America - The Official Thread

[TRGTspecialist]

but we already know how Trump talks to people, it's like the guy next to you in the bar would do it sometimes. That's the way he is

It's a bit difficult to portray Trump as the man who 'tells it like it is' when half the time you can't figure out what he's telling you......

and it isn't anything like the presidents before that who just read politically correct statements of the autocue.

Hope this is referring to something else because I'd rather not add "speaking clearly" to the "what political correctness means" list, I'm running out of paper here!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because I'm interested to know, in the terms of the discussion, which of the three options (if any) the member in question thought it might fall into.

You're interested to know if someone disagrees with the accepted definition of pedophilia?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why ask a question about whether it's pedophilia or not when the example you present is clearly not, by definition? If the roles were reversed I'm fully confident you'd be quoting me asking me the same thing.

Because society and the media blur the literal definitions between the "categories". A man grooming physically-mature underage girls of 14 years old would be referred to in the bulk of social media posts and the press as a "paedophile" without regard for correct categorisation. I think you're probably aware of that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because society and the media blur the literal definitions between the "categories". A man grooming physically-mature underage girls of 14 years old would be referred to in the bulk of social media posts and the press as a "paedophile" without regard for correct categorisation. I think you're probably aware of that.

Scaff is that you? What's with the name change?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Do you agree that if a child (in legal terms) reaches puberty at 11 (which is more than possible) and gives consent then a relationship with an adult is not pedophilia, child abuse or at the very least inappropriate? As that's what he is advocating, and not just for himself.

Milo is not speaking about an awkward young teen who is targeted by an adult and groomed, or plied with alcohol into sex. He refers to himself as being the predator.

 

[mister dog]

Hope this is referring to something else because I'd rather not add "speaking clearly" to the "what political correctness means" list, I'm running out of paper here!

Well one things for sure, uncle Donald is the opposite of political correctness

It's a bit difficult to portray Trump as the man who 'tells it like it is' when half the time you can't figure out what he's telling you......

I had no problems with figuring that out to be honest. That one reference to Sweden was not clear to many, but I knew from the beginning that he mentioned Sweden in his list because of the problems they have with their migrant influx.

Odd because in this case the vultures seem to be those you normally admire.

Its not a liberal, left-wing bunch of snowflakes who cancelled his appearance, its conservatives. I also note that Trump is not decrying it, as he did when Berkeley cancelled his speech.

We will see what happens at 3pm New York time, which is when Breitbart are, I believe, scheduled to comment on the situation. With rumours (and that is all they are now) that he will lose his job.

I never said there were no vultures on the conservative side

.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Scaff is that you? What's with the name change?

That's a good way to avoid the point: only allow dialogue with your list of pre-approved members of the Opinions forum.

 

[DK]

I won't be surprised if the Christian Right will use Milo's asshattery to tar all LGBT people as predators.

 

[mister dog]

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/20/breitbart-employees-threaten-walk-out-over-milo/

They were advocating free speech all the time in their articles about Milo, but now that it concerns the debate about the age of consensual sex they would sack him because they can't handle what he says? Stupid.

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/20/breitbart-employees-threaten-walk-out-over-milo/

They were advocating free speech all the time in their articles about Milo, but now that it concerns the debate about the age of consensual sex they would sack him because they can't handle what he says? Stupid.

Free speech doesn't mean a right to have anybody you like publish your views - that goes to their freedom of speech.

As is said many times here the freedom of speech does not equal a right to freedom from repercussions... because that's a natural outcome from the freedom of speech of other people.

 

[mister dog]

As is said many times here the freedom of speech does not equal a right to freedom from repercussions... because that's a natural outcome from the freedom of speech of other people.

Hence it's hypocritical of Breitbart that there are no repercussions (and in my view rightly so), for all the other topics he talks about, but all of a sudden there are when he talks about this.

If he would have condoned pedophilia, yes for sure fire him from your circles. But he didn't.

 

[Scaff]

You're interested to know if someone disagrees with the accepted definition of pedophilia?

No. I'm interested in if someone feels Milo's comments would fall into any of these categories or none of them, and why.

Scaff is that you? What's with the name change?

Oh dear.

Milo is not speaking about an awkward young teen who is targeted by an adult and groomed, or plied with alcohol into sex. He refers to himself as being the predator.

I disagree, he's quite clearly talking about the wider range of interactions between boys and men.

I never said there were no vultures on the conservative side

.

Excellent, so why do you think Trump has not stood by him this time?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/20/breitbart-employees-threaten-walk-out-over-milo/

They were advocating free speech all the time in their articles about Milo, but now that it concerns the debate about the age of consensual sex they would sack him because they can't handle what he says? Stupid.

Consiquences of that free speech.

Hence it's hypocritical of Breitbart that there are no repercussions (and in my view rightly so), for all the other topics he talks about, but all of a sudden there are when he talks about this.

If he would have condoned pedophilia, yes for sure fire him from your circles. But he didn't.

He condoned pedastry.

Now both are illegal in the US at this time, why would you back him being fired for one and not the other?

 

[mister dog]

Excellent, so why do you think Trump has not stood by him this time?

You assume that or you know this as fact?

He condoned pedastry.

Now both are illegal in the US at this time, why would you back him being fired for one and not the other?

Well one is sex with adolescents, the other with children? US law notwithstanding I hope you see the difference between the two too? One is outright wrong but the other is debatable, hence I have no problem with him debating it.

Language warning:

 

[Scaff]

You assume that or you know this as fact?

Has he publicly supported him as he did when his speech at Berkeley was cancelled?

Well one is sex with adolescents, the other with children? US law notwithstanding I hope you see the difference between the two too? One is outright wrong but the other is debatable, hence I have no problem with him debating it.

I know the difference, and I'm not disputing his right to free speech in discussing it.

I'm pointing out that a business would be well within its rights to terminate an employee for publicly condoning a criminal act. It's not a challenge to his right to free speech, as you seemed to imply, it's a consiquence of it.

 

[mister dog]

Has he publicly supported him as he did when his speech at Berkeley was cancelled?

You're avoiding my question

I'm pointing out that a business would be well within its rights to terminate an employee for publicly condoning a criminal act. It's not a challenge to his right to free speech, as you seemed to imply, it's a consiquence of it.

True, they could fire him under that pretext if they wish, but I'd still find it stupid and hypocritical.

 

[Scaff]

You're avoiding my question

No I'm not. But as you seem to want it spelt out, no trump has no publicly supported him in the same way he did in regard to Berkeley.

He may well have done so privately, but you also know full well that was not what I was referring to.

True, they could fire him under that pretext if they wish, but I'd still find it stupid and hypocritical.

Given that the potential backlash against Breitbart both from it audience and from advertising it's a long way from stupid. Hypocrisy, maybe, but given they have no issue with fantasy it's not a big step.

 

[mister dog]

No I'm not. But as you seem to want it spelt out, no trump has no publicly supported him in the same way he did in regard to Berkeley.

Berkeley was public rioting and physically attacking people, things which tend to provoke reactions from a president. This is the character assassination of one man, which I doubt many other state leaders would publicly respond to.

 

[Scaff]

Berkeley was public rioting and physically attacking people, things which tend to provoke reactions from a president. This is the character assassination of one man, which I doubt many other state leaders would publicly respond to.

Free speech is character assassination now?

That aside when Berkeley cancelled the speech the President commented on it, when a Conservative group did the same not a peep. However at least you seem to now agree that the President has not offered his support this time around, odd that it required such a song and dance on such a simple question.

The reason why I don't think Trump has supported him? The majority of his base don't see a distinction between peodophilia and pederasty, and are not on the whole big fans of the LBGT community either. Throw all that together and Trump supporting him, right to free speech or not, would be damaging for him. Hence Milo gets hung out, even Bannon I suspect will not come out to bat for him on this one.

 

[Touring Mars]

Milo Yiannopoulos is possibly the best advertisement for free speech there is right now, since without it we'd possibly never know how much of a 🤬 asshole he really is.

 

[mister dog]

However at least you seem to now agree that the President has not offered his support this time around, odd that it required such a song and dance on such a simple question.

You are very good at dancing around the conversation yourself, twisting words and quotes around until it eventually proves your point some way or the other. Not the first time I see you doing this too and to be frank I don't find it a pleasant attribute.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He refers to himself as being the predator.

I'm confused - does that somehow make his comments okay?

Because you just said this in defence of him:

Milo is not speaking about an awkward young teen who is targeted by an adult and groomed, or plied with alcohol into sex.

So what you're saying is that there is an alternative interpretation to his words - a different intended meaning. If that different intended meaning is that he is a predator, surely that's even worse?

They were advocating free speech all the time in their articles about Milo, but now that it concerns the debate about the age of consensual sex they would sack him because they can't handle what he says? Stupid.

There are some subjects that are considered so sensitive, so tasteless or so controversial - and I'm thinking of things like holocaust denial or defending paedophilia - that common sense dictates that you don't start talking about them without fully appreciating what you're getting yourself into. And you certainly don't do what Milo has done and expect that you can speak your piece and walk away without consequence.

To complicate matters further, Milo is a senior editor at Brietbart. He is frequently associated with the publication; indeed, most media coverage names him as the editor. Thus there is an implied relationship, one that says he speaks for Brietbart, especially when he is appearing at a function in his role as senior editor. But here he is, voicing an opinion that doesn't just make people uncomfortable, it makes them downright squeamish. Surely his employees have a right to say "this doesn't reflect our views"?

 

[ryzno]

Milo has just resigned...

 

[mister dog]

There are some subjects that are considered so sensitive, so tasteless or so controversial - and I'm thinking of things like holocaust denial or defending paedophilia - that common sense dictates that you don't start talking about them without fully appreciating what you're getting yourself into.

He wasn't defending or referring to pedophilia.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He wasn't defending or referring to pedophilia.

Nor was he denying that the holocaust took place. I was simply using those as examples of subjects that society would consider to be abhorrent.

 

[Imari]

Milo's problem is that he takes any negative reaction as an attempt to suppress free speech, because to his mind, he's not doing anything wrong so long as he's exercising his right to free speech. The irony is that he goes around calling himself the "Dangerous Faggott", but as soon as he says something dangerous and provocative enough to get a negative response, he backs away from it and claims to be the victim of deliberate misrepresentation by people who want to silence him on principle.

Thus his hypocrisy shows itself: he's allowed to exercise his right to free speech, but anyone who disagrees with him is trying to suppress that right. And by launching a pre-emptive attack on those who disagree with him, he's essentially saying "accept my right to free speech or be branded an enemy of a democratic principle", which is in itself a form of suppression. He wants his soapbox, but he doesn't want to hear a dissenting opinion.

Free speech isn't a shield to hide behind. If Milo wants to express his opinion, that's fine - so long as he accepts that people will disagree with him and are just as entitled to express that counter-opinion as he is to express his opinion in the first place. Because right now, it sounds suspiciously like "if you don't agree with me, shut up", in which case he has no right to call himself a defender of free speech.

I have no doubt that he loves free speech - just so long as he is the only one with a voice.

Ah, you're on this hobby horse again. Are you ready to provide an example yet? Same rules as last time.

And as far as silencing him on principle, it's not paranoia if people are actually after you. Of which there is plenty of evidence, starting with Berkeley.

 

[Scaff]

You are very good at dancing around the conversation yourself, twisting words and quotes around until it eventually proves your point some way or the other. Not the first time I see you doing this too and to be frank I don't find it a pleasant attribute.

I have to be honest I don't really care if you find it a pleasant attitude or not.

I've not danced around the conversation at all, nor twisted words and quotes. The three points I made in regard to this have simply been that he was not just speaking about himself, that Trump had not defended him as he had done over Berkeley and that while he had a right under free speech to say what he did, consequences often follow when you do so.

Which of these have I danced around or been incorrect over?

 

[mister dog]

@Scaff I said: Berkeley was public rioting and physically attacking people, things which tend to provoke reactions from a president. This is the character assassination of one man, which I doubt many other state leaders would publicly respond to.

You twist that around to: "at least you seem to now agree that the President has not offered his support this time around, odd that it required such a song and dance on such a simple question".

My quote does not imply that I agree with your point that Trump does not support him this time around.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So what you're saying is that there is an alternative interpretation to his words - a different intended meaning. If that different intended meaning is that he is a predator, surely that's even worse?

I guess you didn't bother to listen to what Milo had to say, fair enough, perhaps I should have been more clear.

Milo said, that when he was about 13 or 14, he was the predator. He was going after the older guy. He believed that he was mature enough to consent at that age.

The whole discussion was about the age of consent. He went on to say the the legal age of consent, which he said was 16, seemed about right.

 

[mister dog]

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff I said: Berkeley was public rioting and physically attacking people, things which tend to provoke reactions from a president. This is the character assassination of one man, which I doubt many other state leaders would publicly respond to.

You twist that around to: "at least you seem to now agree that the President has not offered his support this time around, odd that it required such a song and dance on such a simple question".

My quote does not imply that I agree with your point that Trump does not support him this time around.

Has he offered his support in the same manner he did in regard to Berkeley?

Do you have any proof that he has offered support privately (and the burden would be on you to prove it, by asking me to disprove it would be a logical fallacy, see Russell's Teapot).

I was quite clearly referring to public support, hence the reason I have mentioned Berkeley pretty much every time. The accusation I'm dancing around is a bit base considering you are reaching to the unknown to try and suggest Trump has offered support in a manner you conveniently attempt to make me prove.

You suggested he had offered support, you back the claim up.

And it's still not a character assassination, it's free speech. Why do you uphold Milo's right to say anything he wants as a champion of free speech, and then when anyone else does the same in return use negative language?