Milogate.

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Milogate.

Postby Pikachu » Wed Feb 22, 5:13 2017

So Feminism''s public enemy number 2 has gotten into a spot of bother with comments supporting pederasty on The Amazing Atheist's show as well as Joe Rogan's podcast.

He resigned from Brietbart, but was obviously fired.
He lost quarter of a million dollar publishing advance.
He was dropped from the CPAC conference. That's a conservative conference.

In other words, barring some public relations miracle, his career is effectively over.

This is the man who kept saying transwomen had high rates of sexual offences and were essentially no different to having cis men in women's spaces.

Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Milogate.

Postby Sonic# » Wed Feb 22, 11:27 2017

I can't wait until the -gate suffix is retired. But that's just a pet peeve.

I wouldn't write him off entirely - "taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail" governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford made a successful house run only a few years after he resigned. Admittedly, pederasty is more troubling than adultery and lying about it, but some people are still willing to defend him.

One defense of Milo I've been mulling was written by an established scholar of medieval studies, Rachel Fulton Brown (link to article reporting on response). In my field, there's still a deeply ingrained conservatism held by many people, some scholars and some enthusiasts, who look to the medieval period to justify conservative viewpoints on marriage, gender, and morality. Notice the way she mentions Milo (though not by name) and quickly turns the conversation to a virtual list of socially conservative strawman versions of feminism (ex. do I think you should like casual sex? no, I just want the social pressure to not be so great on people who choose it), which she then punctuates with a bandwagon fallacy ("Everyone knows..."):

her blog post wrote:Everybody hates a bully, or so we say. Yesterday, the national media bullied into silence a young man who had risen to fame speaking to audiences of young women and men about the lies that the grown-ups had told them for decades.

Lies about the relationship between women and men. That women don't need men. That all men are potential rapists. That women should aspire to something other than motherhood or they are wasting their lives. That women should like casual sex with strangers, hooking up just for the sake of the orgasm. That the children will be fine if their parents divorce. That abortion is morally good.

Everyone knows these are lies.


What disturbs me the most about this is not that it's another medieval scholar taking a publicly conservative position. It's endemic to the field; I'm used to it. I can respond to it as a scholar and teacher. It's the caustic, polemical mode of her delivery, which does more to represent what she thinks about her opponents than it fairly represents them. In a sense, she's appropriated and weaponized Milo Yiannopouliss's way of speaking: a bold, brash cutting-against-the-grain that sounds like truth to those who think talking boldly and brashly is noble. To her, Milo's not the bully, no matter who he insults; those who insult the insulter for supporting pederasty, they're the bully. A subsequent post takes this further, calling Jesus a troll. The end suggests the indirect comparison she's making: "for Milo." She's implying Milo is being crucified for being a just critic. I have religious and ethical problems with that suggestion.

Some people are going to continue to take his side not because of the content of what he says (which is deplorable) but because Milo (and the people following his model, including Steve Bannon) represents opposition to the sorts of things they also oppose.

User avatar
melsbells
member
member
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 6:45 2014
Location: Finland

Re: Milogate.

Postby melsbells » Wed Feb 22, 12:33 2017

Sonic# wrote:I can't wait until the -gate suffix is retired. But that's just a pet peeve.
I wonder if there are already people out there who think Watergate was a scandal about water?

I don't have anything nearly as interesting to say. I was so far removed from American pop culture even while living in the U.S., that it's only recently that I learned who Milo Yiannopouliss was. I'm not so certain that I'll never hear about him again, but it certainly feels like some person I don't care about will soon be out of the news at least for a while.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Milogate.

Postby Pikachu » Thu Feb 23, 1:23 2017

In all fairness, Milo and his supporters have not resorted to local terrorism the way his opponents have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PSYPrE5LrQ
Milo has done great work showing their true colours.

People with logically robust worldviews do not have to resort to violence in attempts to silence speakers. That's the modus operandi of fascists. Of Nazis.

The problem with continually escalating the violence is eventually people expecting violence, will bring guns. And then alot of people are going to die. And that doesn't have to be.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Milogate.

Postby Sonic# » Thu Feb 23, 5:12 2017

To be fair, the vast majority of Milo's opponents haven't resorted to local terrorism; it's misleading to confuse the work of a few anarchists with nonviolent protesters.

Though if you want to pursue a slippery slope that allows you to compare anarchists to fascists (they're totally different), I'd have to ask how many of the people scrawling swastikas and racial epithets on houses, places of worship, and other property support Milo. I've seen a lot of suspicion of nonviolent protesting, and misperceptions that most or all of it is violent. Meanwhile I've seen much fewer acknowledgements from concerned moderates and conservatives that hate crimes and vandalism have been a major issue (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html ). If we're going to focus on violence as a problem of political speech (and it is in the sense that I don't support those anarchists either), then we also can't overlook attacks motivated by supremacism or conservatism. To follow your slippery slope to the end, if anything like that did happen, obviously the ones bringing guns are the ones being coercive. If that's what you call "fascist," then they're the fascists.

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: Milogate.

Postby Taurwen » Thu Feb 23, 7:30 2017

melsbells wrote:
Sonic# wrote:I can't wait until the -gate suffix is retired. But that's just a pet peeve.
I wonder if there are already people out there who think Watergate was a scandal about water?


I admit I used to think it was a scandal about a President's ties with the hydro company.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Milogate.

Postby Pikachu » Fri Feb 24, 16:30 2017

Sonic# wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of Milo's opponents haven't resorted to local terrorism; it's misleading to confuse the work of a few anarchists with nonviolent protesters.

Though if you want to pursue a slippery slope that allows you to compare anarchists to fascists (they're totally different), I'd have to ask how many of the people scrawling swastikas and racial epithets on houses, places of worship, and other property support Milo. I've seen a lot of suspicion of nonviolent protesting, and misperceptions that most or all of it is violent. Meanwhile I've seen much fewer acknowledgements from concerned moderates and conservatives that hate crimes and vandalism have been a major issue (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html ). If we're going to focus on violence as a problem of political speech (and it is in the sense that I don't support those anarchists either), then we also can't overlook attacks motivated by supremacism or conservatism. To follow your slippery slope to the end, if anything like that did happen, obviously the ones bringing guns are the ones being coercive. If that's what you call "fascist," then they're the fascists.


Seeing how Milo actually prefers dating black men, I'm guessing not alot of swastika wearers do support him.

Lauren Southern was punched at Jordan Peterson's speech with protesters lying to police about how they didn't see anything.
She had urine thrown on her.
Anti Trump gang kidnapped and tortured white male.
Even the speech given by Warren Farrell, former board member of the National Organization for Women, they tried to physically block the entrance and cusses and screamed in the face of anyone who wanted to attend.
Zoey Tur putting hands on Ben Shapiro on tv and threatening to put him in an ambulance.

Where are the Milo Supporters behaving like this? The conservatives didn't riot in the streets when Obama was elected. They don't do this with speakers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

But more to the point, can we not see the double standard in media?
Allow me to quote someone still on Tv and doing very well I might add:

“I think it’s a little offbeat, but you know, I believe in the double standard. If a 28-year-old male teacher is screwing a 13-year-old girl, that’s a crime. But with Debra Lafave screwing her 14-year-old boy student, the crime is that we didn’t get it on videotape.”
– Bill Maher


Source: https://www.playboy.com/articles/playbo ... bill-maher

Why is no one going after Bill Maher the same way? These Milo comments, deplorable as they are, have been on the internet for at least a year now and it occurs to me, these comments are just as bad as Milo's. Could it be because Maher says things the media establishment likes and Milo does not?

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Milogate.

Postby Sonic# » Fri Feb 24, 16:51 2017

Seeing how Milo actually prefers dating black men, I'm guessing not alot of swastika wearers do support him.


Why not? Having a black friend is often used as a defense by people who are racist generally; conservative Christians generally against adultery voted for a known adulterer in this last election. It's possible for the webmaster to Stormfront to not like Milo and, simultaneously, for Milo to wear an iron cross.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of this comparison. You seem inclined to deny that there are a lot of anti-semitic, anti-black, and anti-LGBTQIA harassment going on, or that Milo and people on the alt-right encourage "racial cleansing," a codeword for systematic and violent exclusion on the basis of race. On the other hand, you only focus on progressive protests that appear to you to be aggressive, never mind when they're nonviolent and when their stated purposes are nonviolent. .

User avatar
Bork
member
member
Posts: 8204
Joined: Tue Sep 2, 11:44 2003
Location: wherever I am, I'm probably sitting on my ass
Contact:

Re: Milogate.

Postby Bork » Sat Feb 25, 18:21 2017

Pikachu wrote:In other words, barring some public relations miracle, his career is effectively over.


I'm actually really worried about this. I think it's unfortunately too soon to say that definitively. He's a fucking cockroach who can easily figure out how to "reinvent" himself and turn this around.

He's such a despicable person. I hate that it took something like condoning pedophilia for people to start condemning him.
Bork is too lazy to bother thinking up a witty signature. :polarbear:

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Milogate.

Postby Nech » Sat Feb 25, 19:01 2017

Pikachu wrote:The conservatives didn't riot in the streets when Obama was elected.


Lol wait, are you really trying to make this claim? [1] [2] ( I was going to post more from a quick google search, but was too overwhelmed by the copious results)
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Milogate.

Postby Pikachu » Sat Mar 4, 11:42 2017

Sonic# wrote:
Why not? Having a black friend is often used as a defense by people who are racist generally;


Black friend is where they draw the line because swastika wearers are against race mixing. So are they going to support a jew who is for sexual relationships with black people? It doesn't make sense.

conservative Christians generally against adultery voted for a known adulterer in this last election.


They didn't have a choice. Hilary wasn't a viable alternative for these people.

It's possible for the webmaster to Stormfront to not like Milo and, simultaneously, for Milo to wear an iron cross.


Milo is a jew himself, so are you seriously trying to argue that he's wearing it because he's a neo nazi or pro nazi instead of as a form of reclamation?

Otherwise, I don't see the point of this comparison. You seem inclined to deny that there are a lot of anti-semitic, anti-black, and anti-LGBTQIA harassment going on,


The point is that the media will call those out as problems, yet cover up or falls over themselves to justify when the left gets violent and abusive. Again, if I hadn't linked that Bill Maher comment, would you have ever seen it? The one where he wants to see a video of a 14 year old boy having sex.

or that Milo and people on the alt-right encourage "racial cleansing," a codeword for systematic and violent exclusion on the basis of race.


I've seen zero proof of that.


On the other hand, you only focus on progressive protests that appear to you to be aggressive,
[/quote]

That wasn't a progressive protest with Warren Farrell, who is a progressive. That was a man-hating protest. But I focus on calling out the bad actors in so called "progressive" protests because the mainstream media will not.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Milogate.

Postby Aum » Sat Mar 4, 21:35 2017

I think both sides of this issue are going to ridiculous extremes. Milo is an idiot who got way too much media attention, and his opponents would do anything to ruin him including dishing out the most unholy of the holies: an accusation of being a pedophile. All it takes is the accusation to ruin someone.

It's much more effective to defeat opponents based on their merits and demerits. His arguments were so transparently bad that, had they been effectively debunked over time, it would've made even his most ardent supporters look like the fools they are. But now that kind of discourse will never take place because people took the shortcut of defaming him.

The U.S. polity is in serious trouble. Everyone is resorting to dirty tactics and demagoguery to crush their political enemies, rather than trying to heal the divisions.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.


Return to “Feminism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest