|
Sarah Hoyt: If They Take Milo Down, You're Next
...IF the attack on Milo were about, say how outrageous he got before the election (he’s been walking it back since. I suspect he gets a little battle mad as I tend to.) I’d shrug and say "whatever". However this is a contrived and false attack and one that apparently came from the right but is teaching the left the way to take every one of us down. You might not like Milo or his lifestyle, but you should not under any circumstances, applaud this means of taking him down. And if you do, I hope you experience likewise and get to experience what you like so much. There is a good chance you will. They’ve tasted blood with Milo. We’re next.Links: the full unedited thing The other full unedited thing Milo’s press conference. Possible McMullin involvement Milo fighting pedophiles: here, here and here. And now, what I have to say.* If You Let Them "Get" Milo, You’re Next Look guys, this is where Sarah takes her gloves off, turns the picture of Heinlein to the wall to spare him the worst of the rant, puts her hands on her hips and gives you the blunt and painful truth. I swear you’re not going to like it and I swear to you that you need to hear it. So, this kerfuffle with Milo Yannopolis, let’s be frank: have you seen the non-edited videos? Have you been to his page? No? Then shut up. He might have used infelicitous terms, but not all that infelicitous. He might have got caught in explaining too far ‐ as someone who used to write for Classical Values, the blog devoted to overthinking it, I can’t complain ‐ but he’s always been a bit more intellectual than the rest of the right and VERY intellectual for a shock-Jockey. But that is it. Yes, he used "boys" when he meant men. So do you, every fricking day. No? Then what’s with Playboy, "one of the boys", "playing with the big boys." Unless you mean kids under the age of 12, you too used boys to mean men. Second he talked about relationships between younger men and older men as nurturing, comfortable. Yeah, and? He also said that he thinks the age of consent is about where it should be. And for the US he is right. The US, you say? What does that have to do with it? Well, dear heart, if you think that the age of consent being 18 (it’s actually 16 in most states, but never mind) is a law of nature, you should perhaps meditate on George Bernard Shaw’s dictum: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. This is where Milo got into overthinking, when he started discussing how strictly speaking pedophiles are attracted to those people who haven’t undergone puberty (or are undergoing puberty.) He’s absolutely right, but he was perhaps over-intellectualizing. The truth is that laws of consent usually slice the do no harm/prevent harm very finely indeed, and are set when most of the population of the country can be assumed to have passed through and undergone puberty. I wrote a paper on this once. Pedophilia is defined to prepubescent children. (a) Most child molesters are not pedophiles (Birger et al.(2011). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 39(1), 100-103). (b) Attraction for post-pubescent is defined as hebephilia toward girls involved and ephebophilia toward boys. Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-02-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=481856 |