Milo Yiannopoulos Destroyed by Conservatives

[Mister Emu]

Whether or not I like what someone is saying, it is a somewhat chilling thing watch someone be on the wrong end of a coordinated attack on their identity and reputation funded without consideration for cost by the super wealthy.

He just seems like one of a countless numbers of bloggers out there, so I just can't understand why he's important enough to pay attention to.

It isn't him specifically; what is important is the energy and expense put into the effort to ensure he would be shut up. Violence was tried and it didn't work, and now this. It is going to be extremely difficult, if possible at all, to salvage his reputation. I don't particularly believe that he supports or accepts pedophilia; I've seen him go on legal limbs to publicly out pedophiles before.

Milo's fame should never have existed. The manner in which he was dealt with ensures that another one will appear.

 

[ShivaFan]

I feel so bad for Milo. I am not a homosexual, but he has a special charm and I love him. I frequent right-wing forums, and communities, etc, and it is a simple fact that many homosexuals and those who lean towards transvestite as well as those who like "smart clothes", "uniforms" that are "flashy" - not even sure what to call these type of homosexuals but they are not too far removed from transvestites - are valued members of the right-wing in percentages much higher than percentages of homosexuals in general society. While we do not know in fact what is the real percentages of homosexuals in general society - my observation is that it is higher than thought - I can estimate that among the right-wing and Nationalists about 20% (1 out of 5) are homosexual or leaning transvestite.

It is true, in the 1800s among the right-wing in the Western World, you did not say you were a homo. But folks knew, just "don't say too much".

By the 1930's there were many homos among the leadership positions of the right and far right. Other leaders not homo knew they were, actually they didn't care as only loyalty to the "fellow soldiers" of the cause or mass movement was that mattered, however sometimes homos in top leadership gathered such strong loyal comrades that other leaders would get jealous and then purge or even kill them.

Yet, they were always still there. By the 50s, while alcohol became increasingly a problem among some non-homo leaders, drug use was the problem among some homo leaders, in particular cocaine and other stimulants. Because homosexual drug addicts in the right-wing trended towards stimulants verse opiates, they could stay awake and "keep going" even during arduous times and in one way were admired. More so than the drunks among the non-homo right-wing. Those few who tended to use opiates were typically killer types but then killed themselves in the end.

While homos were and are common among the right-wing and Nationalists, as well among Libertarians, it has always been and is less so among conservatives. Among conservatives, the numbers of homos and lean tran were and are less in percentages than the general population, but they exist there too. Just not in high numbers. But by the 1980s they were accepted among conservatives just as long as you shutup about it. Several unnamed conservative icons were homo even if they were not out of the closet. I do not think there are any homos among neo-cons who are hated by everyone else. But neo-cons are on the verge of extinction.

But by the 1990s, homos and lean trans were fully open and really no one cared, they can be open but just don't be *****y with other non-homo leadership. However, fully tran dress was not ok, but wearing pretty face is now ok.

So Milo is messed up because he was raped when he was a kid. He also likes young boys but hates pediophiles. Young boys means 16 to 20, but the term "boys" can mean almost anyone in the lingo used. He didn't mean what some say he meant. Now he quit Breitbart and some say it was a "business decision". Then his book is cut.

So I went to the right-wing forums to check out the reaction among reactionaries and the right and the Nationalists and Trumpsters and conservatives (neo-cons are not in these type of sites, they are hated and whipped).

And I was not surprised at what I found.

The large majority were on Milo's side, and feel sad and mad about his book getting cut and they do not like the "business decision". They do not want to spend time talking about who is homo or not, but they also do not care if Milo is messed up, nor do they care that he is a homo, they love him and want him to not leave, and if some publisher is smart enough to publish his book, Milo is going to have a best seller for sure because he has a large following among the right-wing, the Nationalists and Trumpsters.

Long live Milo. Hail Milo, we of the right still love you as one of the Lieutenants. Carry on, no one really cares about that thing you said that got you in trouble. Please carry on and do not be sad, please, please do not blame yourself or hurt yourself. If you happen to read this Milo - We of the right love you Milo.

 

[Laika]

Milo was the victim of child abuse. I don't know whether to be angry or sad that a possible consequence or coping mechanism of childabuse was used for profit. Something is really wrong with the world when this slips through without someone asking "why"?

 

[Notanumber]

As he says, is anyone safe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As he says, is anyone safe?

Are you really naive enough to believe that isn't a part of politics? I don't know if this happened to Milo or not, but smear campaigns, false acquisitions, misquotes, and other methods of organized character discrediting and removal from positions. I think Milo though did ride a wave he caught as long as he could. This day of age, with democratic/republic states being popularity contests and today's unparalleled and unprecedented global communication methods, we may see more people like him in a world where everyone can find a group to shout in front of and be accepted.
He was assessed to be a liability, and things fell apart for him.
But, I do agree with allegations that he supports pedophilia do appear to be false, though considering the concept of consent to be oppressive is nevertheless repulsive, as consent is a requirement for sexual freedom. And also his argument that pedophilia does not include a "sexually mature 13 year old" because sexually matured 13 year olds do not exist, and legally they are protected because psychologically they are generally very inexperienced with the world, in a vulnerable position because of this, but they also have developing bodies and interests they are are starting to become curious about.

 

[Notanumber]

Are you really naive enough to believe that isn't a part of politics? I don't know if this happened to Milo or not, but smear campaigns, false acquisitions, misquotes, and other methods of organized character discrediting and removal from positions. I think Milo though did ride a wave he caught as long as he could. This day of age, with democratic/republic states being popularity contests and today's unparalleled and unprecedented global communication methods, we may see more people like him in a world where everyone can find a group to shout in front of and be accepted.
He was assessed to be a liability, and things fell apart for him.
But, I do agree with allegations that he supports pedophilia do appear to be false, though considering the concept of consent to be oppressive is nevertheless repulsive, as consent is a requirement for sexual freedom. And also his argument that pedophilia does not include a "sexually mature 13 year old" because sexually matured 13 year olds do not exist, and legally they are protected because psychologically they are generally very inexperienced with the world, in a vulnerable position because of this, but they also have developing bodies and interests they are are starting to become curious about.

He admits that he made mistakes and has apologised for them.

No one could be as controversial as he has been without dropping a few clangers, but he doesn’t deserve to be placed in the same category as the likes of Hillary Clinton for example.

Unless it is proven that he has committed a crime I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

At this time, we need as many free speech warriors as we can get.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but he doesn’t deserve to be placed in the same category as the likes of Hillary Clinton for example.

From what I have researched, you are the only one who has done that.

Unless it is proven that he has committed a crime I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Even NPR stated the video with the alleged allegations was edited and taken out of context.

At this time, we need as many free speech warriors as we can get.

Spewing hate-laced rhetoric does not make one a "warrior" for free speech. George Carlin is a primary reason as to why the FCC has the obscenity rules they have today, and he did it without being a douche bag. When you are arrested without even giving a hate speech and flip them the bird and never apologize, you are a warrior for free speech.

 

[Notanumber]

Unlike HC, so far he hasn’t been accused of having blood on his hands, but give his critics enough time.

We will have to see what happens, but I won’t be casting the first stone.

 

[Yerda]

Milo isn't finished. He has his own audience and platform. I hope he grows up sometime soon though.

 

[Notanumber]

Is she right?

Should she be a teacher?

Who decides who is a fascist?

 

[Ultimatum]

And before anyone argues that what is happening to him is a violation of freedom of speech: he's still free to espouse his views, but he's not entitled to do so at a specific conference that doesn't want him, in a book that a company doesn't want to publish (which is its prerogative), or on a private website that doesn't want him to do so. Private institutions and outlets have the right to determine what they want to publish, allow to be spoken, etc., in their private facilities and outlets. He can go peddle his views elsewhere.
.

In very much the same way as defiance to serve gays at a private establishment.

 

[icehorse]

Should she be a teacher?

Who decides who is a fascist?

Well she doesn't understand the Constitution, not sure if that disqualifies her as a teacher or not?

Agreed, "who decides" is the question of the day, and she doesn't have an answer.

Finally, she seems under-informed and dishonest in the interview, e.g. it seems to me she was long on misrepresenting her opponents.

Specifically, Milo is a nasty guy, but he doesn't advocate what she says he does.

 

[crossfire]

Is she right?

Should she be a teacher?

Who decides who is a fascist?

*facepalm*

She's doing exactly what she accuses her targets of doing.