Is Milo Yiannopoulos the biggest contradiction that ever existed?

Following recent revelations that Milo Yiannopoulos has given a grovelling apology for making pro-paedophile comments

I’m left wondering, is this guy the biggest contradiction ever?

On the one hand Milo openly and proudly says some things that are quite reasonable and fearlessly outrages certain politically correct groups. For example, his point that feminism is cancer, his point that it is men who are disadvantaged, with high suicide rates, the education gender gap, high workplace deaths and so on. As well as, of course, his pro free speech activism in which he supports internet trolls “the only people still telling the truth are the trolls” and believes people shouldn’t be going to prison for what they say (especially when it is the feminists who baited them and deliberately wound them up in the first place).

On the other hand Milo has in the past made comments to the effect of saying that paedophiles should be killed, whilst, simultaneously it seems, holding contradictory opinions on paedophilia as his leaked “pro-paedophile” video shows. However, now these comments have come to the fore he has absurdly decided to issue a grovelling apology as well as agreeing to finance some of the most vile criminals of the 21st century (he stated that he will donate 10% of the royalties from his book to ‘child sex abuse charities’). For someone so used to causing outrage it does seem extraordinary that he would apologise for making comments that are so reasonable.

The irony of all this is that I suggested to him on twitter sometime ago that perhaps I should accuse him of child molestation because of his paedohysteria. And yet, as it turns out, it wasn’t me making up allegations! He slipped up of his own doing!

Now, here’s some food for thought to debate in the comments:

  1. What does Milo really believe? Is he as confused as it seems? (even in the alleged videos he did both claim the age of consent was ‘about right’ whilst also claiming that we are too hung up on child abuse stuff and that perfectly consensual sex can occur younger. That, to my mind, is a contradictory viewpoint. It’s like someone saying it’s OK for the Nazis to gas Jews whilst also saying Jews can be perfectly decent people).
  2. Why did Milo so desperately apologise over this, but hasn’t apologised over other comments he has made despite triggering hordes of overweight feminazis?
  3. Why does this culture exist whereby it seems that people feel they can speak their opinions about anything except paedophilia? Is this culture fundamental (i.e. the consequences for speaking your opinion are both far worse and impossible to mitigate when speaking out about paedophilia over other issues) or imaginary (the consequences could actually be far less than believed, or with some cunning can be mitigated and the oppressive age of consent belief system crushed)?
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Free Speech, Hypocrisy, Men's Rights, News, Paedohysteria. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is Milo Yiannopoulos the biggest contradiction that ever existed?

  1. Libertine says:

    He now calls himself a ‘victim of abuse’, Yet his very words contradict that; As he said, “I was often the predator”…”The priest was rather young and hot”…Sounds more like a willing participant in consensual sex rather victim of abuse. He also mentioned Savile, accusing him of even more horrific crimes. I thought more of Milo; I thought he would be more cautious and nuanced on the subject; Shame, cos like you said, He’s done a lot of good stuff against feminism and in support for free speech. Did you see Question Time? The subject of CP came up, Because they’re having trouble finding resources to capture the 60,000 viewing CP at any given moment. Out of all the so called ‘liberals’, Only Peter Hitchens had a balanced view claiming “I don’t know enough about this subject” and “try not to get emotive and let yourself sound fashionable”…Maybe in five years you’ll realise you were wrong! At least by sheer numbers, this sordid industry may collapse under its own weight.

  2. Janequin says:

    Milo illustrates perfectly what the opposite of intellectual integrity looks like.
    I think this can safely be said. Not making any distinctions between children and teens since under eighteen is defined as “child” in our society.

  3. Libertine says:

    The News about Facebook reporting the BBC to the authorities was funny: They can’t have it both ways, Every time an image of a child is viewed, The kid is victimised over and over again.

  4. caamib says:

    It’s pretty simple really.

    “What does Milo really believe? Is he as confused as it seems? (even in the alleged videos he did both claim the age of consent was ‘about right’ whilst also claiming that we are too hung up on child abuse stuff and that perfectly consensual sex can occur younger. That, to my mind, is a contradictory viewpoint. It’s like someone saying it’s OK for the Nazis to gas Jews whilst also saying Jews can be perfectly decent people).”

    I think he basically believes what he said in that late night interview, that the age of consent should be around 13-14. Regarding your claim on the contradiction, sure, it does seem like a contradiction at the first glance but I’m guessing he didn’t think it through very much. Other 2 questions are in fact more important.

    “Why did Milo so desperately apologise over this, but hasn’t apologised over other comments he has made despite triggering hordes of overweight feminazis?”

    As much as some MRAs still like to pretend that they’re victims and as much as some feminists are still deluded into thinking that their bs is still dominant it is in fact fashionable to hate feminism without actually hating basic tenets of feminism. This is a good video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro1nkPAcIFw

    Overweight feminazis being mocked is acceptable. Saying what Milo did on aoc is still seen as sort of blasphemy to both left and the right. Remember that Milo was in fact mostly attacked from the right. This is because the right is basically also a bunch of morons who deeply believe in the current consensus.

    “Why does this culture exist whereby it seems that people feel they can speak their opinions about anything except paedophilia? Is this culture fundamental (i.e. the consequences for speaking your opinion are both far worse and impossible to mitigate when speaking out about paedophilia over other issues) or imaginary (the consequences could actually be far less than believed, or with some cunning can be mitigated and the oppressive age of consent belief system crushed)?”

    This is because liberalism is basically a mutated form of Protestantism that kept some of its tenets even after rejecting god himself. The right, which tends to be more religious, fits into this. This age of consent crap is the current wide consensus partially because of huge inflation of various “children’s rights” which basically amount to insane number of protections and legal exemptions,.

    As for your final questions, frankly, I don’t know. I can’t predict what would have happened and thus can’t answer your question. I am seeing encouraging signs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s