Milo Yiannopoulos Loses Book Deal Over Pro-Pedophilia Position

Simon and Schuster was fine with signing a $250,000 book deal with Milo Yiannopoulos even though he is a transphobic, misogynistic, anti-semitic troll who likes to hurt people.

But once everyone learned that Milo was in favor of pedophilia, well, that was a bridge too far. Milo announced the deal's cancellation on Facebook, and S&S later confirmed the news in a statement:

After careful consideration, Simon & Schuster and its Threshold Editions imprint have cancelled publication of Dangerous by Milo Yiannopoulos.

The current furor was sparked when someone noticed that Milo had argued in favor of pedophilia in a podcast in early January. The Guardian, Boston Globe, and PW have reported on this story, but here is kicker:

Milo has since denied making these statements, but in reality he first espoused this view back in April 2016, and then elaborated on the point last month.

I have embedded both videos below:

 

 

 

About Nate Hoffelder (11210 Articles)
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

44 Comments on Milo Yiannopoulos Loses Book Deal Over Pro-Pedophilia Position

  1. I hope he self publishes. He will probably make better money anyway. And I will be one of the first to buy a copy.

    By the way Nate. Do you ever listen to Micheal Jackson’s music.

  2. this guy is a piece of shit. correction: he’s an attention-seeking-through-controversy piece of shit.

  3. I had not ever seen or heard anything Milo had to say until he appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher last week. The first time he even came across my radar was when the idiots at Berkeley rioted to stop his speaking engagement. I just watched the first video you posted and read the transcript of his January radio interview. It positively kills me to have to side with Trump and his “fake news” accusations since I’ve been fervently defending the mainstream press against them but then they go and print garbage headlines like this. Absolutely nowhere in either video does the guy defend pedophilia or pedophiles. He cracks a few jokes at his own personal expense based on his own experiences and argues that teenagers and specifically himself as a teenager were capable of entering into consensual relations with older partners. He repeatedly denounces pedophilia and consistently counters the interviewer’s attempts to frame consenting teenagers as children. Sorry but my own life experience and that of most of my peers supports his claim. Granted this was the 1970’s right after the whole sexual revolution but I happen to know for a fact that kids are engaging in sexual activity, consensually, even acting as the aggressors at even younger ages today. I won’t even present the scientific evidence for why children are entering puberty even earlier than their parents since it doesn’t appear you care about facts on this particular subject. The legal age of consent in most western countries today is what 15-16? He even defended that in the Jan interview. The specific example he cited as society getting it wrong was when they demonized college students, grad students hooking up with professors. I’d have to agree with him there too.

    I watched the “edited” video posted by that conservative blog and it was clearly a hit piece designed to get him off the speaker platform of this right wing convention and obviously succeeded. All it proves is that the conservative right is just as hypocritical as the extreme left and that mainstream media continues to manipulate headlines for click bait at the expense of facts. Apparently they’ve decided they can’t win the alternative facts war so they’ve joined the other side.

    As for S&S canceling the book deal, he’s better off bypassing the trad publishing dinosaurs anyway, he’ll make more money self publishing.

  4. Weirdly enough, espousing favorable views toward pedophilia doesn’t seem to have hurt Piers Anthony any.

    • Of course, when an author writes about something in their novel, they are automatically in favour of that thing.
      This is why murder mystery writers would kill people if they had the chance.

      • Well, when they write about it in their novel and follow it up with a personal author’s note expressing the opinion that it really is too bad society looks down on kids having sex with grown-ups, you do tend to make that kind of assumption, yes.

  5. Nate’s got it right: for an attention magnet like Milo, self-publishing is irrelevant. Being published by a major is validation, attention, and controversy. Self-publishing just makes him another wingnut crank with a self-pubbed rant.

  6. At least you appear to know the actual definition of pedophilia and are using it correctly in your argument. What I find bizarre is the number of supposed journalists willing to deliberately mis-label a discussion about teenagers as children to try and justify their inflammatory headlines. I’ve literally spent the last two months writing op-eds in a republican controlled district defending a few of these news outlets from accusations of “fake news” and yet here they go following Trump’s playbook with their own unforced errors.

    And speaking of Hollyweird, the circumstance Milo was describing/defending and apparently quite close to his own personal experience was portrayed in not one but two multiple award winning tv shows. Groundbreaking..lauded by critics, a media and ratings darling. Does nobody remember Queer as Folk? The GLAAD, BAFTA, RTS, aGLIFF and umpteen other LGBTQ film festival awards winning series about a 15 year old gay “child” and 29 year old gay man?

    @Chris Meadows, you’re right the double standard in play is the elephant in the room here. The fringe left and alt-right are in such complete lockstep I can’t tell them apart at this point. It’s a sad day for journalism when the religious right can so easily manipulate the mainstream media into doing their bidding but hey I guess that’s not surprising given that ability was a significant contributor to the outcome of the last election.

  7. nate said: “He needs the validation of a traditional publisher.”
    Bob Tudley said: “Self-publishing just makes him another wingnut crank with a self-pubbed rant.”

    He already had the validation once S&S inked the deal. I can just see his book blurb: “Read the book so hard hitting that it was censored by the major book publisher S&S after they paid $250,000 for it.”

    He has the best of both worlds now: He got the validation of S&S and he can self-publish an ebook and get 70% commission. He can also sign a deal with his pal Vox Day’s Castalia Publishing for the dead tree book rights.

    Last I looked his book pre-orders top the best seller lists on Amazon. With all this publicity he will do even better and having a “banned book” as a best seller will increase his name recognition even further.

    Remember the old publicity maxim: I don’t care what you write about me as long as you get my name right.

    • That is good marketing, and you’re right in that it might work.

    • “I don’t care what you write about me as long as you get my name right.”

      yup. look who´s and how he became president…

      surely that´s gonna be a huuuge step forward for the US in any department, hell yeah. jobs, money for everyone, no more health issues, a sudden stop for global warming, no more immigrants, a nice pure white country, as it always worked out so fucking well in history.

      oh, wait…

  8. The Atlantic had about this issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/milo-yiannopoulos-and-the-myth-of-the-gay-pedophile/517332/

    The idea that gay men enjoy sex with children is a myth, gay men were identified in child sexual abuse in fewer than 1% of cases.

  9. I find the politics of all this depressing, like most politics today. It’s very clear the main goal here is not to discuss protecting children or the age of consent, but tear down a popular gay conservative because he’s a danger to the establishment voting coalitions. He says outrageous things, but then lots of people do. Why try to destroy him? Because of his political beliefs. They are afraid to argue policy, so they want to destroy him. Scary that the latest attack seem to have originated from former CIA operative Evan McMullin.

    Painting Milo as a Nazi didn’t work, so guess what, they turn to the reliable meme of attacking gay men as pedophiles. That always works. (The substance of what Milo said wasn’t much different than what George Takei said on Howard Stern about his first gay experience at 13. As far as his jokes about gay priests, that’s pretty much standard in the gay community.)

    The only interesting thing about this is that these kind of brutal smears don’t work anymore because of the internet. That is if the target can stand strong and fight back which Milo certainly can do. Milo’s fans can quickly access the full videos and make up their own minds. Milo can quickly respond in full himself, and people can hear exactly what he has to say without filters. Milo’s press conference today was brilliant. If anyone truly wants to hear the truth they can watch it on You Tube.

    In terms of his book, it will be bigger than ever however he goes about publishing it.

    • Based on what I saw on Bill Maher’s show last week, I would not characterize Milo as a conservative by any stretch, I think probably Libertarian would be a better label. I don’t think you even have to be a fan to quickly access the full videos to see the context and discover that the headlines were fake and this was as you point out, a deliberate smear campaign. Also agree the press conference this afternoon was brilliant. I for one do hope the book gets published as I think it would be a very entertaining read.

      Not sure this is all going to work out as the Milo-haters hoped it would though. As a middle aged, moderate, jewish, female, lifelong democrat and true liberal who hadn’t even heard of this kid a month ago, I’m now a fan. Along with many of my contemporaries.

      @Nate, I guess I should thank you for your fake blog headline libeling someone as pro-pedophilia – “Milo Yiannopoulos Loses Book Deal Over Pro-Pedophilia Position” as it certainly was the gateway for gaining me more exposure to a fascinating individual. So … thanks. 😉

      • Based on what I saw on Bill Maher’s show last week, I wouldn’t characterize either Milo or Maher as anything besides total smarmy douchebags, though I would characterize Larry Wilmore as totally awesome — but he’s always been.

        This is the problem with Milo. Both Milo and his views are reprehensible, but nobody who’s a “Milo-hater” hates Milo nearly as much as Milo hates everyone else. I mean, of course he wouldn’t characterize it that way, but even the five minutes on Maher, between calling trans women “men who are confused about their gender identities” and the utterly bollocks “Please, this statistic is not controversial” (for a statement that was, again, bollocks).

        I mean, good for you, becoming a fan of a transphobic, misogynistic, anti-semite. Sooo transgressive. Don’t dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for how “tolerant” you must be.

        My favorite comment on the Maher shitshow was a Twitter comment I read that said something along the lines of “You guys this panel with Maher and Wilmore is awesome but Rob Thomas’ mom is not a nice person.”

        And Mackay, nobody is painting him as a Nazi; he’s a Nationalist. He’s clearly and on-record anti-semitic. He’s clearly transphobic.

        • Actually, Evan McMullin, in a tweet apparently admitting to spending $250,000 in opposition research to destroy Milo called him a “Nazi punk.” Plenty of others have called him a Nazi, though some soften it with “neo-Nazi” or Nazi sympathizer. So, simply not true that he’s not called a Nazi.

          I’m not going to attempt to defend all the crazy things Milo says, but he does bring up issues that are valid to discuss and also valid to joke about. (Like priests molesting boys.)

          I love Larry Wilmore and he was terrific on Maher’s show. But he wouldn’t have gotten a great chance to shine if he hadn’t been allowed to respond directly to Milo’s comments. Wilmore said something very important about Milo’s over the top comments about refuges and transgenders, “This is all what they said about blacks.” He made a terrific point about you can find extreme examples in any group of people. (That is, rapists or criminals or whatever.) That message is going to be heard more BECAUSE of Milo. It’s what needs to be said, not just don’t say anything bad about anyone.

          What we need is more debate and more discussion. To pretend that some of these issues (like transgenders in bathrooms) aren’t controversial is absurd. Progress won’t be made toward acceptance by just telling people to shut up (or worse, trying to destroy them with lies). I think Milo is very wrong about transgender issues (doubly wrong about lesbians) but it’s better to tear apart his arguments in public and civil forums. Focusing on character destruction and demanding conformity of ideas is driving true liberals away from the progressive movement.

          • I’m sorry, Mackay. What I meant was, nobody has to “paint” Milo as a “Nazi.” I’m not calling him a Nazi; he’s clearly a Nazi. By his own self-professed, on-record statements and views, he’s a Nazi. I mean, he’s arguably not a self-proclaimed Nazi, but at this point, his schtick is I wouldn’t put it past him. Dude likes any controversy-driven publicity he can get. Just because Nazis are trying to re-brand Nazi-ism as “alt-right” and “Breitbart readers” doesn’t mean that it’s no longer Nazi-ism.

            I’m not sure about “debate.” Discussion, perhaps. What we need more of is people who understand the issues driving the conversation, and people who don’t listening to it.

    • I find the politics of all this depressing, like most politics today. It’s very clear the main goal here is not to discuss protecting children or the age of consent, but tear down a popular gay conservative because he’s a danger to the establishment voting coalitions.

      This reminds me of people who get so upset when I identify a logical fallacy in their argument and then refuse to debate the point. (Why should I, when they are wrong on a fundamental “do not pass go” level?)

      In the case of Milo, his “policies” (as you called them) consist of transphobia, anti-semitism, and misogyny. His preferred form of rhetoric is inciting mobs. He likes hurting people.

      One does not have to debate evil. One merely has to identify it as such and let the argument stand there.

      • Well said, Nate.

        While you’re right that one does not have to debate evil, unfortunately politics has demonstrated that merely identifying it as such doesn’t matter too much. If it did, Trump’s campaign would have ended when he mocked Serge Kovaleski.

        This is why people are actively protesting Milo et al. Didn’t you not long ago note silence equals complacency, Nate?

      • It is reasonable to question whether passing laws to allow men (who clearly can’t pass for women) to use women’s rest rooms is a good idea. I happen to think Milo’s position is wrong, but I also think that there are much bigger issues for the gay rights movement to be fighting over. So I think a healthy debate on the subject is good. Simply labeling him “transphobic” isn’t helpful. The guy hangs out with drag queens, he dresses in drag, he’s clearly not transphobic. His policy on the subject may be wrong, but it’s worth debating.

        He is also not anti-semitic. He is a Jew by birth (his mother was Jewish) and I haven’t heard him say anything anti-semitic except the kind of clowning around about Jews being over represented in media that many Jews joke (particularly Jewish comedians. He’s a huge supporter of Israel, so no. Not anti-semetic.

        Misogyny, Milo wins on that front pretty solid. I suspect he actually likes women, but he’s said much I’ve found offensive in that regard. Labeling him a misogynist is reasonable, even if what he is saying is for humor. (Like it’s reasonable to label Andrew Dice Clay’s act as misogonist.) However, it is reasonable when he argues that the kind of political correct speech, safe spaces and trigger warnings that various Women’s Studies departments are promoting are in fact censorship and killing free speech. That is a fair topic to debate, even if he says something stupid about overweight women. And, in fact, when people try to stop him from speaking on campuses they prove his point that free speech is being limited.

        I don’t believe he tries to incite mobs. And I don’t think he likes hurting people any more than what he feels is necessary to make his political points funny and interesting. It’s certainly more than I would ever do, but I don’t think it’s his intention to hurt people. But, that being said, part of free speech is being allowed to hurt peoples feelings. He clearly makes a distinction between talk and action.

        I’m sorry, I’ve lived long enough to know that there was a time when liberals were allowed to debate conservatives and tell them they were wrong. And that during that time, it was easier to change minds. Now days, the argument that certain people simply must be attacked relentlessly for every thing they say, and should not be engaged in civil discourse is wrong. It’s bad politics and it’s bad for society.

        • Not anti-semitic?

          Bzzzz! Wrong:
          http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/

          I don’t believe he tries to incite mobs.

          Then you are being willfully blind. I had linked to examples when we last discussed Milo.

          Your continued refusal to educate yourself about Milo’s past actions demonstrates that you are not debating in good faith, so I am done discussing this with you.

          • You link to very over the top commentary that pulls one quote out of context. You’ve provided similar links. I’ve listened to hours of Milo’s speeches unedited (I subscribe to his podcast) and have read many of his in depth articles and feel I have a good sense of what he’s about. I’ve tried to track down as many crazy out of context quotes from the past as I have time to and usually find them much to do about nothing. I find him to be very much in the style of people like Howard Stern, George Carlin, Joan Rivers and Don Rickles who said very outrageous things, often about gays, Jews women and race.

            Nothing Milo has said about Jews, including the joke you link to above, is unusual compared to the kind of self-depreciating banter by Jewish comedians every week at the Comedy Store.

            My definition of anti-semitism isn’t someone who says anything offensive about Jews. And yes, I find it relevant if someone is of Jewish decent and pro-Israel. I give them more latitude on the subject. I also give them a lot more latitude if they are someone who clowns around a lot. I also give them more latitude if they are someone who, like Howard Stern (who I love), are known for deliberately pushing boundaries.

            Nor do I believe someone is promoting pedophilia by joking about priests molesting boys. Particularly if they were molested themselves.

            I’m not being blind just because I don’t see the world the way you do. I believe that real debate means people going back and forth and being free to say extreme things to make a point, or just get a laugh, but then being allowed to clarify their positions. I’m usually satisfied when Milo explains some of his more extreme positions.

            Even if I agreed with your characterization of Milo, which I don’t, my main point is that these extremely simplistic attacks aren’t working to silence him. They are simply making him more popular.

            A much larger concern for me is there is clearly an agenda behind the fact that Milo is targeted so strongly. It certainly would be fine to ignore him, or simply say he’s an idiot, or whatever. But it’s clear that there is coordination to message on specific talking points. The timing of the pedophilia charge is very deliberate. (The video has been out for years.) This tells me this is more political (from some people) than genuine outrage. I believe strongly that the reason he is being targeted is that Democrats are terrified of losing young gay voters who are flocking to him. He is correct in saying that he’s making it cool to be conservative among gays. That could destroy the Democratic coalition that elected Obama. He probably had at least a small part in helping Trump get elected and there are people who clearly want him destroyed before the next election.

            I hate politics. It’s dirty and ugly on both sides and I believe both sides lie and are corrupt. But I’m fascinated by media. Particularly how to use the internet to promote creative brands. (Which is something I hope to do myself.) I make my living talking and writing about media for business.

            What is fascinating to me about Milo is how he is using new media and despite huge efforts to silence him (starting with the Twitter ban) he is able to use new technology to get out his message anyway. His college tour wouldn’t be half as successful if he wasn’t able to constantly film it, blog about it, and upload the video. Some of the videos of him taking to protestors are hilarious. (One where he sweetly brings a bottle of water to a single lonely protestor. This before the violent protests came out.)

            You might find Milo offensive, but I find him more often than not funny and provocative. He is unquestionably a genius at using new media to promote himself with new technology.

        • ““They may have some prejudice about Jews,” he added. “Like the Jews run everything. Well we do. The Jews run all the banks. Well we do. The Jews run the media. Well we do. You know they’re right about all that stuff.””

          That’s what he’s said about Jews. Clearly, if casually, anti-Semitic. And maybe that distinction is important; he’s probably never advocated for death to all Jews, but just a statement like that gets into the overall conversation. It’s a sort of provocation, and worse, it could be used to corroborate the motivations of White Nationalists who think that way and use those ideas as motivation for policy and violence.

          “It is reasonable to question whether passing laws to allow men (who clearly can’t pass for women) to use women’s rest rooms is a good idea. I happen to think Milo’s position is wrong, but I also think that there are much bigger issues for the gay rights movement to be fighting over. So I think a healthy debate on the subject is good. Simply labeling him “transphobic” isn’t helpful. The guy hangs out with drag queens, he dresses in drag, he’s clearly not transphobic. His policy on the subject may be wrong, but it’s worth debating.”

          You probably don’t realize how transphobic you’re being with your “who clearly can’t pass as women” parenthetical, do you? Because you are. Casually. Probably ignorantly in that you don’t even realize it. Just as Milo is transphobic when he calls transgender women “men who are confused about their gender identity.” And the whole “he hangs out with drag queens, dresses in drag” — he’s also said that gay rights have made us dumber and people should go back in the closet, which makes him homophobic despite that I’m pretty sure he identifies as homosexual.

          I see below you say “My definition of anti-Semitism isn’t” (though I don’t see you noting what it *is*), but I think this is the wrong way to approach the discussion; it doesn’t matter what *your* definition of anti-Semitism is. What matters is why the statements are called anti-Semitic (or transphobic, or homophobic, or whatever). The discussion shouldn’t be “Well I didn’t mean it to be” or “Well I didn’t think it is.” Better to explore the idea more, discuss why it was anti-Semitic, learn more.

          This is, by the way, why the idea of sensitivity readers could be good.

          • “You probably don’t realize how transphobic you’re being with your “who clearly can’t pass as women” parenthetical, do you? Because you are. Casually. Probably ignorantly in that you don’t even realize it.”

            Actually, I’ve very aware that such a statement might be quickly labeled transphobic. And, in fact, that a deliberate goal of much of the bullying outrage about supposed transphobia is to make it impossible to make such a simple and true statement.

            I’ll dash over issues of my own sexuality and gender identity and those of my close friends, but this is a subject I know a lot about.

            No one is currently inspecting ID cards to see the sex who goes into which bathroom. Any transgender person who can “pass” clearly can walk into any women’s bathroom with no problem. No one is going to question it. (Transgender female to male persons rarely have as much problem passing. Changing clothes and hairstyle is usually enough.)

            Now, it is very, very painful for those transgender people who can not pass as female in society (and who want to). It’s a huge issue for them. And I have huge sympathy for them. I frankly believe they are right on this issue of bathrooms. But it’s going to take a huge educational campaign to move the larger body politic to understand their side.

            The bathroom issue is mainly about transgenders who can’t pass (or simply choose not to make an effort to pass). Pretending that that isn’t what this is about doesn’t help. What they are ultimately asking for is acceptance (OF THEIR APPEARANCE), and that isn’t going to come by trying to force laws down the throats of people in conservative states. There is simply going to be a backlash. (SEE TRUMP ELECTED PRESIDENT.)

            By not admitting this is about appearance, for fear of offending transgenders sensitive about their looks (or even combative about their looks) forces the debate into absurd issues about what is between people’s legs. Conservatives, trying to show some sympathy on the issue, try to make exceptions for those individuals who have had reassignment surgery. But this is a stupid and wrong compromise proposal. A 6’ 10” inch genetically born male is not going to suddenly be welcomed into women’s bathrooms because he has his penis cut off and breast implants if he still looks like a big dude. Making the issue about who has or doesn’t have a penis (or money for hormones and facial hair removal) doesn’t help. In fact, it could really hurt a lot of people if in some states they insist on reassignment surgery and individuals feel pressure to get surgery they don’t want in order to “fit in” and feel accepted. Many regret reassignment surgery (though many love it).

            So the debate absolutely needs to be about accepting people who look much different than traditional views of male and female. And I don’t see society becoming more open minded if we can’t talk about that elephant in the room.

            You’re basically talking about people being completely open minded about gender, and that’s a sea change culturally. It’s going to take debate.

            Early on in the gay rights movement, there was a very political decision by many leaders to try to marginalize the issue of bisexuality to promote the idea that people were “born” gay and couldn’t change. I believe that’s true, but there are probably many more people who are bisexual and do make choices. However, politically the decision to focus on those where were “born gay” probably worked and helped move the public into more acceptance. Likewise, during the original political movement to pass gay marriage, very little was said about transgenders (perhaps for fear the compromise would be that gays could only get married if one took on a female role). As a result, the transgender movement was kind of thrown under the bus. Gay marriage politics focused on sweet older couples who looked “normal” not on blue haired transgenders who looked different.

            With the success of gay marriage, I think there is a desire (justified) by many in the gay community try to tackle some of these transgender issues. And once again, they are focusing on individuals who are “born that way.” Current orthodoxy insists that their are certain people who are “born women” in men’s bodies and visa versa and have no ability to change their “gender.” That might be true, but there are also men who just like to dress up in women’s clothes as a form of self-expression, and visa versa. Those people might shift “genders” over the years. What those people want is the ability to express themselves without judgement. That’s going to be a hard road.

            There are some who believe the easier path is to claim that this is all about people who have no “choice” who are “trapped” in the wrong body. That is simply a lie. Yes, there are some people who feel they have no choice and identify strongly in a particular gender. But those people are probably in the minority. And even if they aren’t, those people who simply want freedom to dress and act the way they want aren’t going to be satisfied with all sorts of new rules about what one has to do to get into the women’s rest room. (Cut off your penis, wear a dress, high heels.)

            America is still a very puritanical society. Gay marriage wouldn’t have passed if it had simply been sold as, you should be able to have sex with however you want, no judgements. It was framed as a conservative idea, protecting old couples in retirement, gay couples with children who need legal parents, etc.

            The huge backlash about bathrooms (which, by the way, are what ultimately killed the ERA) is that some of the real issues, about allowing people free sexual expression and not judging people, were skipped over. They weren’t really debated. And I don’t believe it’s going to help the gay rights movement to continue to refuse to be honest about all the complexities of sexuality, since what they ultimately fighting for is acceptance of all of them.

            Not helping all this is feminist exaggeration of rape statics at college campuses, something Milo talks about frequently. If, as many feminists claim, one out of four women are being raped at colleges by men, how can this not be an issue in regard to who is allowed into bathrooms? You can’t not talk about it.

            My position is that, if the bathroom thing is about rape concerns, well, why should little boys be more in danger of being raped by perverts than little girls? And why would rapists or perverts care about bathroom laws? But you can’t just say this can’t be discussed because you might offend someone.

            So, in closing, I don’t care if you think I’m transphobic or homophobic or homoerotic. If you really want change in society you have to be willing to discuss it, not try to bully it upon people by controlling debate or throwing around labels.

            I don’t agree with Milo on the subject of transgenders but I would rather see him debated in open forums because he is at least raising real the real concerns that the other side has. Which is that this is all about appearance and not gender.

            I try to avoid using the “T” word because it is so charged with partisan politics it seems to kill any discussion. But, I’ll tell you, I believe a 6’ 10” black transgender male-to-female steel worker, who still had his penis but wore a dress, might have beaten Trump in the general election if he had the right opinions about economic issues of bringing back jobs along with a plea for tolerance. I think society is ready for something like that.

            But… he would have had to have a great sense of humor about himself, admit that he makes people scared in the bathroom, have outrageous but insightful comments about every issue, and be willing to take on the establishment and political correctness. That is, he would have had to be a lot more like Milo than Hillary.

          • “Actually, I’ve very aware that such a statement might be quickly labeled transphobic.” [sic]

            Using the passive voice doesn’t really advance you. There’s a difference between labeling your statement as transphobic and identifying it as such. I did the latter. The nuance is that labeling it could be incorrect; maybe I just saw the thought and incorrectly slapped a label on it. Isn’t that just like bullies?

            But identifying it: I see its inherent transphobia. It is a transphobic statement. It’s labeled as such because it is such.

            I don’t think you mean to be transphobic, Mackay. I don’t *think* you’re homophobic, Mackay.

            You’re making transphobic and homophobic statements.

            All anyone can do is read over the statements you’re making and try to see them as they are. Transphobic and casually anti-Semitic and trying rreeaallllyy hard to pass as neither.

  10. Wrong Nate. NOthing in the least anti-semitic. Which is made even more clear by the context, particularly his Jewish descent. I too heard of Milo only relatively recently. Yes, he loves the publicity and he says some outrageous things to get it. He knows that there will always be plenty of “progressives” thin-skinned enough to explode in moral outrage. His book is now indeed going to be a best seller.

    The point that so many of his critics seem to be missing is the value of the role he performs. He and others are the reason why important issues are being discussed, even in the mainstream media, which only a short time ago were taboo. As others have pointed out, this type of suppression of free speech does not destroy opposing viewpoints. Preventing their expression does not win either hearts nor minds. They simply grow in the darkness and the pressure builds until they explode. So we have Brexit, and Trump etc. And we have Milo.

    As Hillary and others have found to their surprise, it is no longer enough to label someone a bigot or a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe or the like. There are examples of all of these on both sides.

    So quit with the labels. Develop a sense of humour and irony and stop the outrage, confected or otherwise. Milo raises many previous taboo issues, albeit often in an outrageous manner. These issues now need to be discussed and debated, not avoided by labelling the person expressing them. I find your criticism of Mackey ironic considering your own failure to engage in discussion of the real issues. Even accepting that all you say about Milo is correct, which it is not, this does not mean that all of the opinions he expresses should be dismissed or suppressed. If you have the right of the issues you will win those capable of being convinced not by abusive labelling but by rational argument.

  11. Nate’s comments show exactly what is wrong with the Politically Correct Self-Righteous Left these days. The bar is set laughably low for accusations of transphobia, anti-semitism, and who knows what else.

    Nate’s accusations against Milo are entirely Stalinist. The mentality is “I don’t like what you have to say so I will now defame you”. The only thing Nate forgot was “Enemy of the People”

    • Yes, all someone has to do is say “the Jews control the media” in an interview to get labeled anti-semitic, and you only have to use “tranny” as a slur to be labeled transphobic.

      Unfair!

      • Meanwhile, it’s okay to give billions of dollars to countries that vow to destroy all the Jews in Israel and to encourage last minute UN resolutions condemning it, as well as accepting campaign contributions from countries that won’t allow Israel Jews visas (ever). Just make sure you never say anything about Jews in the media and you’re fine assisting those who want to kill them.

        Of course, if your daughter marries a Jew, and you’re grandchildren are raised Jewish, you’re can still be anti-semitic if the media doesn’t think you condemned anti-semitism enough. (Or just doesn’t like your politics.)

    • “The mentality is “I don’t like what you have to say so I will now defame you”.”

      This is the root of the unwillingness to engage issue. A certain segment of our population was taught that they could shut down opposing views simply by slapping a pejorative label on the person advocating them. No need to defend or debate your position when you can preemptively delegitimize your opponent with ad hominen attacks. Very common amongst people whose opinions or views are based on emotion rather than intellect, reason and facts. Is it 100% their fault, unfortunately no. They were raised in a culture that taught them this is how you get what you want in life. That this is how you oppress others to ensure your world view is not questioned and challenged. They were raised in an environment without a fundamental understanding of or respect for the First and most important Amendment. They reject the premise that the rights granted in the First Amendment are indivisible. They prefer to think of it as an à la carte menu option where they can pick and choose which people are entitled to which rights based on their own self interests at any given time. The reality is that in America everyone who benefits from the protections of it must pay the same non-negotiable, non-refundable price of tolerance and the acceptance of “free trade of ideas” (<-semi-quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes here) no matter how offensive, abhorrent, loathsome, bigoted or hateful you believe them to be. Suppression will never change minds or win hearts, only through free and open expression, dialogue, debate and potential refutation does society transform and allow progress be made. If you want to know what suppression accomplishes, take a good long look around America today and the last presidential election cycle. Religious, race and gender conflict in America is worse today than it was 30 years ago. That is in no small part due to the extreme left PC movement that has oppressed the free expression of Americans for the last 10-20 years and is supported by reports from Freedom House that document the downturn in free speech and freedom of the press in the US over the last 10-20 years. When America is less free as a society in 2017 than it was in 1987 we have a big problem.

      The idiocy of elevating offensive words to the level of physical harm creates a false equivalency that actually diminishes victims of real crimes and undermines the goal of fostering tolerance for diversity.

      • This is the root of the unwillingness to engage issue. A certain segment of our population was taught that they could shut down opposing views simply by slapping a pejorative label on the person advocating them. No need to defend or debate your position when you can preemptively delegitimize your opponent with ad hominen attacks.

        You seem to be under the impression that I am obligated to discuss the points you raise. I assure you that is not correct. I can also refuse to accept the premise by pointing out the fundamental flaws in your arguments.

        I can reject _an_ your argument because of its racist, sexist, or illogical basis. For example, right here you just introduced a straw man argument when you claimed to understand my motives. You set up the straw man so that you could knock it down, and in an argument, when in fact it is irrelevant to the discussion.

        Let me give you another example. Earlier in this thread Mackay wrote something about sending millions to countries dedicated to destroying Israel. I had planned to ignore it, but since we are discussing fallacies, that was an example of a red herring argument (and so as the straw man argument). She raised a point hich was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

        And oh yes, your comments, and many of Mackay’s comments, also fall under the category of “proof by verbosity”. You’re trying to win by boring your competition to death.

        Unfortunately, that is not working here because I know how to look shit up. But who knows, you may have better luck elsewhere.

        • LOL, gee that was pretty darn easy. I don’t think anyone has ever stepped up to prove one of my arguments as fast as you just did. Let’s see if I got them all, “racist, sexist, illogical, straw man, red herring, verbose, boring” forgive me if I missed any of the name calling, the labels you tossed out, to avoid(deflect) presenting any actual factual rebuttal of my argument.

          So in summary, your response to my argument that many people only know how to respond to opposing ideas (or fall back on it as a crutch) by attacking the person presenting the idea with pejorative labels and name calling is to….toss back pejorative labels and tell me I’m boring people to death. Bloody brilliant mate. Getting screen caps of this for work, priceless. 😀

  12. It is a waste of time to debate Milo Yippity-yappity’s views on anything because none of his views or positions contain the least bit of authenticity. He’s not a conservative or libertarian. He’s just a phony. He’s a flame thrower who says things he knows will rile up liberals, generate controversy and get coverge in the press.

    • reminds me of someone.

      a few more years and milo could be in the white house then…

    • A devestating intellectual argument! Why are you so fearful of discussing the issues he raises? Did you even read any of the preceding posts? What the videos Nate linked to?

  13. Pete: “It is a waste of time to debate Milo Yippity-yappity’s views on anything because none of his views or positions contain the least bit of authenticity. He’s not a conservative or libertarian. He’s just a phony. He’s a flame thrower who says things he knows will rile up liberals, generate controversy and get coverge in the press.”

    Exactly! Milo irritated me not because of his positions, but because of his shtick. He reminds me of Ann Coulter and Sarah Silverman. I agree with Sarah’s politics and I disagree with Ann’s, but I can’t stand either of them as all they do is say outrageous things as a way of getting attention.

    Of course, those tactics just worked in a presidential election, so what do I know?

  14. “You’re making transphobic and homophobic statements.” Double double good good social justice. I’ll make sure all my language conforms in the future and stop caring about anything like winning elections, passing laws, fighting injustice, stopping violence, etc. If we good good speech life double good no problems.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


%d bloggers like this: