[Roger Slater]

I don't want to spend 9 minutes deciding whether he actually said something during that particular interview that is not offensive. Perhaps he did. I have no doubt that he often utters inoffensive comments. Perhaps he likes Shakespeare or pizza, and I will find myself in agreement with him. But that's not the issue. His endorsement of pedophilia and other disgusting comments he makes on a routine basis are not excused simply because every word out of his mouth is not equally revolting.

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

I know I promised I'd butt out. I think Milo makes perfect sense in this bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n76ZozxQAM

He's absolutely right that some men, such as the Nobel laureate being discussed in the clip, feel like superior beings when they make women cry.

The many, MANY men whom I admire don't need to bolster their self-esteem by bullying anyone at all. But not all men are admirable.

Neither are all women. I've known my share of both men and women who have felt threatened when working on a team with smarter, more talented people, and I've witnessed them trying to destroy their colleagues and underlings psychologically, to preserve their own dominance.

Whatever problem the team is supposed to be solving is always less important to these egomaniacs than the problem of someone else threatening their own status as the best and brightest.

Tell any of these jerks that they are inherently superior intellectually, physically, or morally because of their sex--whichever one it happens to be--and they will eagerly believe it. The fact that some feminists engage in this sort of nonsense too doesn't make it any less nonsense when male chauvinists do it.

Milo Yiannopoulos has bullied people in particularly nasty ways. He has repeatedly sown lack of empathy, and now he's reaping it over his statements excusing sexual contact with minors. He likes to kick over hornets' nests, and now he's complaining that he's being stung. The fact that he expects an empathetic hearing now, after having demonstrated zero empathy for the victims of his bullying, is more than a bit hypocritical.

Survivors of sexual abuse have a wide range of coping mechanisms, some of which can be destructive to themselves and others. Milo Yiannopoulos's statements about the positive aspects of his own underage sexual experience, and saying that others in that situation might find benefits, too, are consistent with the very common coping mechanism of denying that one was actually victimized or taken advantage of at all. I understand where he's coming from. But I also understand the harm that can come from generally excusing sexual contact with minors (outside of the context of one's own coming to terms with one's own experience). I think he honestly feels he wasn't harmed, probably because his abuser took care to groom him carefully and not traumatize him, but that doesn't mean others too young to give legal consent to such contact might not be harmed. And it doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't harmed himself, in ways he can't recognize because he doesn't associate that harm with outright trauma.

[Julie Steiner]

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:

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.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

I don't want to spend 9 minutes deciding whether he actually said something during that particular interview that is not offensive. Perhaps he did. I have no doubt that he often utters inoffensive comments. Perhaps he likes Shakespeare or pizza, and I will find myself in agreement with him. But that's not the issue. His endorsement of pedophilia and other disgusting comments he makes on a routine basis are not excused simply because every word out of his mouth is not equally revolting.

He does not endorse pedophilia.

You know as well as anyone how videos can be edited, how snippets of conversation or text can be ripped out of context, how a frenetic mishmash of sight and sound can sway people who are already biased and want their bias confirmed.

Look at various conspiracy theorist videos. First, they almost all have this ridiculously ominous music track throbbing along to distract viewers and make them feel as if something simply awful is about to be revealed; then they show these brief clips of "Top Secret Government Documents", which people who are only looking to have their bias confirmed will accept as genuine, despite the fact that anyone can use photo editing tools and make any document bear the letterheads and signatures of presidents and various government officials. They swing these "documents" into brief focus, highlighting a signature or a letterhead, and swing it back out of focus, etc. It's absurd.

And let's get clear about what pedophelia is. It's a sexual attraction to children, for prepubescent children specifically. Milo speaks of having lost his virginity at 13. A 13 year old is not prepubescent, but already primed and ready for sex.

NOTE: I do not and have never endorsed sex with minors. It is ILLEGAL, and should remain so. Anyone having sex with a minor, especially if there's a wide age difference, has what's coming to them.

There's a word for people (men usually) who are attracted to sexually mature but underaged girls. And it's not "pedophilia". It's Ephebophilia.

Milo explains that he considers the general age of consent (16 in England, 18 in the states) to be "about right".

Milo is enjoying his fifteen minutes. Personally, I think he's a reckless hedonist who has a rude awakening coming. I wouldn't want to be friends with him, and I am not so much defending a man as defending a principle. Free Speech is just that: free.

In this country at least we allow free speech, even hate speech, whatever that is. Many on what Dave Rubin calls the "regressive left" seem to want to shut down free speech. Carson Tucker is also someone who seems to have a level head about all of this.

Link to an article about one of the admitted sex offenders Milo claims he helped identify. Notice I say claimed, since I don't know enough to say whether or not he was instrumental in this criminal's being caught with his pants down.

[Julie Steiner]

Three quibbles, Bill:

First, pedophilia isn't always a sexual attraction to children's bodies. Sometimes it's a sexual attraction to a power dynamic or situation. The power differential between adults and children physically, mentally, and emotionally is huge, and it's no secret that domination and manipulation can be turn-ons for some people.

Second, a 13-year-old is about as "primed and ready" to have sex as he or she is "primed and ready" to drive an off-road vehicle or mini-bike. Yes, physically speaking, young teens are basically equipped, and they may be keenly interested and eager; even so, they lack the judgment to assess all the risks properly, and are incapable of understanding all the possible consequences and surrounding circumstances.*

Of course this is true whether it's teens messing around with other teens or adults messing around with teens, but the adult-teen power differential is, as I mentioned, huge, and the potential for exploitation is obvious.

I agree that a prepubescent child is different from an adolescent child physically, mentally, and emotionally; but even an adolescent is still physically, mentally, and emotionally immature.

Third, this xkcd comic on free speech seems apropos. Don't miss the mouseover punchline--run your cursor over the picture to see the alternative (or in this case, supplementary) text.


* (When I was a kid in a rural town in the Mojave Desert, the kid across the street drove his all-terrain vehicle for years without incident, before he died driving it halfway through a chain-link fence on his parents' property. He could operate it just fine, physically speaking. It was his judgment and risk-assessment that were still underdeveloped.)

[William A. Baurle]

There's nothing to disagree with in what you wrote, Julie.

I liked the cartoon (though it could, and probably should be, critiqued), and I read the text in the mouse-over balloon.

My views presently are exactly as they were when I entered this thread.

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner

Hooray, somebody smart and experienced and capable and principled actually agreed to become Trump's national security advisor! I'm sincerely happy and hopeful about this. Of course, Trump still has to have enough sense to listen to him, but hooray anyhow.

Didn't catch this before. I agree! This is excellent news.

[William A. Baurle]

Looks like he has fourteen minutes left...

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Milo-...ion=3&trqid=-1

Julie, I see you've added something to your post - or I didn't catch it last time I read it.

I want to add a few things here, since I'm sleepless in the desert:

First: When I say a 13 yr old is "primed and ready for sex", I mean exactly that. And it's true, for better or worse. I did not mean that they should just go ahead and have sex, since nature has primed and enabled them for it. Heaven forbid, to quote Paul. And I certainly did not mean to suggest that since they're primed and ready for motorcycles (which they are, even girls - I know of a young [age 20 or so] cyclist I can link you to on Facebook - she's a friend of mine from work, though not a friend on Facebook) that we should simply allow them free rein to jump on them and buzz off unguided.

I used to work at the hospital here in Havasu, as one of the head cooks and team leader on weekends. In the latter years of the 2000's - I'm thinking 2007 or so - a young boy was killed while riding his bicycle and was rushed to the ER, but to no avail. His body was handed around to loved ones who needed to spend that last few minutes with him. All I could do was listen to this story and wonder how I would handle that kind of thing, since I had two young boys at the time, both of whom loved their bikes, and the eldest of which was infatuated with anything motorized.

Second: If anyone here would like to suggest how we should limit free speech, I'm all ears, all attention. I sometimes worry to no end that my "free speech" has put someone somewhere in harm's way. This is a big site, and I know that many people read what we write here. We reach a lot of people - a small amount when you consider the vastness of the Internet, but a large enough amount to actually mean something significant.

Third: I need to have a thread I began in GT deleted, [No worries, Bill, I zapped it yesterday.--Julie]

Fourth: It might be a good idea to implement a better editing function. Perhaps not allow members to edit their posts indefinitely. Minds and hearts change, because we're an emotional lot, and so many threads are rendered useless by hyper-editing of posts. At most sites, the ability to edit a post is available for a limited time, sometimes as little as ten minutes. Of course admins and mods would be able to edit indefinitely anyway.

Sorry for rambling again. I will contact Alex and ask him a few questions soon.

[Julie Steiner]

Bill, I think both you and I should back off from the thread for a while and let others talk about Trump-related stuff. We've both been pretty verbose on this tangent.

[Andrew Frisardi]

After coming down with a bad case of indigestion after watching Trump's speech today at CPAC, I found this article about Fact-checking President Trump’s CPAC speech--from none other than the lying media--to provide a much-needed reality check. I love level-headed journalism these days, bigly.

[Andrew Frisardi]

I see that this thread is fading out, but such big stuff happened yesterday, I can't help myself.

I trust y'all saw the WH banning of key news agencies from the press conference yesterday. This was right on the heels of Trump's speech at CPAC which I mentioned in my last post--a speech that was more than half spent trashing the media and other groups who don't agree with the Trumpkins.

New York Times, CNN, and Politico were banned from the press conference later, and as an act of protest AP and Time refused to attend. I had to rub my eyes to make sure I was seeing straight when I read about the ban. Dan Rather had this to say about the situation (sorry about the size, I don't know how to make the image smaller):