20. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s an endorsement of hebephilia not pedophilia. Attraction to 11-14 year olds is hebephilia and anything younger is pedophilia.

    Are you really trying to rationalize this?

    • #20
  21. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s an endorsement of hebephilia not pedophilia. Attraction to 11-14 year olds is hebephilia and anything younger is pedophilia.

    Which is also illegal and repulsive. The distinction between the two is relevant for mental health professionals; it’s not necessary to determine the man is seriously messed up.

    • #21
  22. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Conservatism Inc strikes. I shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Ah well, CPAC. You can stick with your approved list of safe speakers , and their “winning message” of tax cuts and muh Constitution. It worked so well broadening appeal before. Stay in your in your lane, CPAC. Stay in your pre-2016 lane.

    • #22
  23. Drusus Inactive
    Drusus
    @Drusus

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s an endorsement of hebephilia not pedophilia. Attraction to 11-14 year olds is hebephilia and anything younger is pedophilia.

    So glad you split that hair for us. Now, how many pedophiles can dance on the head of….nevermind.

    • #23
  24. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Douglas (View Comment):
    Conservatism Inc strikes. I shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Ah well, CPAC. You can stick with your approved list of safe speakers , and their “winning message” of tax cuts and muh Constitution. It worked so well broadening appeal before. Stay in your in your lane, CPAC. Stay in your pre-2016 lane.

    Yes, why for God’s sake would anyone want someone who preaches conservative values at a conservative conference?

    Milo is not our friend; at best he’s a fellow traveler, and not one we should rely on.  If he decides goring our oxen will be more fun than goring the left’s, there’ll be cheap steak dinners that night.

    • #24
  25. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Douglas (View Comment):
    Conservatism Inc strikes. I shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Ah well, CPAC. You can stick with your approved list of safe speakers , and their “winning message” of tax cuts and muh Constitution. It worked so well broadening appeal before. Stay in your in your lane, CPAC. Stay in your pre-2016 lane.

    Are you endorsing the views he espoused concerning sexual relations with boys under 18? Do you think a speaker who endorses such practices should be a keynote speaker at CPAC?

    • #25
  26. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Leigh (View Comment):
    Giving in to conservative outrage. Big difference.

    They already knew liberals would detest the pick — that’s the whole reason they made it. I think we can safely conclude Matt Schlapp isn’t afraid of those people and was not surprised by their response.

    So if he changed his mind, it was because of the conservative response. I’m more than happy for CPAC, President Trump, Congress, or anyone else to “give in” to genuine outrage from conservatives offended by something un-conservative.

    I understand the conservative outrage, but I continue to feel that the constitutional principle is larger and that rescinding the invitation actually makes things worse for conservative principles rather than affirming them. See my post on how I would have handled it.

    • #26
  27. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s an endorsement of hebephilia not pedophilia. Attraction to 11-14 year olds is hebephilia and anything younger is pedophilia.

    Split up the ages and give the attractions different names all you want.  The fact is, we expect adults to understand that children that young aren’t able to make responsible decisions about sex, and to protect them from making mistakes at least so far as not engaging in sexual relationships with them.  If you believe the premise, you almost have to accept the conclusion as only decent.  What came later may be more sensational, but at the very beginning of that clip, Milo set it up by actually objecting to the consent requirement itself.  I accept that humans are complex and our sexual attractions are variable and not always conventional.  I also think you can quibble about the precise age you set for legal consent.  If 18 is ok, are we really sure 17 is an abomination?  I don’t know.  But there is an age below which children just don’t have the maturity or judgment and adults just have to be responsible lest a lot of damage be done, and in my experience that age is well past 13.

    • #27
  28. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Douglas (View Comment):
    Conservatism Inc strikes. I shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Ah well, CPAC. You can stick with your approved list of safe speakers , and their “winning message” of tax cuts and muh Constitution. It worked so well broadening appeal before. Stay in your in your lane, CPAC. Stay in your pre-2016 lane.

    Are you endorsing the views he espoused concerning sexual relations with boys under 18? Do you think a speaker who endorses such practices should be a keynote speaker at CPAC?

    Spare me the Outrage. You wanted to keep the bad kids out of your club. Congrats, you win, it’s all yours. You couldn’t keep the barbarians from winning office, but hey, at least CPAC will stay Bushwood. There’ll still be no gambling on your golf course.

    • #28
  29. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Leigh (View Comment):
    Giving in to conservative outrage. Big difference.

    They already knew liberals would detest the pick — that’s the whole reason they made it. I think we can safely conclude Matt Schlapp isn’t afraid of those people and was not surprised by their response.

    So if he changed his mind, it was because of the conservative response. I’m more than happy for CPAC, President Trump, Congress, or anyone else to “give in” to genuine outrage from conservatives offended by something un-conservative.

    I understand the conservative outrage, but I continue to feel that the constitutional principle is larger and that rescinding the invitation actually makes things worse for conservative principles rather than affirming them. See my post on how I would have handled it.

    CPAC is a private organization. No constitutional provisions were violated.

    • #29
  30. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Wow. Always thought the guy was a prick. Now we know.

    But can we certify that CPAC has always been “prick free”?

    Hardly. But I’m not sure Milo adds much of substance. He’s little more than a Kardashian of the right, isn’t he? A guy who’s famous for being famous?

    No way!  He’s legit. Check out what he did on gamergate.

    Sadly gamergate doesn’t register in the conservative mindset because making a living programming computer games seems somehow equivalent to living in your mom’s basement.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.