Breitbart employees threaten exit over Yiannopoulos

[zenkai]

You might want to rewatch the video. A little later of the stamped time.

- - - Updated - - -



Read what is written on it, it's meant to satirize those that defend loli.

- - - Updated - - -



If I recall correctly he said that Father Michael had relations with him when he was around 14.

I think I will stick to the unedited version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PnnE_UizOs

[Deleted]

So Milo is a kiddy molester, color me not surprised.

No, he isn't, learn to read.

[NED funded]

I think I will stick to the unedited version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PnnE_UizOs

What I linked is the entire podcast. Posted as it is. There is nothing edited to it. Philip De Franco links direct to the same link.

[zenkai]

What I linked is the entire podcast. Posted as it is. There is nothing edited to it. Philip De Franco links direct to the same link.

Ah ok, I assumed you was linking to the 30 min one, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

So Milo is a kiddy molester, color me not surprised. Hopefully this is the last the world has to hear his disgusting mouth and stands as An example of just how disgusting the alt-Reich are.

Yup and Trump is Hitler, ^5

[Venant]

If I recall correctly he said that Father Michael had relations with him when he was around 14.

I think it's more inline with he defended the relationship he had when he was 14 and the guy was 28.

The priest comment was a joke used as a deflection in that conversation. It's absurd to equate it to saying that Milo thinks priests should molest 14 year olds.

If he started the conversation on that tape by saying that he thinks that the age of consent laws are correct, but that there is an issue to be discussed in regards to how things work in gay culture with older men getting into relationships with younger men, it seems like this entire controversy is largely fueled by the discussion of a 'forbidden topic'.

And you have to admit, the headline narrative here, the thing that many people will take from this story without bothering to read into it further, is the implication that Milo is some sort of pedophile enabler.

[Astalnar]

How can that be? It's the right wing / conservatives who are going after Milo. They have the noble alternate facts news on their side.

Nope it's the left media going after Milo. The cucks are just jumping on the bandwagon. Nothing new. What else was there to expect of "Against Trump" National Review?

[Zolaris192]

Thinking homosexuality is a choice and mental illness is hardly a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -



Also not sure what those 4 have to do with this, I only know Podesta from the crazy pizzagate idiots, no idea who the other 3 are.

What? Are you gonna address my point or do you not have an argument lol

[Ethris]

Unbelievable...... how far the deplorables are willing to sink. They even defend and hand wave away pedophilia.

Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

FYI a little later in that segment he mentions 13 year olds, as in consensual (unforced sexual) contact between younger boys (13 year olds) and older men (30's?? 40's?? 50's??). He talks about it being "enriching" and "life affirming" for those younger boys.

Oh I'm sure its oh so great for those 13 year olds to be groomed and taken advantage of. /sarc

Perhaps you can explain the positives of it to me? As you seem to think its OK?

I'm not defending it at all. Let me get you a lion and a lost girl from Kansas to go with the straw man you've built. You're also taking the quote out of context because it is a clearly wrong and indefensible viewpoint; Milo is a professional provocateur and has plausible deniability because he's an edgelord troll. By virtue of this fact, you should not take ANYTHING he says seriously, whether you're in favor of it or not. Most of all though: nobody here is arguing in favor of disgusting sexual perversion.

Here, though, I think a certain Todd Nickerson might have the answers you require if you're looking for someone to defend these views: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/02...roversy/24398/

Two shameful articles published by Salon were quietly pulled from the site shortly after this most recent controversy, for obvious reasons. Where was the outrage from the left when those articles were published? These articles were unambiguous in their context. Why was Salon allowed to publish such degeneracy with no recompense, only to finally retract that shit when it became dangerous in light of the Milo situation?

[Edge-]

I'm not defending it at all.

You're also taking the quote out of context because it is a clearly wrong and indefensible viewpoint; Milo is a professional provocateur and has plausible deniability because he's an edgelord troll; and most of all: nobody here is arguing in favor of disgusting sexual perversion.

So you're not defending it...you're just defending Milo's right to say anything without consequence because he's an IRL troll? Do I have the right of things, or am I misreading?

Two shameful articles published by Salon were quietly pulled from the site shortly after this most recent controversy, for obvious reasons. Where was the outrage from the left when those articles were published? These articles were unambiguous in their context. Why was Salon allowed to publish such degeneracy with no recompense, only to finally retract that shit when it became dangerous in light of the Milo situation?

Why are we talking about Salon and the left? This is an issue with Milo and the right, specifically CPAC and his fellow writers are Breitbart. "Whataboutism" seems to be pretty popular amongst right leaning folks, lately.

[NED funded]

Stop putting words in other people's mouths.



I'm not defending it at all. Let me get you a lion and a lost girl from Kansas to go with the straw man you've built. You're also taking the quote out of context because it is a clearly wrong and indefensible viewpoint; Milo is a professional provocateur and has plausible deniability because he's an edgelord troll. By virtue of this fact, you should not take ANYTHING he says seriously, whether you're in favor of it or not. Most of all though: nobody here is arguing in favor of disgusting sexual perversion.

Here, though, I think a certain Todd Nickerson might have the answers you require if you're looking for someone to defend these views: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/02...roversy/24398/

Two shameful articles published by Salon were quietly pulled from the site shortly after this most recent controversy, for obvious reasons. Where was the outrage from the left when those articles were published? These articles were unambiguous in their context. Why was Salon allowed to publish such degeneracy with no recompense, only to finally retract that shit when it became dangerous in light of the Milo situation?

Salon has no place in this discussion.

[alexw]

I'm not defending it at all. Let me get you a lion and a lost girl from Kansas to go with the straw man you've built. You're also taking the quote out of context because it is a clearly wrong and indefensible viewpoint; Milo is a professional provocateur and has plausible deniability because he's an edgelord troll; and most of all: nobody here is arguing in favor of disgusting sexual perversion.

Here, though, I think a certain Todd Nickerson might have the answers you require if you're looking for someone to defend these views: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/02...roversy/24398/

Two shameful articles published by Salon were quietly pulled from the site shortly after this most recent controversy, for obvious reasons. Where was the outrage from the left when those articles were published? These articles were unambiguous in their context. Why was Salon allowed to publish such degeneracy with no recompense, only to finally retract that shit when it became dangerous in light of the Milo situation?

Lol there you go again. Its somehow OK for Milo to propagandize for pedophilia. In defending him you also defend pedophilia, do you not realize that?

Oh and then you go into whataboutism in your defense of pedophilia.

The only thing. The absolutely only thing you should be doing is soundly condemning Milo and his comments. No excuses. No whataboutism. No its OK because its Milo.


P.S. I remember coming across the first Salon article a few years ago and it did not in any way shape or form defend the act of sex with children. It talked about how he the author was suffering from a psychological condition that made him be attracted to children. That he knew it was wrong. That he didn't want to act on it. That he wanted help and counseling to fight what he saw as an affliction. You can read a copy of it here -

http://www.alternet.org/personal-hea...le-not-monster

It is far and away different than what Milo advocated for which is that 13 year old boys having sex with men in their 30's, 40's, and 50's, is a good wholesome thing and which you are acting as an apologist for.

[ShadowofVashj]

Nope it's the left media going after Milo. The cucks are just jumping on the bandwagon. Nothing new. What else was there to expect of "Against Trump" National Review?

... you do realize it was a Reagan fan group that broke this story right? I didn't see a /s hence my confusion.

[Edge-]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/break...rom-breitbart/

Aaaannnndddd Milo resigned.

And nothing of value was lost.

[Milchshake]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/break...rom-breitbart/

Aaaannnndddd Milo resigned.

And nothing of value was lost.

If he doesn't have an employer to sponsor his work visa, wouldn't he be an illegal immigrant?

[NED funded]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/break...rom-breitbart/

Aaaannnndddd Milo resigned.

And nothing of value was lost.

You mean "resigned".

[Trollhammer]

Good, now we can see the parade move over to George Takei for saying the same things.

[Deleted]

There also would have been nothing lost if the breitbart employees would have left as well.

I hope america will get rid of media trolls who infact oppose what they pretend to be.

[Ethris]

So you're not defending it...you're just defending Milo's right to say anything without consequence because he's an IRL troll? Do I have the right of things, or am I misreading?

I understand that moderators on this site would have issues with free speech, but Milo can actually say whatever he wants. However, the aforementioned "consequences" and histrionic outrage are only making the situation worse. Your reactions play into Milo's strategy as a professional troll. I'm telling you to ignore what he says because people who provoke others for a living have no credibility. Stop feeding the troll. But most of you are going as far to claim utter nonsense about him, and do it so loudly that people believe it. Go ahead and string Milo up. Who's next: Pewdiepie?

Why are we talking about Salon and the left? This is an issue with Milo and the right, specifically CPAC and his fellow writers are Breitbart. "Whataboutism" seems to be pretty popular amongst right leaning folks, lately.

Salon has no place in this discussion.

Oh and then you go into whataboutism in your defense of pedophilia.

The only thing. The absolutely only thing you should be doing is soundly condemning Milo and his comments. No excuses. No whataboutism. No its OK because its Milo.

Salon is relevant because there was no condemnation or outrage as a result of the article(s). And anyone who did attempt to condemn them was labeled as a bigot/homophobe/etc for not being accepting of an "alternate lifestyle." I could very much claim you, @alexw, are making apologetics for that author in the same way that you accuse me of apologia for Milo. But it's okay when you do it, because Poor Todd Nickerson is a compassionate, empathetic prisoner of a condition he cannot control. What a victim. And it's published in a journal whose politics (I assume) are synonymous to your own. If there was no issue with the articles, as you claim; then why did Salon feel compelled to pull them? I'm sure it looks pretty bad in light of the current situation, huh?

If you struggle to understand my point and try to handwave it as "whataboutism" here's a simple analogy:

"Milo says something provocative and reprehensible"
REEEEEEEE BURN HIM BURN HIM WHAT A DEPLORABLE PIECE OF SHIT HE'S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD REEEE

"Left wing journal publishes something provocative and reprehensible, twice"
Oh well I guess we should be more tolerant to those who are afflicted with a tragic orientation they struggle to contain.

You are hypocrites. Address and condemn it all, or admit that double standards are okay because you hate Milo. Keep giving him attention. Keep feeding the troll.

P.S. I remember coming across the first Salon article a few years ago and it did not in any way shape or form defend the act of sex with children. It talked about how he the author was suffering from a psychological condition that made him be attracted to children. That he knew it was wrong. That he didn't want to act on it. That he wanted help and counseling to fight what he saw as an affliction. You can read a copy of it here -

http://www.alternet.org/personal-hea...le-not-monster

You don't write an article (or two) in this manner unless you're seeking to normalize the behavior. Otherwise, why say anything about it at all? You're broadcasting your deviance to the entire world, and attempting to make people sympathize with you as a tragic victim of some terrible disease. If Todd Nickerson had truly felt this way, he would have kept his feelings to himself, continued his heroic struggle to not abuse children, and never disclosed to another living soul his desire for something universally despised as one of the worst crimes you can commit. This is attention-seeking behavior. It's what Milo does; it's what you're falling for right now.

It is far and away different than what Milo advocated for which is that 13 year old boys having sex with men in their 30's, 40's, and 50's, is a good wholesome thing and which you are acting as an apologist for.

You are conflating a projection of the issue with the issue itself. Nobody here is agreeing with what Milo said; what we are disagreeing with is your interpretation. You are taking the words of a professional troll out of context, and then claiming some unearned and nonexistent moral high ground. I find your apologetics for the Nickerson article to be much more disgusting, because Nickerson's opinions were published twice in a mainstream journal. In contrast, Milo's remarks were offhand comments from a podcast known for edginess and crass humor; and in case I haven't made the point yet: Milo's career is based on being offensive an controversial, it is what he does best.

Lol there you go again. Its somehow OK for Milo to propagandize for pedophilia. In defending him you also defend pedophilia, do you not realize that?

Jesus Christ you people are impossibly thick. Milo does not defend pedophiles. I do not defend pedophiles. I don't even like Milo enough to enjoy defending him; but I want you to have a shred of intellectual honesty instead of spouting lies and abject nonsense about someone.

- - - Updated - - -

Good, now we can see the parade move over to George Takei for saying the same things.

Fucking this.

>inb4 "whataboutism"

[NED funded]

I understand that moderators on this site would have issues with free speech, but Milo can actually say whatever he wants. However, the aforementioned "consequences" and histrionic outrage are only making the situation worse. Your reactions play into Milo's strategy as a professional troll. I'm telling you to ignore what he says because people who provoke others for a living have no credibility. Stop feeding the troll. But most of you are going as far to claim utter nonsense about him, and do it so loudly that people believe it. Go ahead and string Milo up. Who's next: Pewdiepie?







Salon is relevant because there was no condemnation or outrage as a result of the article(s). And anyone who did attempt to condemn them was labeled as a bigot/homophobe/etc for not being accepting of an "alternate lifestyle." I could very much claim you, @alexw, are making apologetics for that author in the same way that you accuse me of apologia for Milo. But it's okay when you do it, because Poor Todd Nickerson is a compassionate, empathetic prisoner of a condition he cannot control. What a victim. And it's published in a journal whose politics (I assume) with which you agree. If there was no issue with the articles, as you claim; then why did Salon feel compelled to pull them? I'm sure it looks pretty bad in light of the current situation, huh?

If you struggle to understand my point and try to handwave it as "whataboutism" here's a simple analogy:

"Milo says something provocative and reprehensible"
REEEEEEEE BURN HIM BURN HIM WHAT A DEPLORABLE PIECE OF SHIT HE'S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD REEEE

"Left wing journal publishes something provocative and reprehensible, twice"
Oh well I guess we should be more tolerant to those who are afflicted with a tragic orientation they struggle to contain.

You are hypocrites. Address and condemn it all, or admit that double standards are okay because you hate Milo. Keep giving him attention. Keep feeding the troll.



You don't write an article (or two) in this manner unless you're seeking to normalize the behavior. Otherwise, why say anything about it at all? You're broadcasting your deviance to the entire world, and attempting to make people sympathize with you as a tragic victim of some terrible disease. If Todd Nickerson had truly felt this way, he would have kept his feelings to himself, continued his heroic struggle to not abuse children, and never disclosed to another living soul his desire for something universally despised as one of the worst crimes you can commit. This is attention-seeking behavior. It's what Milo does; it's what you're falling for right now.




You are conflating a projection of the issue with the issue itself. Nobody here is agreeing with what Milo said; what we are disagreeing with is your interpretation. You are taking the words of a professional troll out of context, and then claiming some unearned and nonexistent moral high ground. I find your apologetics for the Nickerson article to be much more disgusting, because Nickerson's opinions were published twice in a mainstream journal. In contrast, Milo's remarks were offhand comments from a podcast known for edginess and crass humor; and in case I haven't made the point yet: Milo's career is based on being offensive an controversial, it is what he does best.



Jesus Christ you people are impossibly thick. Milo does not defend pedophiles. I do not defend pedophiles. I don't even like Milo enough to enjoy defending him; but I want you to have a shred of intellectual honesty instead of spouting lies and abject nonsense about someone.

- - - Updated - - -



Fucking this.

>inb4 "whataboutism"

You are going to provide something more than your experience to claim that people were labeled bigoted/racists/sexists for rejecting the Salon article. Heck in fact, I can assure that without looking at the Salon article if the comments were on, it had probably recieved an almsot universal condemnation.

[Edge-]

I understand that moderators on this site would have issues with free speech, but Milo can actually say whatever he wants.

We have rules that you agree to when creating an account to post on this site. If you don't like that, you don't have to agree to them.

Though you're right, he can saw pretty much anything he'd like. He just has to deal with the consequences that come with some of the shit he says.

However, the aforementioned "consequences" and histrionic outrage are only making the situation worse.

Except...this is all coming from the right, dude. His people, or is he now not even associating with non-alt right conservatives at all?

Your reactions play into Milo's strategy as a professional troll.

Mine? Such as? Because last I checked, I had a giggle at his misfortune, which is a result of his own actions, and proceeded to watch people frantically try to defend him. It was great fun.

What about my reaction played into his strategy?

I'm telling you to ignore what he says because people who provoke others for a living have no credibility. Stop feeding the troll.

For the most part, I agree. But when given the chance to have a laugh at his expense, you can bet your ass I'm taking it : )