CPAC: Milo disinvited, quits Breitbart

[EnglishPete]

No foaming at the mouth; I'm just explaining to the forum your history.

Though, gonna denounce Milo now in no unconditional terms, Petey? You know, you said you weren't into rape/pedophilia apologism. If not, I totally understand.

I've said that what Milo said was wrong and f***ed up. Said it repeatedly if you hadn't noticed.

[The_Doctor]

No foaming at the mouth; I'm just explaining to the forum your history.

Though, gonna denounce Milo now in no unconditional terms, Petey? You know, you said you weren't into rape/pedophilia apologism. If not, I totally understand.

I've said that what Milo said was wrong and f***ed up. Said it repeatedly if you hadn't noticed.

Do you agree with the CPAC removal and the book deal cancellation? Be clear. You have said that he will be "fine," implying you are fine with this state of affairs and imply Milo is the victim of a leftist plot (which you have said in this thread). There was no comment to that; just merely saying he said bad things. You seem to be mouthing words for the sake of polite company, not backing actual consequences for words. That's disingenuous.

No, I didn't notice, because you were being his stenographer for a few pages and trying to paint him a victim of a left wing conspiracy. Because everything in your world is some sort of leftist conspiracy.

But I think we've made clear at this point you are an apologist for him and want to focus on other people rather than saying clearly, unless forced, that he's a bad guy. So that was my point: you're willing to excuse pedophilia if it's your guy.  

I'm done mocking you, having made my point. You can go back to your bigoted ideas now.

[EnglishPete]

No foaming at the mouth; I'm just explaining to the forum your history.

Though, gonna denounce Milo now in no unconditional terms, Petey? You know, you said you weren't into rape/pedophilia apologism. If not, I totally understand.

I've said that what Milo said was wrong and f***ed up. Said it repeatedly if you hadn't noticed.

Do you agree with the CPAC removal and the book deal cancellation? Be clear. You have said that he will be "fine," implying you are fine with this state of affairs and imply Milo is the victim of a leftist plot (which you have said in this thread).

No, I didn't notice, because you were being his stenographer for a few pages and trying to paint him a victim of a left wing conspiracy. Because everything in your world is some sort of leftist conspiracy.

But I think we've made clear at this point you are an apologist for him and want to focus on other people rather than saying clearly, unless forced, that he's a bad guy. So I think I've made my point. You're willing to excuse pedophilia if it's your guy.  

What's gone on this week with Milo is described very well in an article in Jeff Bezos' blog from October when leftists like you where hoping that Clinton could win Arizona (LOL)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-just-be-defeated-he-must-be-humiliated/2016/10/21/d03ed0e0-9792-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html

The media hysteria over Milo over the past week has been one of the establishment's media driven 'degredation ceremonies'. Bringing up the Harvey Milk and Bill Maher cases is instructive because it illustrates that this hysteria has nothing to do with the merits of the actual case and is everything to do with setting up a political hit job.

And speaking of Maher and Milk I notice that the only response from Democrats on this thread about them has been from afleitch making excuses for Milk. Anybody else have any views on this or would they rather ignore the question?

[afleitch]

And speaking of Maher and Milk I notice that the only response from Democrats on this thread about them has been from afleitch making excuses for Milk. Anybody else have any views on this or would they rather ignore the question?

No I did not. I explained that there was, ironically, no age of consent because all homosexual sex was illegal in the state of California. I also explained that the age of consent is 16 or 17 in some states and 18 in others, therefore you can't make moral pronouncements on people who have sex at 16 in the USA because it exists as an age of consent in a significant number of US states.

But as has been very well put by PD, you have, and continue to play in 'whataboutery'.

[EnglishPete]

As for TD's disingenuous claim that he didn't notice that I hadn't said that some of what Milo had said was f***ed up when not only had I said this but Milo himself said as much himself in his press conference. The full press conference is here for those that want to see it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABJo7w-efTA

As for whether I agree with "backing actual consequences for words" in this case no I don't because its monumentally clear that in this case the 'consequences' were not for his offensive words on the video's but for his baiting of the left and his support for Trump. That is exactly the reason why its important to bring up the other cases I mentioned because it illustrates very hypocritical nature of the charges against him and how his remarks (that had been up on popular Youtube channels for over a year) were simply the excuse rather than the cause of this great hue and cry. Of course Milo is fully responsible for giving his opponents this excuse so he has no excuse for self pity about this this but lets not pretend that this 'hit job' was anything other than entirely cynical in its motivation.

[EnglishPete]

I think one thing that needs to be borne in mind when considering this particular topic is that way that what has happened to Yiannopoulos reflect his own view of the world and his sexuality. I've been doing a bit more reading about Mr Yiannopoulos and found some interesting observations about him.

I found this recent article from a few weeks ago that explains this at some length.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/milo-yiannapoulos-leading-catholic-guilt-evangelist/

The article then goes on to explain his rather conservative catholic views on homosexuality, abortion, transgenderism, feminism etc and exactly how these views are rooted in his religious worldview.

Milo has also repeatedly stated that he does not accept the "born this way" view of homosexuality and that he thinks that in his case that he thinks it was certainly more 'nurture' than 'nature'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ

Now I said earlier in the thread that I think that Milo's career will do fine after this evidently orchestrated hypocritical media witch hunt over his own (admittedly very offensive) words.

However on reflection I think it goes beyond that. I think that Milo is someone who is clearly very serious about spreading a certain point of view in the world, its not just all done for the sake of entertainment. The events of the past week can serve him very well as a living illustration of his own conservative catholic views on human sexuality. They have also served very well to illustrate the staggering self serving hypocrisy of much of the left on moral issues.

More than that the last weeks events have forced him to confront his own denial to himself of the nature of the abuse he suffered in his early teens. I suspect that at a subconscious level he said the things he said publically because he wanted to get called out on it and forced to confront his denial. He's been through the wringer the past week however going through suffering for the sake of repentance is, I suspect, something that fits in very well with his conservative catholic outlook.

So not only do I not think that recent events will do his career long term hard but I suspect that deep down, on a subconscious level he wanted something like this to happen to him.

[EnglishPete]

Milo reported to be lining up a new media 'sponser' and planning to stay in the US

http://www.tmz.com/2017/02/24/milo-yiannopoulos-new-sponsor-visa-not-leaving-us/

[EnglishPete]

Now you may have heard that the offending video of Yiannopoulos came to light when it was dug up by researchers working with pro establishment 'conservative' activist and former CIA agent Evan McMuffin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/24/14715774/milo-yiannopoulos-cpac-pedophile-video-canada

So this 16 year old Canadian girl who was 'concerned with the direction of the conservative movement' is spontaneously outraged, suddenly remembers an obscure video that no other anti Trump/anti nationalist oppo researchers had discovered despite it being publically available on Youtube for over a year with over 200,000 views. It also seems that none of them had heard found the Joe Rogan clip that had had over a million views by that point.

With this knowledge she decides, for reasons that don't make any sense, not to contact any well known outlet but to contact an ultra obscure outlet that no one had heard of until that point. She picked this outlet because she thought it would have more traction amongst CPAC supporters than a liberal outlet. At the same time she didn't expect a story published by such a tiny outlet to get much traction. The contradiction between these two bits of reasoning seems not to have crossed her mind. Nor did the idea of contacting multiple outlets at the same time apparently cross her mind.

By a massive co-incidence, totally unknown to this girl, this tiny pro-McMuffin pro-establishment group  just happened to have a hotline to CNN and then the whole story blew up.

Now you may be thinking that that sounds like bullcr*p. That its much more plausible to suppose that anti-Trump/anti-nationalist/anti-right oppo researchers had had this on file for months and ready to use at a damaging moment to launch a media blitz. You might think that they'd rather not admit that because it would make them sound like cynics who didn't actually give a damn about child abuse but are just disingenuously using the issue to score political points. You might suppose that an entirely fictional "16 year old Canadian girl" spontaneously reacting to events was invented to obscure these facts behind this media campaign.

However to think that you'd have to believe that the 'Vox' news website is fake news willing to publish stories that it knows to be blatantly fiction or that it has even invented out of whole cloth itself. I cannot for one moment imagine that the editors of Vox could possibly be so cynical. I therefore have to believe that this story is totally plausible and not made up in any way and that this girl is totally an actually existing person and not fictional in any way.

[ApatheticAustrian]

it makes sense to contact obscure outlets, i was told that you can't trust the media.

[EnglishPete]

it makes sense to contact obscure outlets, i was told that you can't trust the media.

Ah that makes sense! She didn't tell multiple or large scale outlets about the sensitive secret that publically available videos up on Youtube for over a year with hundreds of thousands of views were available to watch because they were untrustworthy. Much better to contact some obscure outlet no one has ever heard of, they'd definitely be trustworthy.

This totally preposterous sounding story suddenly makes complete sense!

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I cannot believe people are desperately scrambling to waste their time defending this obvious psychopath. Then again, they just elected a psychopath, so it shouldn't be that surprising.

[EnglishPete]

I cannot believe people are desperately scrambling to waste their time defending this obvious psychopath. Then again, they just elected a psychopath, so it shouldn't be that surprising.

I can't believe you found the time to post this comment saying that you can't believe that people are spending their time discussing this topic but here we are.

I find this an interesting topic to discuss. If you're not interesting in discussing it then you're under no obligation to do so.

[ApatheticAustrian]

This totally preposterous sounding story suddenly makes complete sense!

i think i am pretty good at forcing your media logic to its final end....if no one is trustworthy, this is the only solution.

[EnglishPete]

This totally preposterous sounding story suddenly makes complete sense!

i think i am pretty good at forcing your media logic to its final end...

Nah, poor quality trolling effort from you there.

[EnglishPete]

This totally preposterous sounding story suddenly makes complete sense!

i think i am pretty good at forcing your media logic to its final end....if no one is trustworthy, this is the only solution.

Whilst we're on the topic of media trustworthiness just in case anyone's in any doubt what a piece of garbage the Daily Mail is you can see here that they've credulously repeated the Vox story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4259652/16-year-old-Canadian-girl-reveals-took-Milo.html

Also here's reports from CPAC of people's opinions on Yiannopoulos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-pl4WQceww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg_xk5sUyw4

[EnglishPete]

Nothing illustrates the staggering disingenuousness of the liberal media in their hue and cry against Milo Yiannopoulos than this article published by Slate on Friday, who had earlier in the week been gleefully publishing articles condemning him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/02/24/what_the_milo_yiannopoulos_case_teaches_us_about_sex_age_and_consent_in.html

Did you hear the media hysteria against Slate for hypocritically publishing this rather disgusting article? Because if there was one then I must have missed it.

[EnglishPete]

Excellent article on the Milo Yiannopoulos case

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article here : https://zhupolitics.com/2017/02/27/defending-the-indefensible-milo-yiannopoulos/

[EnglishPete]

Guys the Milo apologist/bigot is trolling. Don't feed the troll.

Moving on: Trump is indeed unhinged.

This above quoted post from another thread illustrates exactly the point made in the previous post. If I can quote the relevant section of the above quoted article

You must be logged in to read this quote.

TD's point in the above quoted post is the same as the points he's been making in this thread. He's saying "The point I'm wanting to be made has been made, now this conversation must end. If others trying to continue with opposing my viewpoint I will try various tactics such as mockery and attempts to shame, ignoring and attempts to shun and see if that works to shut him up." TD's post here are a perfect example of the point being made in the bolded section of the above post.

[EnglishPete]

TD's point in the above quoted post is the same as the points he's been making in this thread. He's saying "The point I'm wanting to be made has been made, now this conversation must end. If others trying to continue with opposing my viewpoint I will try various tactics such as mockery and attempts to shame, ignoring and attempts to shun and see if that works to shut him up."

Of course you'll notice that when I see someone of an opposing ideological point of view try these tactics on me I take it as a good indication that I'mm on the right track and should keep going.

[ApatheticAustrian]

may i ask, out of curiousity, if you ever think "oh, this reaction is not what i intended, i should change course"?

[Virginiá]

TD's point in the above quoted post is the same as the points he's been making in this thread. He's saying "The point I'm wanting to be made has been made, now this conversation must end. If others trying to continue with opposing my viewpoint I will try various tactics such as mockery and attempts to shame, ignoring and attempts to shun and see if that works to shut him up."

Of course you'll notice that when I see someone of an opposing ideological point of view try these tactics on me I take it as a good indication that I'mm on the right track and should keep going.

Well, not necessarily. Arguing with you is pointless anyway. You generally seem steadfastly committed to all your views, even when they are ridiculous. You always have an excuse or justification, and never seem to tire (congrats?)

Someone deciding to throw in the towel because they believe there is no point and nothing more to be gained (or learned) from debating you shouldn't tell you that you are on the right track, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Dr. Arch]

TD's point in the above quoted post is the same as the points he's been making in this thread. He's saying "The point I'm wanting to be made has been made, now this conversation must end. If others trying to continue with opposing my viewpoint I will try various tactics such as mockery and attempts to shame, ignoring and attempts to shun and see if that works to shut him up."

Of course you'll notice that when I see someone of an opposing ideological point of view try these tactics on me I take it as a good indication that I'mm on the right track and should keep going.

Well, not necessarily. Arguing with you is pointless anyway. You generally seem steadfastly committed to all your views, even when they are ridiculous. You always have an excuse or justification, and never seem to tire (congrats?)

Someone deciding to throw in the towel because they believe there is no point and nothing more to be gained (or learned) from debating you shouldn't tell you that you are on the right track, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[EnglishPete]

may i ask, out of curiousity, if you ever think "oh, this reaction is not what i intended, i should change course"?

Of sure, often. But if I get a negative reply then whether that's a bad thing, a neutral thing or a good thing can depend who who is making the reply and why. If you look at the below quoted post TD explains himself why he's saying what he's saying

What can you expect from a bigot who wants to defend Milo Yiannopoulos but knows it's too impolitic to do so, so he finds other targets to get around that Milo is pond scum and is rightfully disgraced? Remember he came pretty close to rape/pedophilia apologia here and "denounced" it only because a mod asked him. Pete has demonstrated anti-Muslim bigotry and his writings imply he's a virulent white nationalist who hates the current prevailing paradigm of welcoming diversity.  There's no point in engaging him because he believes his sources are impeccable and refuses to acknowledge your sources are anything but the fevered dreams of angry leftists. (All of this alt-right behavior, by the way, has a strong racial component and white nationalist basis. It's not found in other areas of the ideological spectrum).

Pete is pretty deplorable. We need to appellate the same thing we do for Krazen and say "Stop feeding the Stormfront troll" in the threads he starts or tries to bait other posters in. Mockery or reminding others that engaging him is a waste of time is the best way to handle him.

In other words he starts out with mockery and attempted 'shaming' language (e.g. 'bigot', 'pedo apologist', 'white nationalist' etc), moves on to saying why people shouldn't engage with me.

Then in the next paragraph he says exactly what he's just done and why.

[EnglishPete]

And here in another thread's post we have TD saying the same thing again, he can't seem to help himself

I'm not going to respond to our resident Stormfront apologist

and we also see the same tactics from Virginia in her post above

[publicunofficial]

"You see, I'm actually a HERO for being a dick on the internet"