Apparently Milo Y. is getting run out on a rail. I assume you know the details from other sites.
The thing about that guy is, he's got some real guts. That's what lets him stand up, as he did after the Pulse shooting, and talk about radical Islam in a way that would make him personally a target for violent jihad.
A guy like that has merited the right to an opinion, even if it's one I regard as entirely wrong. For a long time, he's been put forward by the Right for the very quality of spouting offensive opinions to Leftists. Guess he found one that makes the Right want a safe space.
I think we could survive a debate on the question, personally. For one thing, there's plenty to draw on in the Greek tradition -- start with the Symposium. It's not necessary to run and hide from the idea.
For another thing, it's an opinion that turns on an issue that the Right really ought to challenge, which is the currently-accepted orthodoxy that sexuality is set permanently by biology.
That aside, I'd let him speak just because he's proven he's got guts. I can hear and entertain an opinion I don't agree with, if the person bringing it forward is someone who's worth taking seriously. Not everyone is. Someone who's manifestly willing to die for what he believes, however, presumptively is until proven otherwise.
Jihadist suicide bombers are willing to die for their beliefs. Not sure I'm very interested in hearing them speak, though. Don't think that's sufficient qualification in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteAlso, defending someone's right to speak is one thing- having them speak while standing under my banner is another. CPAC isn't a public institution.
Couple things, one is an aside. It's interesting that Google won't allow the linked article to be accessed directly. However, if the URL is copied into a browser address field (at least with Firefox), the linked-to article appears just fine.
ReplyDeleteThe more important thing is this. While the Fox Business News article didn't mention it, Fox News' cable news programming has just cited Yiannopoulos as saying he's appalled by pedophilia, and the claimed remark of his that indicates otherwise is either the result of "selective editing" or his own sloppy (careless? I don't remember which) speech.
If that's the case, I don't see Breitbart firing him; that allegation would seem like another example of fake news.
Like another recent example where the NLMSM is saying that Trump tweeted that the news media are the enemy of the people. That's not just fake news, it's an outright lie.
Eric Hines
Douglas:
ReplyDeleteThat'd be a finer point if the Right hadn't just been lambasting universities across the nation for making the same argument. "Oh, of course he has freedom of speech -- just not here, on our turf. We wouldn't want to be seen as giving him a platform."
His utility in advancing that argument is the whole reason he was invited to CPAC in the first place.
As for suicide bombers, I absolutely am willing to take them seriously and give their side a fair hearing. You'd be a very poor tactician if you didn't pay close attention to what they think. The willingness to hear alternative opinions extends especially to mortal foes, in my opinion.
Thus the point about public institution as opposed to private advocacy group.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in 'know your enemy', but the average suicide bomber has little new to offer I think. I could be wrong.
Eric- I watched the relevant segment of the video last night as my wife was watching it. He seemed pretty clear on the point. He also seemed to me to be echoing many activist 'pink' lefitsts who for a rather ling time have advocated loosening of sexual boundaries and ages of consent. 'Grooming' and man/boy relationships have long been common and accepted in gay circles. I sense that these arguments are largely rationalization.
On the substance of the accusations: I've read bits and pieces on this issue including the transcript of some part of one of the discussions and Mr. Yiannopoulos' push-back (via Instapundit). Based on that (and nothing else), my general sense is that he was not advocating for pedophilia or for sexual relations between grown men and 13-year-old boys but YMMV.
ReplyDeleteOn the process, I think Ace says it best:
The way this works is that the Outrage Mob gins up its hatred quickly, giving no one a chance to actually think slowly and carefully about these things -- and they should be thought slowly and carefully about, because what's being engineered here is possibly an irrevocable negative hit on someone -- and then people feel pressure to react instantly precisely the way the mob wants because God Forbid we stand up to the mob and say, "Stop your baying, and give adult men and women of rational mind and good spirit a chance to actually think," then maybe they'll turn on us next.
As far as I can tell, this issue came up at a PJ Media "laundry list" piece on Saturday. Within 48 hours, Mr. Yiannopoulos has gone from being the hottest ticket in town to being the equivalent of some guy who lives under an overpass drinking Mad Dog 20/20 and flashing passers-by. Forty-eight hours. Pretty impressive.
echoing many activist 'pink' lefitsts who for a rather ling time have advocated loosening of sexual boundaries and ages of consent
ReplyDeleteYes. As I read it, he dislikes pedophilia, but is just fine with ephebopilia.
currently-accepted orthodoxy that sexuality is set permanently by biology.
Actually, that's the definition which was accepted for ~5,000 or so years. The NEW orthodoxy is that there is no permanent sexuality whatever, no matter biology. This is what we call "trying to fool Mother Nature." It will not end well.
BTW, that NEW orthodoxy began with The Pill; it neutered the female. Lambeth made that mainstream, and in effect, 'blessed' sterile sexual relations. Scalia's crack about 'marrying your pet dog' (whatever) is perfectly in accord with the logic here.
Actually, that's the definition which was accepted for ~5,000 or so years. The NEW orthodoxy is that there is no permanent sexuality whatever, no matter biology.
ReplyDeleteOh, no, that's sex. Sex is supposed to be completely mutable according to human will. You might be in a male body, but you can be whatever you feel called to be - and you can change!
But sexuality, well, that's another story. If you're born gay, then you're born that way and nobody can change you and nobody should try. Period. End of story. By the same token (and this is why it's relevant here), there's no reason to worry about gays 'converting' young boys through activities we might once have called things like "molestation." No, sexuality is supposed to be set, and a gay was born gay and was always going to be gay and will continue on as gay no matter what.
It's really interesting that the thing we can prove to be genetic -- sex -- is supposed to be mutable; whereas the behavior pattern that no one has yet shown to have a clear biological determinant is supposed to be permanently set.
Elise:
ReplyDelete... God Forbid we stand up to the mob and say, "Stop your baying, and give adult men and women of rational mind and good spirit a chance to actually think," then maybe they'll turn on us next.
Yes, well, that is what I think, mobs be damned.
Douglas, the videos I've seen since strike me similarly to Elise's interpretation of what she's seen: Yiannopoulos quibbling over the age of consent and the relationship between that and sexual congress. That's got nothing to do with advocating pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I'm more prepared to take him at his word than I am to take the NLMSM's claims of his word.
Eric Hines
Sorry, at first there was no specificity here about what he's being accused of. I mostly heard of it via twitter and Jake Tapper's outrage at it. He was clear it wasn't about pedophilia, but age of consent, and admonished anyone quibbling about semantics (from a 'journalist' no less!).
ReplyDeleteNo, he did not advocate pedophilia, but yes he was clear he was not one to believe that age of consent is a rational demarcation, but rather an arbitrary one. Grim's calling out of their inconsistency is exactly correct.
Grim's calling out of their inconsistency is exactly correct.
ReplyDeleteGrim's more generous than I. Words are these "journalists'" stock in trade; they know exactly what they're saying. There's no inconsistency in what they're doing; they're lying, plain and simple.
Eric Hines
That view is common among gay men, though there has been enough political cleverness to keep that under wraps. I agree it is ephebophilia, not pedophilia, that he is asking for discussion on, but the distinction seems to become obscured very quickly once the discussion is opened. There is indeed a lot of rationalisation going on. Once the seal is broken it gets ugly fast. (Working with sexual offenders was a subspecialty of mine in the 80's and 90's.)
ReplyDeleteThere is also the issue of not what he says, but how it can be made to look, that is in play here. It will be interesting if he doubles down, because it might bring into the open what people really think. Legislation lowering the age of consent to 14 come moderately close to passing in the Netherlands, and even 12 has been discussed there.
I haven't seen the videos, but 48 hours isn't enough time to have much clarity here. I strongly disagree with Milo about some things, but he fights, and it would be a blow for the left if he is taken out. For now, I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt. I'll give time for more evidence to come out and for clear thought about it before deciding.
ReplyDeleteGrim's calling out of their inconsistency is exactly correct.
ReplyDeleteGrim's more generous than I. Words are these "journalists'" stock in trade; they know exactly what they're saying.
Your point may hold for CPAC et al, who are the ones I was criticizing. The journalists deserve it too, but my particular ire was not for them.
Couple of things:
ReplyDelete1. I've seen people at various sites wringing their hands over "if the accusations of pedophilia prove true...." There is no such accusation. No one is saying Milo has molested children or slept with underage young people.
2. Milo himself had a sexual encounter with an older man, a priest at that, when he was fourteen. At various times he has joked about this, characterized it as having been good or at least not harmful, and called himself a victim of molestation. Because of this, it's hard for me to tell what he thinks; perhaps he has mixed feelings about his own experience.
Notwithstanding, he is speaking from the point of view of the younger partner, not the older one.
3. He's turned in three pedophiles based on his reporting. Which is more than most people have done.
4. CPAC is a pack of... [word I cannot use without being discourteous to the standards of the Hall]. They have stabbed an invited guest in the back as soon as he came under fire. "Oh my goodness, we had no IDEA Milo might say something controversial! My stars! We need to cut him loose as publicly as possible!" Cowards and fools (I am giving them the benefit of some doubt here).
5. Word on 4Chan is that this is a Journolist-successor hit. (Note: 4Chan.)
It does seem very coordinated. The podcast on which he talked about his victimization/early sexual experience happened a year or so ago; it's not new, nor has it just now become public, and yet all this happened very fast: the invitation, the articles, the disinvitation, having his (bestselling) book canceled by Simon & Schuster, having his columns on Brietbart blackholed, and the articles about all of this coming out very fast, all today. I'm seeing commenters on some larger conservative websites who are a) suddenly prolific posters, b) unfamiliar from previous encounters, and c) very anti-Milo, but in an insinuating way.
At risk of sounding like a nut, my spider sense says this is not spontaneous.
Spidey-Sense....
ReplyDeleteToday Gateway (not always reliable) reports that it was Evan McMullin & Co. who released the info on Milo.
From what I've read about this, Milo said he thought age of consent laws were "about right", while also acknowledging that any 1 size fits all law won't get all cases right.
ReplyDeleteWhich is pretty much what I believe - we draw bright lines for a reason, but only people who refuse to think believe they're infallible.
I've actually not been a huge fan of Milo's. I see his obvious charm, wit, and intelligence and admire the way he takes the fight to the left. But I also believe he is a gadfly, and is often unnecessarily hurtful and even cruel. There's a difference between provoking debate by sharp/incisive arguments and doing so by being nasty. Love him when he does the former (few do it better) but have no use for the latter.
Private entities have a right to decide they don't want to be associated with him - that's nothing like what happened at Berkeley. And I have a right (in the case of Simon and Schuster) to think less of them for being perfectly willing to make armloads of money by handing him an even bigger microphone but pulling the plug over this non-story. As for CPAC, I could't imagine why they invited him in the first place. He's not a conservative and doesn't pretend to be. So I judge them less harshly than Milo's publisher.
On this one, I think his critics are being unjust.
jaed: At risk of sounding like a nut, my spider sense says this is not spontaneous.
ReplyDeleteWhat made me finally really pay attention to this was Jay Nordlinger relating a (in my view, truly horrific) story about a tweet Mr. Yiannopoulos sent on the occasion of the birth of Ben Shapiro's son. It definitely made this feel like "get Milo" weekend while at the same time making me willing to give more weight to the "pedophilia" charges - interesting synergy there.
However, I don't know that this is actually coordinated in the sense of being plotted behind the scenes. It seems equally plausible that Mr. Yiannopoulos' invitation to CPAC triggered (heh) attention from one or two people or groups who believed he was not an appropriate speaker for that venue. Rather than simply make their case on principle, they dug up (something that could be construed as) really icky dirt and started the ball rolling. Others jumped on the bandwagon and we ended up with a feeding frenzy that rivaled "Night of the Living Dead."
It's the same thing we saw with Dr. Matt Taylor and Dr. Tim Hunt - to our greater objective loss, I believe, than with Mr. Yiannopoulos. However, the gleeful destructive urge is the same, as is the danger not just to anyone and everyone but to open discourse, fair play, simple decency, and - at least in the cases of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hunt - a sense of humor.
So what's the issue we're really discussing here? It seems separate issues are being conflated.
ReplyDelete1. Does Milo have the right to express his opinions? Sure, and that right hasn't been taken away from him. Clearly that's not the real issue, because he hasn't been "silenced" in any way. Rather, he has been criticized, and several private entities have had to decide whether they wish to exercise their right to voluntarily associate (or not associate) with him.
That's a valuable freedom, and not one I suspect anyone wants abridged.
2. Does Milo have a right to express his opinions using resources or facilities that belong to others? I don't think so. This seems fairly clear, whether we're talking Breitbart, Simon/Schuster, or CPAC.
3. Do other people have the right to express criticism of Milo? I hope so, and they're not being silenced either.
4. Do other people have any affirmative duty to help Milo express his opinions? I don't think so. I suspect it's this last one that has people angry/upset. But it's really hard for me to imagine a case where I would tell another person or group, "You HAVE to give this person a platform", unless somehow it involves federal tax dollars (and even there, we can all think of speakers we would vehemently object to giving a platform to with our tax dollars).
For instance, real pedophiles who get off on raping children would be an example I'm pretty sure most of us would object to. Of course, this doesn't even begin to describe Mr. Yiannopoulis.
The point is, it's hard for me to see what principle is being asserted here. Freedom of speech is coming into conflict with a right we don't talk about so much: freedom of association. The anecdote Elise mentions is a perfect example of why people are justified (in my view) in not wanting to voluntarily associate with him. But that's entirely different from actually silencing him - something that's unlikely to happen.
I suspect his microphone volume will be turned way down, however.
Cass, I agree with all four of your points. To the extent that I’m concerned/unhappy about CPAC withdrawing its invitation and S&S not bringing out his book, it’s not because I think Mr. Yiannopoulis has a right to use their facilities or because they have an affirmative duty to help him express his opinions. Rather, it’s because this looks to me like a case of character assassination and both CPAC and S&S are bowing to it. I hate bullies and I hate people and organizations that don’t stand up to them. (Easy for me to say, I know.)
ReplyDeletePlus - to echo jaed’s fourth point - there’s something unsavory about signing a speaker/author you know will be profitable because he’s so controversial, then dumping him because he’s so controversial. If CPAC and S&S could not weather the storm they should have stayed far away from Mr. Yiannopoulis in the first place. Instead they pursued him when he was up and threw him overboard when he was down.
More than anything else, for me there is a sick, sad feeling of “here we go again”. Attack and destruction happen so quickly and in a way that does not include discussion; consideration of nuance; or time for information gathering and thought. It takes no account of the fact that we are all a mixture of good and bad; it parses every utterance for the worst possible interpretation; and it seems to delight far more in destruction than in rationality (and forget about compassion).
And, of course, there are the substantive issues Grim originally raised in his post which I know I've blown right by. It might be interesting to go back and actually look at those rather than at the tempest that is obscuring them.
I mean, Milo is clearly a troll. He describes himself as a "virtuous troll," so "troll" is not even an insult: it's his own choice of descriptors. It would be different if CPAC et al had always refused to associate with him on principle, out of some sort of commitment to a more upright way of engaging opponents.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I stand by what I said in the original post.
Rather, it’s because this looks to me like a case of character assassination and both CPAC and S&S are bowing to it. I hate bullies and I hate people and organizations that don’t stand up to them. (Easy for me to say, I know.)
ReplyDeleteI understand, b/c I feel the same way. The snap judgments seem very unfair to me, but we're living in an age of snap judgments and the Internet acceleration of even trivial incidents. On the otter heiny, this is (as Grim notes above) the problem with being so in your face with rhetoric - once you've called yourself a troll or subjected others to Internet ridicule/harassment, people are far less inclined - to the extent that they're inclined at all - to cut you any slack. Part of me wants others to stand up for what's fair, but I can also understand saying, "Gosh, this person deliberately tries to generate outrage and maybe that's not something I need to support".
FWIW, I am so sick of the whole "Troll" and "troll - grand master level" meme. Being a troll is not an good thing, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may feel at the time or from the sidelines. I laugh just like everyone else when I don't like the target, but that's not a feeling I'm proud of.
Plus - to echo jaed’s fourth point - there’s something unsavory about signing a speaker/author you know will be profitable because he’s so controversial, then dumping him because he’s so controversial.
ReplyDeleteYep - that's my exact reaction with Simon/Schuster. Less so with CPAC because I think that situation's different.
Less so with CPAC because I think that situation's different.
ReplyDeleteHow so? (Asked sincerely, not snippily - I'm not familiar enough with the organization to know why it's different.)
To me, they seem different because Simon/Schuster were looking to make money from publishing Milo's book, and I strongly suspect his notoriety and outrageous style formed a large part of the "value proposition" (that's why he got such a big advance). S&S don't care about conservatism, or how it's perceived. To them, more outrage sells books and there's little downside in their minds to being an outrageous conservative.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that CPAC invited Milo *despite* his outrageous style. They were already taking heat from their members for inviting him before this came out - they were bothered by his embrace of the alt-right and trolling almost from the moment the invitation was announced. If you care about how conservatism is perceived, you're going to be sensitive to the image you put forth.
So I believe adding more outrage tipped the already precarious balance between pros and cons firmly in the "con" direction.
Just my 2 cents :)
I
It would be different if CPAC et al had always refused to associate with him on principle, out of some sort of commitment to a more upright way of engaging opponents.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness, I think many at CPAC *were* reluctant to associate with him on principle. I think this incident just gave them the ammunition they needed to prevail over those who weren't reluctant.
Understood. I just wonder why CPAC invited him in the first place. Perhaps unseemly haste was operating on the up-swing (he's such a hot commodity) as well as on the down-swing (he's too hot to handle).
ReplyDeleteOops. Your last comment popped up just after I posted. I see your point.
ReplyDeleteAnd Milo resigns from Breitbart. The first roughly 9 minutes are his statement and then there's about 12 minutes of Q & A.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Tom. I think he nailed it with more grace and humility than most people twice his age could manage.
ReplyDeleteWell done. Watching that was heartbreaking.
Meanwhile, George Takei unavailable for comment.
ReplyDeleteI think he did a good job with it.
ReplyDeleteWe're definitely living in interesting times.
This seems to be the world we live in now, but I'm not sure how we either get used to it or change it. It seems so much like swimming against the tide.
ReplyDeleteCass, re: Takei- that's a big part of what bothers me about this is that it's been so widely but quietly accepted by the left and the media for decades that many gays support these views (and often in quite a bit more extreme form than Milo). Didn't stop Nancy Pelosi from marching literally right behind an famed and outspoken advocate of man-boy relationships.
It's the nakedly selective outrage that really angers me, because it's so obviously political and so dishonest.
For a long time, he's been put forward by the Right for the very quality of spouting offensive opinions to Leftists. Guess he found one that makes the Right want a safe space.l
ReplyDeleteConflating Southern KKK with General Lee/Bedford Forrest, and also conflating Northern abolitionists with white southern Baptists.
I don't think it's a good idea, but other people don't like the spirit of truth.
Milo's problem is his connection with the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteMilo has stated that the Church protects homosexuals. Perhaps, but in 1930s School of Darkness, I already know what form that protection was, and so did the lawyers that made bank on the Catholics a few years ago.
The more I read the history of the supposed 'Vicar of Christ', the more it looks like alternative white/black version of Islam.
Instead they pursued him when he was up and threw him overboard when he was down.
ReplyDeleteLeftist propaganda already did that with Trum.
The problem with using the Left's tactics is that the Left has a better grasp of those Lucifer's Own ideals than the Alt Right or traditional Republicans do.
Elections won't save humans from evil, no matter how much Americans think they are "exceptional" or that city on a hill. It's pretty dark and polluted now.