By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Milo Yiannopoulos book deal cancelled following outrage over child abuse comments

Slimebeast said:
Puppyroach said:

Free speech is anyone's right to express themselves on any topic. It is also free speech for anyone to criticize what that persons says. Having a book deal cancelled or a booking to speak at CPAC revoked has absolutely nothing to do with free speech since that doesn't infringe on your right to express yourself. He can have his CPAC speech on any street anywhere and print his book for his own money, so his democratic rights arent I fringed in any way. It's just him playing the classic victim part just because he is a spoiled troll.

So you deny that there's such a thing called "witch hunt".

In the name of consequnce I hope that you also deny that hate speech is a problem then,  and all these accusations thrown around my media and politicians that the rhetorics by Sweden democrats are an "attack on our open and free society and our democracy".

Are you philosophically opposed to the idea of boycotts?  What happened with his book deal is people registering their displeasure with the publisher, the publisher deciding they would rather go along with public opinion, and canceling the book deal.  His book isn't being censored.  Even if he can't get another publisher and sell the book (which he likely will), he could still put it up on the Internet and get his message out.  His free speech is not being infringed on.  I would agree with you if he was blocked from hosting his own website and getting his message out that way.  But I don't have a problem with things like the Twitter ban and the publisher backing out of a book deal when he explicitly makes it a life goal to be an outrageous provocateur.  He WANTS reactions and nobody should be surprised or whine when he GETS reactions.  Sometimes they aren't going to be reactions he particularly enjoys, but he of all people ought to appreciate the irony of that. 

I've watched the video.  He is very clear about his opposition to pedophilia as defined as sexual attraction and predation on pre-pubescent children.  But as soon as you hit puberty all bets are off.  I think most of society would not be okay with 30 year olds going after boys as soon as they hit puberty.  I was inclined to believe what he said in the video about his defense of a relationship between a 28 year old and a 13-14 year old (himself) being a symptom of denial due to past abuse (by them, of him, in those relationships).  However, he then goes on in his "apology" to say that he was not serious and downplay how inappropriate such age discrepancies are.  He can't have it both ways.  That's my problem with this guy in general:  he says crazy stuff and any time someone calls him on something he blows it off as just hyperbole or just a joke, but then he still expects to be taken seriously.  He can't have it both ways, at least not from me. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

The witchhunt against Milo is a disgrace for Western democracy.

How can you cancel a whole book because of just one statement even if it was abhorrable (it wasn't). Scandal.

It's the publishers right to cancel book deals, it's just their exercise of free speech.



I didn't even know who this guy was before a couple days ago, honestly don't care even now. most will forget he even exists after a few weeks.



Well he's finished. I dare say they sat on this stuff for a year in order to ensure it had the most impact, but yeah he's done.



I think to be honest he's a phony in many respects. He realized he could make money doing this stuff and was really in it for that book deal $$$ off gullible saps. Betcha that's what he's really scrambling about now, he thought he keep provoking/antagonizing certain easy to pick on groups all the way to a nice fat pay day and he's now gone and screwed himself. 

Though shame on that publisher, they were quite willing to go along with just about anything short of pedophilia, I guess that's where they drew the line as being too distasteful for them.



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't even know who this guy was before a couple days ago, honestly don't care even now. most will forget he even exists after a few weeks.

 

I still don't know who this guy is and I'm not going to find out either. Not even worth the time for me to google it.

WolfpackN64 said:
Slimebeast said:

The witchhunt against Milo is a disgrace for Western democracy.

How can you cancel a whole book because of just one statement even if it was abhorrable (it wasn't). Scandal.

It's the publishers right to cancel book deals, it's just their exercise of free speech.

Can they refuse to bake the gay cake?



Despite the keepers of the morals (on both the left AND the right) guilt tripping Milo supporters like myself to turn from him, I simply won't. Why? Because America more than ever NEEDS a free speaker like him to raise discussion, challenge accepted norms, and inspire more critical thinking. I only even agree with roughly 60% of his points/remarks over the years, but that's not the point.. The point is he is the true representative of one of my most cherished values in America, which is free speech. What most of my fellow liberals (at least the more Authoritarian ones), don't seem to realize is free speech applies to ALL, and that includes those who tend to talk conservative and libertarian points as well. If you always agreed with the content of the free speech, kinda ruins the point doesn't it?

The problem is, when you play the free speech angle in public as free and loose as Milo does, and with how much he runs his mouth and tries to provoke people and tap into certain taboos, you'll almost inevitably say something that will come back to haunt you as a result of the sensationalist media who seeks cheap hits. The guy has done THOUSANDS of interviews blabbering away, so it was inevitable he was going to say a few insanely idotic things the media would throw against him when they felt the timing convenient to try and bring him down. The sexual abuse comments on the Rogan podcast were insane and idiotic, but he's since gone back and apologized for them, stating that in fact he was abused, and that one way he copes with it is to laugh/shrug it off and to claim that these tramatic events shouldn't define you. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.. Were some of his statements on the podcast poorly worded, controversial, ridiculous insensitive? Of course. But that shouldn't negate the many other intelligent points he's raised over the months and years. And he's since made it clear he not only CONDEMNS pedophilia; not only is HE in fact a victim of it, but he has even turned in a few abusers himself.. What more do people need? But sadly there will always be a certain contingent of people who are easily swept up by media sensationalism that clings to a few dumb statements, incapable of critical thinking.

At the end of the day, the things he says are just words. They're just words. They are harmless.

What IS harmful is people, and their actions, as well as their ill intent BEHIND the words they use. I don't see any ill intent with Milo. I see a man trying to remind America that free speech is vital to civilized society, that words (even controversial ones) can open debate and ultimately prove to be positive. Sure he's a bit of an instagator, a provocateur who perhaps goes to far at times, but we NEED a few of those in our society to get people's attention and open up the discussion. If you want to see how societies function when free speech is suppressed or non-existant, I ask you (as a graduate of history) look at Nazi Germany under Hitler, communist China under Mao, Communist Russia under Stalin. Look at North Korea. Look at many countries in the Middle East. Look at Fascist Italy under Musilini, and ancient Rome under Sulla. The list goes on..



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Puppyroach said:
Slimebeast said:

So you deny that there's such a thing called "witch hunt".

In the name of consequnce I hope that you also deny that hate speech is a problem then,  and all these accusations thrown around my media and politicians that the rhetorics by Sweden democrats are an "attack on our open and free society and our democracy".

No, there might very well be a witch hunt on Milo but what I'm saying is that it doesn't apply to free speech since the government isn't limiting his right to speak anymore than they do for other citizens

I'm critical to those that see the Swedish Democrats as a threat to our democracy. I think their policies describe a society that moves in a fascist direction but it is because of democracy we have the tool to use our vote and keep them from enacting most of their policies. Some people may mot agree with me and will support them, that is their democratic right and I applaud that right even when I don't agree with their vote.

Also, out hate speech laws are way to constricting in Sweden and we should have a more liberal attitude towards any kind of speech. But as long as the law applies equally to everyone, no one can claim that they are singled out.

In the strictest sense Sweden is a democracy, but since you are a Swedes you know we have a huge debate about democracy that includes the atmosphere, values and attitudes in our society and how they affect "democracy". It's not just about the law permitting free speech (whichit doesn't, since we have "hate laws").

And what's surreal is that politicans in alliance with the media portrays only the nationalistic right as a threat against democracy and free speech, while in reality the witchhunt is against everyone who opposes immigration.

People in Sweden get fired for expressing criticism towards immigration. "Oh, but it's democracy, the law allows the employer to do that. We still have a formal freedom of speech" Yeah, and so did the law in the Soviet Union too. Dissidents were fired and oppressed in many nasty ways, but always in the name of the law.

"society that moves in a fascist direction"



Final-Fan said:
Slimebeast said:

So you deny that there's such a thing called "witch hunt".

In the name of consequnce I hope that you also deny that hate speech is a problem then,  and all these accusations thrown around my media and politicians that the rhetorics by Sweden democrats are an "attack on our open and free society and our democracy".

Are you philosophically opposed to the idea of boycotts?  What happened with his book deal is people registering their displeasure with the publisher, the publisher deciding they would rather go along with public opinion, and canceling the book deal.  His book isn't being censored.  Even if he can't get another publisher and sell the book (which he likely will), he could still put it up on the Internet and get his message out.  His free speech is not being infringed on.  I would agree with you if he was blocked from hosting his own website and getting his message out that way.  But I don't have a problem with things like the Twitter ban and the publisher backing out of a book deal when he explicitly makes it a life goal to be an outrageous provocateur.  He WANTS reactions and nobody should be surprised or whine when he GETS reactions.  Sometimes they aren't going to be reactions he particularly enjoys, but he of all people ought to appreciate the irony of that. 

I've watched the video.  He is very clear about his opposition to pedophilia as defined as sexual attraction and predation on pre-pubescent children.  But as soon as you hit puberty all bets are off.  I think most of society would not be okay with 30 year olds going after boys as soon as they hit puberty.  I was inclined to believe what he said in the video about his defense of a relationship between a 28 year old and a 13-14 year old (himself) being a symptom of denial due to past abuse (by them, of him, in those relationships).  However, he then goes on in his "apology" to say that he was not serious and downplay how inappropriate such age discrepancies are.  He can't have it both ways.  That's my problem with this guy in general:  he says crazy stuff and any time someone calls him on something he blows it off as just hyperbole or just a joke, but then he still expects to be taken seriously.  He can't have it both ways, at least not from me. 

He was very clearly against pedophilia, you admit it with your own words.

And in Germany the age of consent is 14. EOD.