By the way, Milo Yiannopoulos has greatly expanded his statement on Facebook since last night:
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoul...51263248344905
On the whole I'm happy to hear him say most of what he says there, walking back his earlier apparent normalization of underage sexual contact.
I note that he now states clearly that what was done to him at age 13 was, and should be, a crime--of which he was a victim--and I am sympathetic to his "gallows humor" remark in section 4.
Sadly, what he says at 6 is quite true as well.
But I've still got problems with his tone. Startling with the fact that he's titled this "A note for idiots," even though he admits to having given the wrong idea by having expressed himself in "a sloppy choice of words that I regret."
Way to issue a non-apologetic apology, Milo. Charming. Please, call me an idiot some more--that will totally win me over to your side.
As for Chapter 1, Verses 1-3, of St. Milo's Epistle to the Idiots, the fact that the long list of people Milo has crucified in his journalistic career includes three accused pedophiles doesn't make me like his M.O. any better than I did before, even if it does clarify his opposition to sexual contact with (most) minors.
In Chapter 5 he's upset about the
National Review's defense of a
Salon article in which a pedophile described the difficulty of seeking and receiving treatment in a legislative climate determined to punish, punish, punish.
As a firsthand survivor of childhood sexual abuse myself, and as the family member of numerous pedophiles who have served prison time for it, I read Todd Nickerson's series of essays at Salon some time ago. I found these essays from the perspective of a pedophile very valuable. For example, he drew my attention to the fact that people on sex offender registries are often restricted from living anywhere but narrowly-defined areas away from schools and parks, thus forcing them to live among high concentrations of other registered sex offenders, which is not an ideal situation for people sincerely trying to resist temptation. In our eagerness to keep pedophiles away from incidental contact with kids, we are keeping pedophiles in constant contact with other pedophiles. I'd never considered the implications of that before.
Society really needs to try to
understand and solve the underlying problems here, including providing access to treatment for those who haven't committed crimes, but are afraid they might at some point. The current emphasis on deterrence-by-example alone--dehumanizing, despising, and harshly punishing anyone who admits to pedophiliac tendencies--does little or nothing to help achieve that understanding and those solutions. In fact, perpetually raising the stakes of getting caught is counterproductive; at some point, the penalties get so high that they create an incentive for pedophiles to murder their victims, to reduce the risk that the kids might talk.
Today,
Salon has removed that series of articles as a result of Milo Yiannopoulos's mention. I consider that unfortunate.
Milo's Chapter 9 is a stunning example of hypocrisy:
Quote:
|
9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.
|
Ah, I see. Everyone else--whether liberal or establishment conservative--is just a hater, while Yiannopoulos and Trump are dispassionate defenders of the Sacred Truth, who would NEVER, NEVER stoop to denying others an opportunity to provide "context or a response." None of their opponents were ever quoted out of context, or attacked for something before they could respond. Please, tell me another.
Apparently Milo doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
Still, I think some good can come of the fact that people are discussing all this stuff. And I do mean all of it--pedophilia, free speech, etc. Perhaps most of us will be able to discuss these topics without calling each other idiots, even if Milo and Trump haven't been role models in that department.