[RD] Yiannopoulos is Out

[Bamspeedy]

I can't say "they exhausted every option," because that goes into 'can't prove a negative' territory. But I think it can be safely said that they attempted enough nonviolent options to to satisfy what would be expected of due diligence.

And again. Milo was banned from Twitter nearly a year ago. None of his views were ever concealed. The "grand revelation" was made months ago and published publicly. It's the violence and anger that brought his movement to national attention, and it's the violence and anger that put pressure on CPAC et al. to drop him.

What do you think is more likely, considering it wasn't announced he was speaking at CPAC until a week ago, long after the Berkeley riots:

CPAC: Oh, those kids at Berkeley are all upset, we better not let this guy speak.

or

CPAC: Hey, Berkeley won't this guy speak, we'll let him speak, and as a bonus we piss off all those lefties.
Reagan Batallion: Um, you guys do realize he made a comment about old men and little boys, right?

 

[Mouthwash]

This displays a terrifying lack of understanding of the concept of consent.

Technically, underage people can consent.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am pretty sure that virtually no other troll/sjw/fascist will be ousted, so ultimately the death of Milo won't mean anything.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, I mean that support for homosexuality and pedophilia are both based on the same worldview: that anything goes as long as it produces endorphins.

Technically, underage people can consent.

Moderator Action: This line of discussion - both arms of it - needs to stop now.

 

[Mise]

A good article on the subject: http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/02...ainstream-right-has-power-stop-populist-right

...

What's in all this for the mainstream right? Two things. The first is that the populist right are useful generators of heat. They say outrageous things - black people are lazy! Muslims are terrorists! - putting their opponents in a bind. Do you let such assertions go, on the basis that those voicing them are a tiny fringe? Or do you wearily condemn every single instance of bigotry, making yourself look like a dull Pez dispenser of condemnation? Either way is debilitating, either for public discourse broadly, or for the left's appeal to disengaged people.

Secondly, the populist right are useful outriders. Sheltered by the mainstream right - would anyone read Katie Hopkins if she had a blog, or Piers Morgan? nope - these "provocateurs" can push extreme versions of narratives that many on the mainstream right feel to be true, or at least to contain a kernel of truth worth discussing. If Breitbart says "black crime" is a distinct phenomenon, then it's much more acceptable for Trump to threaten to "send in the Feds" to Chicago, or to describe inner cities as wastelands in need of a strong hand. If Katie Hopkins writes about migrants drowning in the Mediterranean as "cockroaches", she dehumanises them - turning them from fathers, mothers, children into a faceless mass, not like us, and therefore not deserving of our pity. That makes it much easier for the government to stop taking child refugees. After all, didn't I read somewhere that they're all 45 and just pretending to be children, anyway?

The populist right are extremely good generators of memes - those little bits of information which move virally through society. Take the grooming gang in Rochdale. It gets invoked every time feminists try to have a conversation about male violence. Um, did you condemn Rochdale? By the time you reply, wearily, that yes you did, it's too late. The conversation has been derailed for good. What about FGM? Well, yes, of course I'm agains-- oh, too late. We've moved on.

...

[Milo] was provocative, starting a debate, exercising his free speech. But yesterday he found out that there is always a line. For the right, it's child abuse - because children, uniquely among people who might be sexually abused, are deemed to be innocent. No one is going to buy that a 13-year-old shouldn't have been out that late, or wearing that, or brought it on himself.

The whole article is well worth reading. It argues that fringe characters like Milo who say crazy things are useful to the mainstream right, and that, in fact, their rise to prominence and success in mainstream media is supported and fuelled by the mainstream right entirely as a consequence of this utility. When these characters turn from an asset for the mainstream right into a liability, they are dropped, quickly and hard. This is what happened with Milo, as well as several other fringe characters that the article also discusses.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

He also had his book deal pulled and a speech at CPAC was cancelled. I guess there is a limit to freedom of speech. And that limit is suggesting teenage boys can't be molested.

Too bad we didn't draw the line at boasting about sexually assaulting random women.