Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
That looks like conservatives to me. It includes everything from National Review to Mark Levin. The Daily Caller has been trump friendly. So has The Washington Examiner.
It’s an audio file. It’s linked to in the OP. You can listen and judge for yourself. It left me with no doubt at all that he was advocating the legalization of sex with boys as young as 13.
For context, I’ll tell you that as a gay man who’s been out of the closet for 25 years, what he says is at least part true as a descriptive matter. There are adolescent boys who are attracted to men much older than themselves, and once in a blue moon you find yourself in an interaction that is uncomfortable because you think (or maybe they’re aggressive and you know) you’re getting attention that’s inappropriate. I recognize the phenomena he’s talking about. I suspect it occurs with straight people too. The question is simply, “what’s the appropriate response from the adult?” There I think Milo goes off the rails in clearly saying that there can be a healthy and appropriate relationship between an adult and a 13 year old. I think that’s rarely, if ever, true.
I think that CPAC would have benefitted from Milo much more than the reverse. Now they just look like weenies who can be pushed around.
I am just stating that I am surprised you have the ability to discern who controls the twitter account. Especially since it was founded back in 2015 before trump had won any primaries and before the #Nevertrump movement began.
Traditionally, rights of passage for boys into manhood are between 13-16, so, its not unreasonable for good faith disagreement in this range. Nor is this the first time I have said so on Ricochet.
[redacted] I didn’t kick them out. But I’m entitled to be pleased by the end of their harassment.
And also like Vikings the SJWs get wrecked when they run into resistance (I could go through the historical list for both groups but the variables remain the same). I can’t think of a single change made to gaming to make it more PC because gamer-gate wasn’t that big and the SJWs failed when they tried. More leftist groups are prone to SJW demands because they agree with their philosophy in many ways and gaming is not exactly a leftist enterprise, thus they were easily repelled.
And note that Tim Hunt lost his position over this as well.
I’m a bit older, and I appreciate how much more canny and savvy the younger generation is about this. There’s no safe space once they attack.
Certainly not. However, I suspect that there are just too many examples of anyone remotely conservative having their words twisted and misrepresented for many of us to take an accusation like this at face value. ( Remember when, right here on Ricochet, some were accusing Trump of being a pedophile? )
I don’t jump to such an extreme judgement without serious evidence but I’m not comfortable with his statements in any way. But in some ways I put it in the same category as Lenny Bruce or other provocative comedians. They say shocking things to shock and get laughs and attention. It isn’t the same as advocating those positions. Not a whole lot better, but not the same.
16 maybe. Many states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws that ok sex with 16 y/o’s if you’re under a certain age (19 is common). But 13? I know there have been cultures with different expectations about maturation rates (and different average life expectancies — when most people were dead by 40 you needed to pro-create early). But in the context of our culture, 13 seems awfully young.
I think that was the point made by the Berkeley “anti-fascists.”
True, but perhaps the intention of the account changed once Trump got the nomination? The anonymous nature, plus the ability of a dinky little no-name account to get so much play makes you wonder, doesn’t it? And I thought it would be good to the get the folks behind the account on my podcast — they are the story of the week, after all. This is what makes me wonder about the connection:
I think I may be agreeing with you… but in any case please pass the fava beans!
Well, it sure makes them look like weenies and dunces who didn’t review the person they invited to be keynote speaker.
I can agree, the situation would be better if they hadn’t extended the invitation in the first place.
But, I think Milo will make hay with the sunshine he’s been given.
Ok, all I can say is “listen to it.” If you still think he’s being hyperbolic or just doing it for shock value, then we just hear it differently. He sounds serious to me.
LOL, sorry. I thought you were criticizing me for not missing them after they haunted me for two years.
In the US we have age of consent laws as low as 14. In my life I have known people who justify both extremes.
I believe that yes we as a society can make the choice that an extended childhood is useful and legislate it accordingly. It will always be at conflict with our nature, and we should make such a decision acknowledging the trade offs costs and conflicts it will create. I, personally, think 14-15 is about right.
If we are basing it on brain development, gosh, you would have to wait until 25 for guys. A guy can die for his country and get liquored up and tattooed before his brain is fully developed. Which fits with my life experience: Late 20s before my brain was no longer marinating in a near lethal cocktail of hormones. but by then I was married.
Well, I can’t view the video, but I am certain I meant free speech has consequence on other’s willingness to join with you in association. Certainly not violence, as the title of the video implies.
I should have been more explicit and clear to my meaning.
Although, these days on a campus, it appears violence is within the boundaries of “civil” response to free speech.
This is my biggest complaint about the situation. I find it hard to believe that even before this latest scandal that, anyone thought that Milo was an acceptable face to associate with conservatism. Anti-PC culture? Sure. Trump brown-nosing?* Sure. But adherence to the Constitution, free-market economics, social conservative values, or anything else that is a traditional part of American conservatism? Heck no.
They may be wimps for revoking the invitation, but they were fools for extending it in the first place.
*Anyone who calls a politician “Daddy” is a brown-noser. And it makes me want to see their “Daddy” throw them off a roof, a la House of Cards:
<Continued>
I believe we invest to much in age of consent laws, which are a good faith attempt to put a line in a grey area. I do not believe that this attempt creates a moral distinction only a legal one. The moral distinction is more situational.
Guru, are you talking about relations between adolescents, or relations between an adolescent and what would clearly be considered an adult (say, over 21 for the sake of argument)? I do think they present different issues.
We’re not going to stop teenagers from fooling around with each other. We know that. Abstention is, as you say, not consistent with our nature. And there’s little social benefit in criminalizing every high school kid who has sex. So I certainly get that.
I do think though that the risk of harm/coercion/manipulation of the minor is greater, and the ability to exercise meaningful social control is also greater, when you introduce a genuine adult into the mix. It seems to me that at some age of the minor, the cost benefit balance tips and it becomes worth regulating. It’s not, as I’ve said, an easy bright line to draw. You draw it younger than I would at 14-15, and certainly Milo does at 13, if you’re talking about a relationship where the other party is an adult.
We live in the same society where honey boo boo got a ton of publicity and became permanently famous, more or less, for simply going to beauty pageants and being a sassy larger than usual girl for her age. Another example is the you tuber PewdiePie. Some twitter user, or group of people, looking at videos of interviews with Milo and then retweeting them and highlighting the unsavory comments to organizations involved in or covering CPAC is not that “remarkable” to me. Its quite simple. Especially so when Milo was already receiving massive coverage because of his public support for trump and his panel session on the Maher show recently. As to your “connection picture” you need to expand it because currently its too small to discern your point.
I’ll grant that when both parties are close to the age of consent the definition of statutory rape is fuzzy.
But when did we become apologists for Roman Polanski types? If you’re over 18, you’re smart enough to know that your genitals should stay covered in the presence of middle schoolers. We were horrified at Whoopi Goldberg’s “was is rape-rape?” line; Milo doesn’t get a pass because he’s a jerk to people we don’t like.
I’d concur with this, although I think the bright line remains useful for two reasons: 1) There are adults who would rape babies. You have to draw it somewhere unless you want that to be difficult to prosecute. and 2) I think drawing it gives people on both ends of it some confidence that they know what they can and can’t do. It reduces “compliance costs” if you will.
Good.
He has a right to free speech, and it should be defended.
An invitation to speak at CPAC is a privilege, not a right.
It shouldn’t have been offered in the first place; that would’ve avoided both the unnecessary terrible press from this, and the exacerbation of the internecine feuds on the right. But even if he should be invited to college campuses (or at least, defended from being forcibly silenced when he is invited), it is not appropriate to have him at something titled Conservative Political Action Conference. And I’d have said that before hearing about the pedophilia thing.
I don’t have Twitter so I can’t get to the audio. Does Milo use actual ages? Does he say 13 (I see that age spoken of on this thread).
Yikes! You’re onto those who left?
I agree. Which is why I think that based upon biology and tradition, as well as local cultural circumstance, there is a wide range for good faith disagreement. And we do, we have age of consent laws as low as 14 in the US, 16 being the most common.
This ain’t dodgeball. There are many definitions and other loose language floating around here like plastic islands in the Pacific, just waiting to snare the indigenous swimmers. Similar to fascism, maybe. I was just curious about your definition and how that led you to classify Bannon and Miller. I don’t know if it’s relevant, but both these guys are extremely smart and I like `em.
I want words to mean what they mean. I’m clarifying not justifying. There is nothing in my comment that implies justification. It’s like I’m Data (and or Sheldon) correcting people.