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
This thread has gotten Kafkaesque even by Ricochet standards.
Can I get a quote that clearly shows Milo supporting adult sex with middle schoolers. I know that Milo differentiates between prepubescent and post pubescent young men. He has made some claims that some young men become sexually mature at a young age. I don’t know what age that Milo might allow for in that case.
First, do you have any information to counter the fact that Milo has argued against and stated repeatedly his position against pedophilia?
Second, separate from the first, do you know if Milo supports older men having relations with the very young post pubescent teens. This is the one charge I am not clear on. I have not heard of a clear statement on what age or biological/mental maturity level Milo is okay with. I think it is quite clear that Milo separates based on biology.
If you find evidence that Milo does support young teens having relationships, is it morally wrong? Is it not possible that he is correct that some people mature very young? Especially for non religious people, if a male matures biologically at (pick an age), are relations still immoral?
So the hub-bub in Berkeley was about the pedophilia interview? Because I don’t really remember that being part of that particular outrage.
It has been linked in this thread and others. He defines it as young as 13. I couldn’t care less about the pre/post pubescent distinction. It’s sick and Milo is sick for endorsing it. Whatever good he’s done in other arenas doesn’t make up for that fact.
Multiple stories at Ricochet and NRO on this, almost nothing on how John McCain is working to undermine another Republican president. #RickWilsonAgenda.
From your own source :
Neither of these sounds like supporting either pedophilia or what you have previously claimed about him supporting adult sex with middle schoolers. The second one is just clearing up definitions, not an endorsement of the act.
Granted that Milo has made statements that are not clear as to what they mean or can be misinterpreted. However, since the primary allegations are revolving around a live-stream which can be a very confusing setting due to the multiple people involved, I would say we owe him the benefit of the doubt especially since he has since made his views clear.
Milo has devoted his life to attracting attention. No surprise that he’s getting some.
Ah so if a 13 yr old has reached puberty then everything is ok. Sick. Sick. Sick.
I’m sure they believe they have their reasons and we have ours, so now we’re on equal footing from the standpoint of censorship. That they riot just means they are more committed to their principles than we are (I’m sure they would argue).
I’m just telling you that the left has once again gained a propaganda coup from the right’s willingness to fold. And of course, the MSM will lead no one to believe otherwise. It’s hard enough defeating the left without handing them the weapons with which to do it. I don’t know if it was a good idea to invite Milo, but I’m pretty sure it would have been better to let him speak once invited. Better to let him be confronted to explain himself and how he thinks he helps conservatism than to shut him down once invited. Otherwise, aren’t we the snowflakes now?
Did you read it?
Milo clearly states:
I agree that the conversations about young age references may have been his own experience and view point. Even as a 17-year old, he is free to reflect back on his own mindset, at that time.
The responsibility to protect the “minor” falls on the more mature person.
Sadly, somehow, the adults who cross the line with a minor (under the determined age of consent) always think they are the exception, and can freely cross the line, exempting themselves from the stated social mores of their community.
There is a reason why it is called “age of consent.” It appears to be arbitrary, but it is still a line.
It is legal for a 12 year old to get married in Massachusetts.
The mere fact that so much of this thread is devoted to discussing whether or not it is ok to have sex with 13 year olds is a pretty good indicator to me that CPAC was correct in cancelling his appearance. Somehow I don’t think that is the discussion we want to be having at CPAC.
Milo will probably be ok. He’ll find some way to capitalize on all the controversy, that’s what he does.
This topic has devolved into a typical Ricochet unsubstantiated mercurial argument. Milo has explained his position, has explained how the slur was out of context, not an unusual occurrence, btw, and you simply opine that he is sick. Sick. Sick. Appears that you are out of altitude and airspeed, Jamie.
Are you saying that only pedophilia is wrong? Can something be not pedophilia and still wrong?
Others have pointed out the difference between pedophilia and Hebephilia.
I think it’s a ridiculous distinction used to obscure the fact that Milo is in favor of adults having sexual relationships with children as long as they have reached puberty.
You should defend Roman Polanski next.
You need to provide evidence for this. I have not seen it. Unless of course, you believe that men at 17 are still kids? I would think that at least you would agree that 17 year olds are teens. In fact, many places around the world and throughout history have had marriages at 16 or so. It used to be a biological imperative for women to start childbearing at these younger ages. Maybe not 13, but Milo isn’t defending that either.
Right, so if the boy’s balls have dropped, it’s okay for an adult to have sex with him. That’s Milo’s argument and the hill “conservatives” want to die on.
Just … what moral pretzels are we willing to tie ourselves in, what filth are we willing to embrace, just because he pisses off the people we don’t like?
I have not argued that hebophilia is okay, neither have I heard Milo argue as such. But at some point there must be a transition between not okay to have a relationship and okay to have a relationship. What age do you draw the line at? Is it okay for someone else to have different view on where that line is?
And finally, where does Milo draw the line? Can I get someone to find a quote on that?
My mother was a young 15 (and not pregnant) when she married my father, who was 18 at the time and would be put in jail nowadays. She died a couple of years ago at 89 and was considered a cornerstone of her community, having raised a great family (excepting me, of course). In modernity, we’ve adopted the “eternal adolescence” meme and forget that for most of history, sexual maturity was the time you either got married if you were female or went off to find your fortune if you were male.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/833405993006616576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
A link to a video containing Milos own words.
So what do you guys think of gay marriage? If you’re against it, on what grounds?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one, Jason. Let’s take an already out of control discussion and make it go nuclear. Actually, I think this is a good place for me to stop following this discussion.
Nowhere in that video does Milo support adult relations with children.
The one thing he says that could be interpreted as support for that behavior is his joke about the priest. It’s a joke. He then starts talking about his relationship when he was 17. So, you still aren’t making a good point yet.
BTW, the only substantiated claim I have seen on this issue is that Milo may believe that gay men can have relations at a younger age than other are comfortable with and that an age difference is not a problem. That is it. Perhaps it is a controversial, but not something that is worth the vitriol I would argue. And, when I say younger, I do not mean middle schoolers. This is why I have asked for a quote on the age that Milo may be referring to.
He also states in the full version of the video that you link to that the age of consent of 14 is probably about right in terms of legality.
However, this does not mean that Milo thinks that all 14 yearolds are mature enough. He also argues that people must be mentally mature. He is a libertarian. This most likely means that the law must be reasonable place to put a legal restriction which causes as little restriction to freedom as possible while still allowing those who are able to be free.
Note: I am not making claims about what I believe.
No 14yr old can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. All the sophistry in the word doesn’t change that.
We simply seem to be interpreting Milos words differently.
If this is the hill you want to die on then so be it.
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…” The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
BENGHAZI!!!!!!11!!!!