In Defense of MILO

[Wuzzums]

 

One of the things that has gotten a lot of people to rally against the establishment even before the election is pizzagate.

Alex Jones was under constant attack for not covering it and not focusing his whole attention on it, even though he's been warning people about child trafficking elites for decades.

Cernovich has acknowledged pizzagate himself.

Milo was rumored to have been advised to stay off the pizzagate topic for the time being.

Joe Rogan himself acknowledged it and his podcast reaches literally millions of people.

 

Pizzagate is a topic that if you denied it you would instantly get attacked with a barrage of evidence that's far too convincing for comfort. People haven't inferred it, they just stayed off topic because the rabbit hole is way too deep and way too dark. 

 

Ever since Trump took office HUNDREDS of arrests were made (and are made) regarding child trafficking rings and THOUSANDS of children have been saved.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that our side has been the one championing the rights of kids whilst the opposition have actively been promoting pedophilia for years.

 

Now I want you to keep in mind these bulletpoints from Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with regarding to subversion:

>>Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

>>Make the enemy live up to its own rules.

 

The liberal outlets that have been promoting pedophilia have now wiped the record clean, I'm talking about Salon here specifically.

 

Stefan is the ONLY ONE and I mean the ONLY ONE that criticized Milo's views, and rightfully so, regarding underage sex. Everyone else however have attacked Milo not because they stand for the rights of children but because they have always hated Milo. All you hear from the Milo detractors is that Milo's an attention whore, narcissist, opportunistic, dumb, a typical homosexual, and so on. Not one stood on principle saying his comments were inappropriate. They jumped at the first occasion to cast him out REGARDLESS of accusations.

 

 

So if you take all of the points I made into account, where are we now?

There us one group of people that distanced themselves from Milo because they have been made to live up to their own rules.

Then there's another group that has always been against Milo which have been given the ammunition to take him down.

The third group is treating this as nothing more than another hit-piece on Milo, of which there have been literally dozens.

 

The movement has been polarized. These three groups will turn on each other if we don't stop it.

 

 

The way I see it now is that we either

>> Cast Milo out, taking a huge blow within our ranks. The pedophile agenda will start to get pushed again by the radical left but now against a significantly weaker opposition.

>> Stand behind Milo, because they were just words, and continue fighting back against the radical left, which promotes and engages in pedophilia, no less weaker than before.

 

Yes, it is an argument from effect but in a war the most important thing is not principles, ideology, or honor, the most important thing is winning and if we lose this fight we'll have to deal with a lot worse than some guy's psychological pathology.

They're actively making toddlers take sex-ed courses for crissake !

What kind of future are we willing to risk in so we can enjoy the luxury in the present of standing for our principles?

 

We saw what the left wants to do to us.

We saw how they infiltrated our ranks.

We saw how they use our own principles against us.

We saw the kind of muscle they have.

 

They took a shot at Flynn and got him fired.

They took a shot at InfoWars and they lost millions of dollars in revenue.

They took a shot at Milo and he was falsely branded as a pedophile, cancelled the most anticipated book of the year, and got him fired from Breitbart.

 

They are going after everyone in the alt-media so now it's not the time to waver.

Ask yourselves, how comforting the thought of ostracizing Milo and sticking to your holy standards will be in a future where NAMBLA decides your toddler's curriculum?

[Will Torbald]

Mean leftists are making me stand by the principles I believe in. How dare they! I will cast away my values just to fight on the same level as them. That will show them. Now we will win, because after we become just as lawless as they are, we will be better than them.

[_LiveFree_]

I don't think the two options you put forth are relevant. It ins't about what "we" choose to do with Milo, because "we" can't choose anything. People are going to do what they do. Milo was such a powerful weapon because HE chose to develop into that. He harnessed us, and we responded. The interesting thing about people is how they can work their way back to power after being broken. So it's really up to Milo what happens next. In the immediate, he's likely going to take some time away to regroup, make plans, and settle down a bit. His book being published I'm sure is the priority.

 

It's important to understand what happened here. I think Stefan's breakdown was really good, but missed one important point. Self-knowledge is a defense against these kinds of attacks. The media's attack against Milo only worked because Milo had a blind spot, the sexual abuse he experienced as a child. At worst, Milo actually accepted this abuse as a positive experience in his life, which means it's a deep dark hole in his psyche. At best, he never progressed past humor in dealing with it. Either way, Milo's inner 13 year old boy not only was betrayed by a trusted adult back when, but also by his older self now. When a part of you doesn't trust yourself it hides and obfuscates leaving you vulerable to those who would take advantage of you.

 

Why all the mumbo-jumbo? The real work against the left is still self-work. The left can hurl all the insults and slanders it wants. If you know yourself and are right with yourself and your choices then these attacks are useless. And it's important to distinguish between real self-confidence out of self-knowledge, and false self psuedo-confidence. When an attack on your blind spot occurs, you, of course, will feel the hit very deeply, but the effect on your image is proportional to how popular you are. So when someone like Milo takes a hit then it's this massive media meltdown sideshow. I've personally had plenty of meltdowns of my own over the last decade but I've kept my life small knowing full well there were many meltdowns to have.

 

Milo will do Milo. We can continue to do us. The "Freedom Movement", if you want to call it that, has had many weapons come and go. I personally got in during the 2008 campaign with Ron Paul. He was massive and was like adreneline shots straight into the heart. Now I see his limitations and realize as a weapon he'd be pretty useless now. We were here before Milo and will be here after. It's up to Milo whether he is relevant or not.

Mean leftists are making me stand by the principles I believe in. How dare they! I will cast away my values just to fight on the same level as them. That will show them. Now we will win, because after we become just as lawless as they are, we will be better than them.

 

 

Um, the left has been kicking our ass. If you aren't getting down to their level you're not in it to win.

[shirgall]

Charles Murray in By The People pointed out that the way to fight is by closing ranks and not giving in, by pooling our resources to defend those who are under attack. The Left wants to divide us and defeat us in detail. We should never tolerate any smear campaign. CPAC are wimps. Breitbart shouldn't have accepted Milo's resignation. We shouldn't have wasted time digging up dirt on the Left because it's not persuasive. We should always focus on the truth. Milo is being attacked because he has an audience.

 

Yes, Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals are being used here, but the way to deal with it is well-defined in SJW's Always Lie. Don't apologize. Don't waver from the message. Truth is preferable to falsehood.

[Wuzzums]

The media's attack against Milo only worked because Milo had a blind spot, the sexual abuse he experienced as a child.

 

This is where I think you're mistaken. The media's attack worked because of our blindspot. Time and time again we fail to realize they're using our own standards against us to great effect. What happened to the principle of "we cannot hold higher standards than our enemy"?

 

Milo has words, the enemy has actions.

 

Karen Straughan has been raped. She chose not to let it define her and play the victim. Should be cast her out too for not playing the victim card and not naming names?

Milo has been raped too and also chose not to let the moment(s) define him. Why is he being criticized for not naming names? Why is he being criticized for knowing about high-profile pedo-rings and not raising a fire about them? Is this the standard, that a victim has to name their abusers otherwise they're bad? Ok, so how about the victims at those parties? Should we reprimand them too for not naming their abusers? I'm sure some of them are of age by now, surely the burden of their abuse falls on their shoulders completely.

 

This is my critique of Stefan's view on this. Does Milo's words and success have a deterministic effect on other victims' outlook on their abuse? If it does, and we abandoned free will completely, then surely we can make an iron clad argument for taking away Milo's freedom of speech. If speech breaks the NAP and censorship stops speech then it's within our duty as principled libertarians/ancaps to censor speech.

 

Andrew Breitbart has spoken out against these people by naming names and got a heart attack afterwards.

Milo has never names names and has to walk everywhere with a security detail because they are literally trying to lynch him for stating an opinion.

What's the argument here? That Milo should further put his life on the line than he already has because he was molested and a witness to some vile things?

Our priorities are reversed here. First we make the abusers pay for their crimes then we get to decide what sort of reprimand the victims of said abusers should get, NOT the other way around.

[_LiveFree_]

Charles Murray in By The People pointed out that the way to fight is by closing ranks and not giving in, by pooling our resources to defend those who are under attack. The Left wants to divide us and defeat us in detail. We should never tolerate any smear campaign. CPAC are wimps. Breitbart shouldn't have accepted Milo's resignation. We shouldn't have wasted time digging up dirt on the Left because it's not persuasive. We should always focus on the truth. Milo is being attacked because he has an audience.

 

Yes, Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals are being used here, but the way to deal with it is well-defined in SJW's Always Lie. Don't apologize. Don't waver from the message. Truth is preferable to falsehood.

 

But the truth is Milo spoke positively about his abuse as a child. You can't get around that and you can't allow that to go unchallenged. Especially if you're posting here.

[webdever]

But the truth is Milo spoke positively about his abuse as a child. You can't get around that and you can't allow that to go unchallenged. Especially if you're posting here.

 

No, he joked about his abuse as a child (molested between age 13-16), and spoke positively about his consentual relationship with an older man when he was past the age of consent (17). That is not the same thing.

[_LiveFree_]

No, he joked about his abuse as a child (molested between age 13-16), and spoke positively about his consentual relationship with an older man when he was past the age of consent (17). That is not the same thing.

 

That is not correct.

[jamcity]

I think one thing that is being missed by the older generation of commentators is that this is what has been normalized for kids.  Milo is not much older than me and I remember when I was in school the environment was hyper sexualized especially at grade 7 when I think my class of peers were at their worst.

Milo attempts to make a distinction between pre-pubescent attraction as being the proper definition of pedophilia acting as though we switch from kid to adult.  There is a period of growth and exploration in young adulthood that him having been robbed of fails to even acknowledge in addressing the issue.

Even if you accept the premise of consent there is still the issue of abuse of power.  The power imbalance is another element that has not been explored.  An adapt comparison could be the twenty-something female teacher with their teenage student which we have seen many times in the press, yet no one has been willing to compare this to anything outside the gay experience.

[shirgall]

But the truth is Milo spoke positively about his abuse as a child. You can't get around that and you can't allow that to go unchallenged. Especially if you're posting here.

 

I didn't say don't challenge anyone. I said defend against obvious attacks. You don't fold or show factionalism under fire.

[grithin]

I didn't say don't challenge anyone. I said defend against obvious attacks. You don't fold or show factionalism under fire.

I would have posted the same had you not posted.  But further, and based on the obvious principle of not getting overly upset and chasmed upon forgivable offenses, this is an opportunity for some to see the moles.  And, I suppose, there is another type beyond the mole: the ones who are committed to failure.  And, the reaction of both types is the same - abandon ship / forfeit movement assets.

 

Here we also see a distinction between those on the left and the false opposition to those on the left.  Those on the left will forgive nearly anything so long as it does not imply an inherent adversity towards the left or the leftist agenda.  And, this inability to sufficiently group by those on the right means they will always be dominated by leftist groups in large populations.  Fortunately, this time around, it appears the internet along with economic downturn provided sufficient means for a loose grouping of rightests to elect Donald Trump.  None the less, the problem of being overly intolerant to rightests and overly tolerant to leftists exists.

[_LiveFree_]

I didn't say don't challenge anyone. I said defend against obvious attacks. You don't fold or show factionalism under fire.

 

So I guess I'm confused about how you think it should be handled. You said Milo shouldn't have resigned from Breitbart, but I totally disagree. Milo is responsible for this attack as much as the Left due to his gross negligence (conscious disregard to take care in his conduct). If you're going to have the mouth you better be able to back it up. It's no different than being in an army and one guy breaks ranks to storm ahead, others rush after him in a fury leaving their flanks exposed. Milo was doing great but he got out too far. He even said it himself, he thought due to his experiences he could say whatever he wanted to on the matter. 

 

And here's the real problem. Pedophilia is the Globalist's Achilles Heal. If we waver on that we lose the war. EVERY decent person, even those under the sway of SJWs, recoil in disgust at child rape. If the right adamantly backs even one who talks positively about it, they lose an enormous amount of credibility in the eyes of those they need to persuade.  Had Milo said something about deporting all black people or latinos, then yeah, I'm sure some damage control would be enough. That can be spun. Advocating child rape cannot. 

 

The alt-right doesn't need to disavow, cutoff, or rally behind Milo. We just need to keep moving on as if nothing happened. If Milo can build himself back then great. We'll be there. This is on him though. Not us. 

 

To be clear, you can't make comments like 'sex with children can be a good thing', or 'genocide is needed', or anything horrific like that even if you believe it.  Even if your whole shtick is "we need more free speech!" It's up to the individual to keep themselves relevant. Ron Paul became irrelevant due to his own actions. Jesse Ventura, irrelevant. Tom Woods is hanging in there but isn't nearly as influential as he once was. Alex Jones has been on this steady incline for almost 30 years. That success is on him and he's said some outrageous things. Stefan is more relevant than ever and he's said some stuff, too. There is a line that if you cross it you find yourself alone and for good reason. 

 

To stretch a rubber band you stress it by pulling it just beyond taut. You don't stretch it as far as you can until it breaks. 

[shirgall]

So I guess I'm confused about how you think it should be handled. You said Milo shouldn't have resigned from Breitbart, but I totally disagree. Milo is responsible for this attack as much as the Left due to his gross negligence (conscious disregard to take care in his conduct). If you're going to have the mouth you better be able to back it up. It's no different than being in an army and one guy breaks ranks to storm ahead, others rush after him in a fury leaving their flanks exposed. Milo was doing great but he got out too far. He even said it himself, he thought due to his experiences he could say whatever he wanted to on the matter. 

 

To Breitbart's credit they did not ask him to resign, but they did let him know that six different employees threatened to quit unless he left. Those six people could have expressed their displeasure in some other way that was not damaging to the organization. Frankly, I wouldn't want people to stay if they already threatened to retreat under fire, but I'm not the boss.

[webdever]

That is not correct.

 

That is absolutely correct.

 

You and many others are confusing several different concepts Milo was bringing up during that conversation (which admittedly  were not well elucidated). Listen closer and read Milo's explanations.

[_LiveFree_]

That is absolutely correct.

 

You and many others are confusing several different concepts Milo was bringing up during that conversation (which admittedly  were not well elucidated). Listen closer and read Milo's explanations.

 

I have listened to the original video, watched Milo's explanation as well as others' interpretations of it all (including the 4 guys who were on the original podcast a year ago). I'm very comfortable with the conclusion I've drawn. 

To Breitbart's credit they did not ask him to resign, but they did let him know that six different employees threatened to quit unless he left. Those six people could have expressed their displeasure in some other way that was not damaging to the organization. Frankly, I wouldn't want people to stay if they already threatened to retreat under fire, but I'm not the boss.

 

 

I don't disagree with you on that. Can't help but think that Milo wanted out of Breitbart before all of this.

[Wuzzums]

To be clear, you can't make comments like 'sex with children can be a good thing', or 'genocide is needed', or anything horrific like that even if you believe it.

 

I don't understand this statement.

Are you saying that words trump actions?

You can say whatever dark thing you want, it's called free speech.

We can arrest people for doing things but we can't arrest them for saying things. Is this clear to you?

 

Milo has broken no law. His was a crime of aesthetics not ethics.

 

 

 Advocating child rape

 

I have listened to the original video, watched Milo's explanation as well as others' interpretations of it all (including the 4 guys who were on the original podcast a year ago). I'm very comfortable with the conclusion I've drawn. 

 

 

He's not advocating child rape. He made his case very clearly that he's strongly against it. He is a pederasty apologist. Don't choose to change definitions because it suits your biases. Milo used very clear definitions, if you have a contention with those say it outright and don't try to pull some sleight of hand trick on us.

 

 

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say this random guy Olim says spanking is ok. Olim was himself beaten as a child and he came out just fine in his view and therefore he sees nothing wrong with spanking some children. Olim never had any kids. Olim never plans on having any kids. Olim has never spanked a child. Olim never encourages people to spank their kids. Olim just made his spanking comment in passing maybe once or twice.

Is Olim a child abuse advocate?

[_LiveFree_]

I don't understand this statement.

Are you saying that words trump actions?

You can say whatever dark thing you want, it's called free speech.

We can arrest people for doing things but we can't arrest them for saying things. Is this clear to you?

 

 

Milo has broken no law. His was a crime of aesthetics not ethics.

I didn't say he broke a law. Nor am I saying that no one can say horrific things ever. What I am saying is that if you put yourself up there in the media limelight for a cause, you'd better watch your mouth. Otherwise you're eventually going crumble under your own weight.

 

No, I did not say words trump actions. Not sure where you got that.

 

 

He's not advocating child rape. He made his case very clearly that he's strongly against it. He is a pederasty apologist. Don't choose to change definitions because it suits your biases. Milo used very clear definitions, if you have a contention with those say it outright and don't try to pull some sleight of hand trick on us.

 

Wow, what? Suits my biases? That's not nice. Pull some slight of hand...? Not nice either. When you restate this politely I'll respond to it.

 

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say this random guy Olim says spanking is ok. Olim was himself beaten as a child and he came out just fine in his view and therefore he sees nothing wrong with spanking some children. Olim never had any kids. Olim never plans on having any kids. Olim has never spanked a child. Olim never encourages people to spank their kids. Olim just made his spanking comment in passing maybe once or twice.

Is Olim a child abuse advocate?

Yup

[Spenc]

What are you defending Milo against here?  I'm not quite clear on that.  It seems like you're defending him against being "cast out" of "the movement", is that correct?  You're not defending him over what he said, but you're defending his position as a valuable member of "the movement"?  Am I right in this?

 

 

Which standards in particular are you suggesting that 1) we hold; and 2) we ought not to stick to in this situation?

 

I'm just trying to understand because the opening post is all over the map, and this thread is all over the place.....

 

I think for starters a better title would have helped, like "Why Milo should remain welcome in the alt-right" or something

 

Ask yourselves, how comforting the thought of ostracizing Milo and sticking to your holy standards will be in a future where NAMBLA decides your toddler's curriculum?

[_LiveFree_]

This is where I think you're mistaken. The media's attack worked because of our blindspot. Time and time again we fail to realize they're using our own standards against us to great effect. What happened to the principle of "we cannot hold higher standards than our enemy"?

 

Milo has words, the enemy has actions.

 

Karen Straughan has been raped. She chose not to let it define her and play the victim. Should be cast her out too for not playing the victim card and not naming names?

Milo has been raped too and also chose not to let the moment(s) define him. Why is he being criticized for not naming names? Why is he being criticized for knowing about high-profile pedo-rings and not raising a fire about them? Is this the standard, that a victim has to name their abusers otherwise they're bad? Ok, so how about the victims at those parties? Should we reprimand them too for not naming their abusers? I'm sure some of them are of age by now, surely the burden of their abuse falls on their shoulders completely.

 

This is my critique of Stefan's view on this. Does Milo's words and success have a deterministic effect on other victims' outlook on their abuse? If it does, and we abandoned free will completely, then surely we can make an iron clad argument for taking away Milo's freedom of speech. If speech breaks the NAP and censorship stops speech then it's within our duty as principled libertarians/ancaps to censor speech.

 

Andrew Breitbart has spoken out against these people by naming names and got a heart attack afterwards.

Milo has never names names and has to walk everywhere with a security detail because they are literally trying to lynch him for stating an opinion.

What's the argument here? That Milo should further put his life on the line than he already has because he was molested and a witness to some vile things?

Our priorities are reversed here. First we make the abusers pay for their crimes then we get to decide what sort of reprimand the victims of said abusers should get, NOT the other way around.

 

Sorry, I didn't see this response. I agree with Spenc. All over the map. This sounds like a good call in show though. Why don't you ask Mike to get bumped up in the queue? 

[Will Torbald]

Um, the left has been kicking our ass. If you aren't getting down to their level you're not in it to win.

 

It is one thing to say "don't punch back, take the high road" and that is not what I suggest. I suggest that we come to understand what makes us different from them. Why are we better than the left? If we are not better, we are just tribals fighting for power. That is not what I want in any movement, personally speaking. Stefan, for example, never betrayed any of his principles even when he admitted he was torn about it. It was clear he was being steadfast against emotionality in his tone of voice, and his body language. He could have done what other people did which was to enter into the stages of grief of denial, anger and bargaining. What we protect as a group is first our reason to fight, and then our people, who are those who also value the same things we do. When one of those people show that they are not in it for a virtuous purpose and have shown to be less than what they say they are, it is reasonable to a degree to let go of them. Not to diminish them, but as a way of showing that this isn't about winning a game of elections, or a game of popularity, that this is about a real purpose. The left is the enemy in so far as they oppose anything that is good and moral in the world, to a degree. They are not the enemy because they fight dirty. And we cannot win if we become as savage and power hungry as they are because then we would have abandoned our reason to be on the right side in the first place. A balloon rises when it loses dead weight. If Milo isn't lifting, he is dragging us down. We can win and have principles at the same time.

[Wuzzums]

I didn't say he broke a law. Nor am I saying that no one can say horrific things ever. What I am saying is that if you put yourself up there in the media limelight for a cause, you'd better watch your mouth. Otherwise you're eventually going crumble under your own weight.

 

If you make statements that might have real-life influence then you have to back them up with facts. Of course.

If you don't have any facts and you're still a proponent of those views then you're pushing forth a hidden agenda.

If you put forth facts that turn out to be inaccurate but still push forth those views then you have a hidden agenda.

 

I think Milo thought he had some facts (his own personal experience) from which he extrapolated a rationale for pederasty. If he's given counter evidence and then changes his rationale then I don't see how you can say he's an advocate of child rape. If you have the knowledge you have the responsibility.

 

Milo views child rape and pederasty as separate.

You view them as the same thing.

Don't you think you're being disingenuous when you're equating the 2 perspectives?

I agree with you, I don't think there's much of a difference between the two but question is: does Milo realize this? Given his history I don't think he does which is why I can't attack him. You think he does which is why you're on the offensive.

 

He gave an apology, not perfect but he does seem to be adjusting his views on the matter. He has not doubled down on his statements so why is he being treated as if he has?

 

 

What are you defending Milo against here?  I'm not quite clear on that.  It seems like you're defending him against being "cast out" of "the movement", is that correct?  You're not defending him over what he said, but you're defending his position as a valuable member of "the movement"?  Am I right in this?

 

Yes, it's an argument from effect. The videos were years old, seen/listened to by millions and nobody batted an eye at the time.

A lot of people said they were behind Milo because he was effective against the radical left. Fair enough, I'll take this as a principle.

Is he still effective? Yes.

Why are some people that stood behind Milo for being effective now jumping ship? They were singing Milo's praise after he made his statements, they just didn't know about it or cared about it. 

You can either hold the "let's back anyone that's effective against the left" principle or condemn Milo along with a ton of other people. You can't have both.

 

 

Which standards in particular are you suggesting that 1) we hold; and 2) we ought not to stick to in this situation?

 

I'm just trying to understand because the opening post is all over the map, and this thread is all over the place.....

 

I think for starters a better title would have helped, like "Why Milo should remain welcome in the alt-right" or something

 

Like I've said, winning is the most important thing. After we're safe from all this madness we can start talking about the nuances of things. I don't recall the civil rights activists castigating MLK Jr. over his questionable lifestyle or bad parenting.

 

Trump said some bad words once upon a time. 

Milo said some bad words once upon a time.

Trump apologized.

Milo apologized. 

Trump said he does not hold those past views anymore.

Milo said he does not hold those past views anymore.

People backed Trump saying the past is the past.

People are not backing Milo saying he's guilty of the crime.

 

We are literally treating these 2 instances as different because Milo was molested several times as a child and has a twisted view on sexuality.

 

 

 

I think for starters a better title would have helped, like "Why Milo should remain welcome in the alt-right" or something

 

I never once mentioned "alt-right".

I have my own reservations on the alt-right and I criticized them repeatedly, even on this board, over their unsavory agenda. Again, I'm applying the effectiveness principle. The alt-right is ineffective, they only gained ground by attributing more effective people's success (such as Milo) as their own. The alt-right hates Milo. They don't have a "protect the children" principle, they have a "screw Milo" principle.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't see this response. I agree with Spenc. All over the map. This sounds like a good call in show though. Why don't you ask Mike to get bumped up in the queue? 

 

I have considered this but I still don't know how this will play out. Milo's apology was a step in the right direction but not exactly satisfactory for me. Most alt-media figureheads are backing Milo and his facebook followers seem to have grown a little. I'm just fearful of losing. I don't see any reason in changing our tactics when we've been gaining ground this whole time.

[jamcity]

I completely forgot about Breitbart workers threatening to quit.

This is another Todd Akin scandal.  Virtue signalling can be much worse on the political 'right' than 'left.'  A few years back republicans forfeited a guaranteed seat in the senate by completely turning against their candidate for misspeaking... after the elections republicans went oh wow maybe we shouldn't do that.. yet they continued with Trump, Shkreli or any other character that can easily win them virtue points. 

I've quit jobs because of management or the business, never because of a co-worker.  I guess in the Trump economy its easier to find a job yet I still can't really take those threats to resign seriously.


I for one do not like being played.  Milo's comments that gained such a reaction recently were nothing new.  I'm not saying they are agreeable but this stuff was widespread and known by the time the organized and concentrated attack happened to Milo.
 

[Iggydad82]

Milo hasn't fully healed from his abuse as a child. He's still identifying with his abuser.

 

Stef pointed out the problem with identifying and normalizing the abuser. It's not a criticism.

 

I hope Milo heals and can grow past his comments. He's very intelligent and articulate, plus seems like a nice guy.

 

I think there is legitament fear of a victim not speaking up or becoming an offender himself when they identify with their abuser. Milo indicated that he used humor to deal with the trauma, which may be only the beginning of the healing process.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Milo's situation sucks and it would be better for everyone if he: 

 

a.) Accepted that he was abused and began healing his trauma, and

b.) Began to identify people he knows to be child abusers. Starting with his priest would be good.

 

Until then, Western Civilization is having the battle for its life and he is one of its foremost warriors. Priorities!

[thecurrentyear]

Milo's situation sucks and it would be better for everyone if he:

 

a.) Accepted that he was abused and began healing his trauma, and

b.) Began to identify people he knows to be child abusers. Starting with his priest would be good.

 

Until then, Western Civilization is having the battle for its life and he is one of its foremost warriors. Priorities!

Don't you think he would be utterly destroyed if he named the priest? He would be accused of making false accusations in order to get his ass out of hot water. He would be obliterated as a pathetic pariah.

[Izzy]

I agree for the most part. Milo did mess up, but he acknowledged his mistakes.

 

I hope this will turn into a productive conversation about pedophilia. I also think it opens up a discussion about the gay community as a whole. Is what Milo said actually true and something that happens a lot within gay communities?

 

So far it doesn't seem like the productive conversation is happening anywhere, the whole thing kind of fizzled out and put a dent in Milo's rise.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Don't you think he would be utterly destroyed if he named the priest? He would be accused of making false accusations in order to get his ass out of hot water. He would be obliterated as a pathetic pariah.

 

Good question. This is a strategic move he's going to have to make that I don't know the answer to. However, it would be nice to have one less molesting priest out there.