A nod to the free speech issue on college campuses
Huh. It turns out that it is possible for Milo Yiannopoulos to say something that will motivate conservatives to de-platform him. Nothing to do with the public humiliation and bullying of women, of course, oh god no, that could never possibly be a reason to tell him to fuck right off.
Milo Yiannopoulos lost his keynote speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference after tapes surfaced of the right wing provocateur and senior Breitbart editor advocating for sexual relationships between “younger boys and older men.”
“Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation,” said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the group which sponsors CPAC, in a statement Monday afternoon. The group called Yiannopoulos to “further address these disturbing comments,” but defended its original decision to invite him as a nod to “the free speech issue on college campuses.”
Ah yes, yes indeed – because when it’s a matter of bullying women off social media, that’s free speech, and the consequences to women are just way too trivial to notice. But then when it’s revealed that yes he really is a shit who does bad things to male people too – then the “nod to the free speech issue on college campuses” is no longer worth nodding.
The statement went on to declare that CPAC does not endorse “everything a speaker says or does.”
But it does make judgments about which things a speaker says and does constitute a reason to rescind an invitation. Relentless systematic harassment of women, no; advocacy of child sexual abuse, yes.
Some prominent conservatives seemed to suggest that CPAC had provoked the maelstrom by tying itself to such a controversial figure.
“The Milo Test,” wrote Charlie Sykes, a conservative former radio host who has written critically of the Republican Party since the rise of Trump. “Anti-Semitism, ok. Racism, ok. Alt Right, ok. Advocacy of pedophilia? Is THAT the bridge too far?”
Notice he doesn’t even mention the misogyny and harassment.
That would be because it’s “OK!“
I just read Yiannopoulos defence. He totally did the ‘look over there’ thing. He also fudged the fact that he actually draws the line of acceptable somewhere between the legal age of consent and puberty…
Heeheehee! Sorry, I just can’t stop giggling. I know it’s Grossly Wrong and Unfair to make fun of people’s names, but I can’t help translating “Matt Schlapp” into “Faint Limp” which seems to resonate pretty well with Milo and Broadbeard and their respective agendas. Again sorry, carry on with the programme.
I wonder if it is an unfair depiction of the conservative mindset to postulate that they think pedophilia is both immoral and gross, so grounds for exclusion. On the other hand, misogyny and harassment of women is just the way everyone thinks, but most are savvy enough to keep it quiet unless they are in the locker room (or on the internet).
‘advocacy of child sexual abuse, yes.’
Advocacy of MALE child sexual abuse. It’s been pointed out that it’s unlikely he’d have been de-platformed for talking about having sex with girls the same age (didn’t at least one prominent evangelical advocate for that at some point?).
All true and highly frustrating. Our societies can’t seem to learn a thing from terrible example after terrible example. I’m guessing that it was that interview with Bill Maher that brought him to the attention of whoever managed to finally make CPAC and others nervous and that kind of sucks too, because Maher was somehow even more of a knobhead than usual in that interview. If he’d taken Yiannopoulos apart for his misogyny and harassment I’d (grudgingly) give him credit, but he practically simpered
But on the other hand Yiannopoulos’ tears are totally delicious and I hope it ends very badly indeed for him.
Oh god, the old “ephebephilia isn’t child abuse” argument trotted out again because, yes, the exact age of consent is arbitrary – to a degree. It generally tends to somewhere in the mid to 3/4 teens with a few outliers above and below. And because there isn’t a physical thing we can point to and say, “There! That is where the age of sexual responsibility magically begins!” then tote obvs we shouldn’t be making laws forbidding sexual encounters between grown-ass adults and young teens because then we have to prosecute and 18 year old for sleeping with his girlfriend at the age of 17 and 364 days. </sarcasm
Milo is an idiot. It's terrifying how he has become imbedded in otherwise "respectable" right politics. Him and Steve Bannon.
Well, steamshovelmama, there are a lot of other laws that are equally arbitrary, such as how much marijuana you can have on your person before you get the higher penalties for “dealing”, and so forth. So this is the argument I see for that (which I agree is a bad argument): then why are all these law and order people coming down so hard on the idea of following the law, if they think it is so good to break it in this case? Doesn’t that undermine their entire “law and order” shtick?
Throw the book at a young person of color who smoked a joint – not arbitrary, because it’s the law and we believe breaking the law is bad and should receive maximum punishment.
Have non-consensual sex with woman, consensual or non-consensual sex with girl or boy child below the age of consent: not a bad thing, because the law is arbitrary and draws lines. What is the line between consent and non-consent? Really? I draw it here, so it’s arbitrary that you draw it there. What is the line between child and adult? Really? No, this other state says here, and it’s arbitrary, so therefore bad.
Maybe we should make the age of consent the age at which their brain becomes fully developed. They are free to have consensual sex with other minors, but any “adult” who seeks to use them for pleasure is then guilty of a crime. But that would still be arbitrary, because we are drawing a line almost certainly on birth date, and there is no magical single day where a human brain will stop growing and developing, but rather a process of growth over time, and people will get around the age of 25 and that process will be finished. But should we use their 25th birthday? Or are they okay at 24 and 9 months?
No matter where we draw the line, there will be people eager to cross it, just to show they can, and then argue that it is a bad line (bad line, bad! Go to time out). And there will be news media ready to promote them and put them in the spotlight because ratings.
@Iknklast
Exactly. You can take that argument and apply it to so many laws we have that have to draw a line affecting a process. They seem to ignore the fact that just because a law may be hard to apply in a particular case (eg the 18 year old with a 17 year old partner) that is an argument for a sensible, compassionate and understanding law enforcement/judiciary rather than having no law at all.
They were willing to allow an out gay man to speak. So long as he joined them in their misogyny, racism, anc contempt for truth and reason.
So strange, when previous Republicans have had their careers crash in flames just for being outed, or caught in adultery. There is something desperate about their infinitely flexible standards of outrage. By 2018 they’ll have Jeffrey Epstein as a keynote speaker.