It's finally happened: after years of the 'Respectable Right' penning 7,000 words articles about how they, like, totally deplore paedophiles (but they don't support taking any action whatsoever against actual predators), they've finally found the one case that does call for the bombers to be launched. In fact, it's so serious even the left has decided that it's time to give war a chance.
Our respectable brethren are enraged that Milo Yiannopoulos was able to abduct and murder a series of teenage runaways...
No, wait: that's not right. It's even worse than that - brace yourself, grandma - he's accused of saying pro-paedophile things across a series of interviews.
Which is clue number one right there. The usual suspects are back to the 'ransom note' method, as in daisy chaining a number of different quotes from different interviews together to try and prove the target is an extreme extremist, just like making a ransom note by cutting letters out of the newspaper. All that need be said about that technique is that if this cut and paste method is so fair, these guys won't mind if we apply it to real paedophiles in court, right? Talking of which, it looks like the rule now is that we can parse out the meaning of every statement ever made by a comedian/journalist, but we have to take Supreme Court decisions at face value, or you hate the rule of law.
Then again, close up analysis doesn't really help the case against Milo. As far as I can see, right now, there are two main issues, and they're both stupid. First up, Milo is accused of trivialising child abuse in the way he talks about his *own* molestation.
Think about that. That's how arrogant these people are: they want to tell a victim of sexual abuse how he's allowed to feel about it (Meanwhile, suggesting women shouldn't get wasted then walk alone through the town center at 4 AM is victim blaming, you pig)!
The other, slightly less stupid, charge is that he sorta of, kind of, suggested the age of consent should be lowered, even though he clearly said it was 'about right'. It all depends how you interpret quotes like this:
Hmmmmmm... you know, you could ask if any of this gave as much aid and comfort to the predators as Milo did with his jokes about his own molestation?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that all of the above cases will turn out to be completely different, you lager-sodden, tabloid reading piece of trash. You just don't get the nuance, you stupid prole.
See, that's the thing. They think this is a win for them. They think we're too stupid to see what's going on. The same views can be either outrageous or courageous depending on who holds them. This double standard between insiders and real people is exactly why the real right exists.
Our respectable brethren are enraged that Milo Yiannopoulos was able to abduct and murder a series of teenage runaways...
No, wait: that's not right. It's even worse than that - brace yourself, grandma - he's accused of saying pro-paedophile things across a series of interviews.
Which is clue number one right there. The usual suspects are back to the 'ransom note' method, as in daisy chaining a number of different quotes from different interviews together to try and prove the target is an extreme extremist, just like making a ransom note by cutting letters out of the newspaper. All that need be said about that technique is that if this cut and paste method is so fair, these guys won't mind if we apply it to real paedophiles in court, right? Talking of which, it looks like the rule now is that we can parse out the meaning of every statement ever made by a comedian/journalist, but we have to take Supreme Court decisions at face value, or you hate the rule of law.
Then again, close up analysis doesn't really help the case against Milo. As far as I can see, right now, there are two main issues, and they're both stupid. First up, Milo is accused of trivialising child abuse in the way he talks about his *own* molestation.
Think about that. That's how arrogant these people are: they want to tell a victim of sexual abuse how he's allowed to feel about it (Meanwhile, suggesting women shouldn't get wasted then walk alone through the town center at 4 AM is victim blaming, you pig)!
The other, slightly less stupid, charge is that he sorta of, kind of, suggested the age of consent should be lowered, even though he clearly said it was 'about right'. It all depends how you interpret quotes like this:
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.No, wait: that was actually alleged National Treasure Peter Tatchell who said that, and a lot more besides. Tatchell has come out with this sort of thing for years, and in cold blood too, in actual, written articles, not while pushing an edgy personae on someone's live stream. He's campaigned for it too, just like Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromney, actual MPs with real power, and luvvie favorite campaign group Liberty too.
Hmmmmmm... you know, you could ask if any of this gave as much aid and comfort to the predators as Milo did with his jokes about his own molestation?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that all of the above cases will turn out to be completely different, you lager-sodden, tabloid reading piece of trash. You just don't get the nuance, you stupid prole.
See, that's the thing. They think this is a win for them. They think we're too stupid to see what's going on. The same views can be either outrageous or courageous depending on who holds them. This double standard between insiders and real people is exactly why the real right exists.