Censorship? CPAC axes Milo from speaking

[I Push Buttons]

You're completely missing the point and no longer worth my time

What is your point?

Not all 16 year old kids drink and drive... The vast majority in fact don't do that. It is also a problem that is far far from exclusive to 16 year old kids? The overwhelmingly massive majority of teen drivers, after a few bumps learning, go on to drive until they go blind or senile...

Conversely promiscuous teenagers often have a lot of baggage from being promiscuous as a teenager... Whether having kids before they are ready, having abortions, emotional/psychological trauma, etc... Even more so when their underdeveloped inhibitions are exploited by an adult who knows very well their actions are illegal and do them anyways.

[Underverse]

Conversely promiscuous teenagers often have a lot of baggage from being promiscuous as a teenager... Whether having kids before they are ready, having abortions, emotional/psychological trauma, etc... Even more so when their underdeveloped inhibitions are exploited by an adult who knows very well their actions are illegal and do them anyways.

A lot of this comes from social stigma. If that stigma didn't exist, neither would the baggage; in fact, more sexual relations would probably be a benefit.

The question of whether legislation should be changed is not the same as the question of whether something is ultimately right or wrong, or whether or not we should be moving towards a certain goal. Let's not get them confused.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm only talking about the cases of grooming that I just referred to, not your vague goal post moving bullshit definitions. The only logical conclusion if we were to legalize incest is that that specific type of grooming would only increase. It's a direct action that supports such behavior. I'm not sure how you don't see that.

Maybe I should refresh your memory, as it seems to be no longer than that of a fruit fly. Or maybe you just didn't read what I wrote in the first place:

We can talk just about grooming the context of sexual inhibitions, but understand that this is not a separate process. It's only a separate end.

In this post, I made the distinction that you did not make, because instead of this distinction, you made an assumption - the assumption that all grooming is sexual in ends and no other grooming exists. That was several posts ago. I thought we had moved on, but apparently you couldn't find anything else in my dozen or so other arguments that you could find a qualm with - probably because you just ignored them.

Next. Nothing in the post that you quoted rejects your notion/counterargument that grooming would increase. I don't know why you are making a counterargument to an argument I was not making. You also happened to ignore two out of two of the points I made in that post, including:

Lowering the inhibitions of someone via grooming is not 'raising kids just to have sex with them'. It's like the difference between punching someone, and cutting off their arm.

and

Gaining someone's trust just to have sex with them is a dick move, but it's not a life-ending tragedy. It doesn't matter how old that person is.

I am ready and willing to concede that sexual grooming will increase if incest is legalized - even if you have no evidence to support this. Why? Because it's a tiny sliver of a tangent of the argument that I'm making.

[Underverse]

I'm very fucking obviously talking about the type of grooming that goes on between the relationship of a child and a sexual predator. Learn to context. I even specifically said in the very first post you responded to

What do you think "it" refers to? Sexual relations between family members. Sex. Grooming for sex. Are you following yet?

I made this distinction from the get go. It is my sole argument against legalizing incest. Even one more case of such grooming is too many. I see no real benefit to outweigh that negative either. Glad we're on the same page now though.

And from the start, I was using other examples of grooming as an example of how sexual grooming isn't necessarily always bad. Maybe that was too complicated for you. Actually, it was definitely too complicated for you, because we're still talking about it.

I don't give a shit about the rest of your argument. My argument is that grooming will increase, therefore it is bad.

And my argument was twofold:

>You can't say for certain that sexual grooming will increase upon legalization of incest (a point I'm willing to concede because it's not important to me and you're throwing a hissy-fit over it, despite providing no support evidence)

>Grooming isn't always bad and can in fact carry some benefits with it (which is the weight of my argument, which you also happened to ignore)

[Mistame]

I don't think you know what the term "mutually exclusive" means.

I know what it means, I just have a tendency to throw in "mutually" when I type out "exclusive". Habit, I suppose.

How much sense does it make to let a 16 year old control a few tons of steel at 100km/h, but still consider them too immature to decide if sex with someone else is OK?

Some people seem to think that trying to control biology with some sort of social "morality" is rational behavior.

[Mormolyce]

You know what killed me too? The whole thing about the honesty and transparency of video game reviewers. And how some gaming sights are cozy with publishers.

Because that's exactly what video gaming needs. Quality journalism. To tell us what exactly? That Call of Duty 13 is going to be a deeply predictable, relatively unimaginative on-rails shooter that has all the creativity of a Roomba? That World of Warcraft: Legion is a satisfying if tedious grindfest that makes the most of a game 8 years past its prime? That if you bought Star Wars: Battlefront, you probably got ripped off?

BREAKING NEWS! Sonic the Hedgehog games still largely suck and DLC is a rip off!


Gamegate was an idiot where everyone lost perspective and there wasn't an actual search for truth, just everyone tossing molotov cocktails at everyone else. It should have been named Gamerghazi. It would have been more accurate.

And like if Kotaku was giving you inaccurate reviews of games you wouldn't just STOP READING KOTAKU.

[Astalnar]

Not censorship. Coordinated character assassination.

[Breccia]

First Berkeley, now this? Poor guy can't catch a break.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm not sure you can call it character assassination when it's his own words. More like character suicide.

Character assisted suicide, maybe?

[Skroe]

Not censorship. Coordinated character assassination.

It's audio of him saying this. It's not character assassination. It's character auto-erotic asphyxiation.

[Flarelaine]

Milo is getting censured, not censored. Yuge difference.

[Deleted]

Fake pearl clutching intensifies.
If anything I've learned about pedophilia as a political tool is that very very few people give a fuck about it; provided they're being fed by their party line.

Yiannopoulos knows this, as he pearl clutched (tinyurl . com / qbwtrjp) after Salon published an article in defense of pedos begging we not treat them as monsters; it's since deleted, but archives are as recent as January (archive . is / 9ic0i). Convenient timing for deletion, I may add. And he's outed several pedos over the years apparently.

I would be genuinely happy if this troll disappeared from sight. But I don't have my hopes high. And it's not like it matters. The guy is only exploiting the trash that he finds in your political landscape. He's the inescapable consequence of bipartisan bullshit, the only thing America has managed to agree on: fake outrage at anything and everything.
You are easily exploitable.

Pedophilia, age of consent, and CP are hot potatoes that nobody wants to discuss publicly, yet it's managed to introduce several talking points into the public conscience. Brain development, cgi children, depiction of minors in vidja, you name it. It's everywhere. You are eager to have that debate, to have someone else open the flood gates. Possibly out of curiosity, or maybe to challenge social constructions.
Or maybe simply to find yet another partisan divide. One much more murky and odious. Just so you can keep pretending that it's outrageous and over the top and the other should not go there.

Well, you'll all go there, we just don't know how or when. Yiannopoulos is just an unconcerned cynic, throwing shit at the wall. Your shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it did manage to get a woman who was trying to get Nintendo to stop censoring Japanese games fired.

Alison Rapp?
According to Nintendo, she was fired because of her second job. GG was, as it always is, the easy scapegoat to blame for everything.
But man, that was a fascinating moment. Having aGG folks being ok with her debating if America should lower the age of consent was a whole load of fun.

The line between thought provocative Rapp, and troll Yiannopoulos is very thin. Yet here we are.

Imma pull from the thread you have going on this forum:

Painting anyone who advocates lowering ours, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, as a pedophile or endorsing pedophilia is just a shitty ad hominem fueled by a certain degree of national arrogance or just base opportunism.

And this one on the other thread about workers leaving BB

Yannapalooza's endorsement of statutory rape really undercuts Brietbart's noble message of xenophobia, anger, and fear.

Opportunist pearl clutching.

It's just some random poster, hardly representative of anything (and, to be fair, he's not casting judgement on the second one, just throwing it into the mix, see what sticks). But attitudes like this one are abundant: pedophilia and consent are just political tools at this point. Any shred of decency or honesty went off the window long ago.

[Strangebrew]

Take a rest man, you are clearly running on empty. And tomorrow is a brand new day of embarrassing Trump/alt right fuckups you're going to have to contort logic to defend.



I believe it did manage to get a woman who was trying to get Nintendo to stop censoring Japanese games fired.

Yay, a real victory for gamers and people opposed to censorship. But she was a feminist and a woman, so fuck her.

Yeah it couldn't possibly be that she was shoving 3ds's up her cunt while selling photos of that all over the net while also prostituting herself.
It had nothing to with her being a public face but yet used her social media platforms to whine about politics, defend pedophilia, trash talk Nintendo and using it to whore herself out, nope not at all.
Nintendo the most family friendly video game developer totally want to be associated with that, it was just those evil anti-feminists.


Time to get back to reality instead of living in those delusions of yours.

[rogueMatthias]

Johnny Depp has shown off before about losing his virginity to an older woman when he was 13. Steve Tyler has shown off that he lost his to a pair of twins in church when he was 7 (yeah right).

Why are they not boycotted for "encouraging paedophilia" too? Or did we all just accept with them that they were just talking crap to try and show off about their prowess?

[Deleted]

Johnny Depp has shown off before about losing his virginity to an older woman when he was 13. Steve Tyler has shown off that he lost his to a pair of twins in church when he was 7 (yeah right).

Why are they not boycotted for "encouraging paedophilia" too? Or did we all just accept with them that they were just talking crap to try and show off about their prowess?

Don't forget the left defence of roman polansky, who actually abused a young girl. The left doesn't care one bit about these issues, they just want to attack the alt right because it represent a real threat to the leftist establishment: http://voxday.blogspot.it/2017/02/op...troy-milo.html

[Elba]

Gamegate was an idiot where everyone lost perspective and there wasn't an actual search for truth, just everyone tossing molotov cocktails at everyone else. It should have been named Gamerghazi. It would have been more accurate.

We opposed to it actually call it Gamerghazi.

[Mormolyce]

Alison Rapp?
According to Nintendo, she was fired because of her second job. GG was, as it always is, the easy scapegoat to blame for everything.

It was wrong of me to suggest Gamergate accomplished anything. I apologise.

[Deleted]

It was wrong of me to suggest Gamergate accomplished anything. I apologise.

Do what you must. They thrive on being resurrected for no reason at all.

[Shadowferal]

Johnny Depp has shown off before about losing his virginity to an older woman when he was 13. Steve Tyler has shown off that he lost his to a pair of twins in church when he was 7 (yeah right).

Why are they not boycotted for "encouraging paedophilia" too? Or did we all just accept with them that they were just talking crap to try and show off about their prowess?

This is about CPAC...and some person's disgusting pedo fetish. It seems you forgot that.

[Astalnar]

I'm not sure you can call it character assassination when it's his own words. More like character suicide.

It's audio of him saying this. It's not character assassination. It's character auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Right, because a man in support of pederasty would be exposing his fellow pederasts in public? Of the 3 men exposed, one is currently in a middle of trial brought up on account of Milo's reporting. Nice cover and all that.

Are you really attacking a victim of paedophilia for defending his attacker?

[Trollhammer]

Weird how George Takei never got this in the media eh?