Posted on 02/21/2017 5:06:22 AM PST by Kaslin
It was quite the weekend for Milo Yiannopoulos. After Friday night’s typically compelling sit-down with Bill Maher on HBO’s “Real Time,” the Saturday web buzz crackled with the news that the 32-year-old British provocateur had been named keynote speaker in the usually comfortable mainstream environment of CPAC.
This came as a surprise to many, including some on the American Conservative Union board that oversees the event. A debate ensued over whether a speaker sure to energize some and repel others was the smartest keynote choice.
Then Monday, the questions ran deeper, including but not limited to: Would Milo’s publisher cancel his book, due out in June? (Yes.) And would he be fired from the very job that lofted him to high visibility, writing and editing at Breitbart?
The bomb that exploded in his path is a video clip in which he explores with unfortunate imprecision the occasional gay teen who winds up in a relationship with an older (sometimes much older) adult man. This sparked instant cries that he was advocating pedophilia, which he denied in lengthy detail in a Sunday Facebook post, announcing to all: “I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.”
But the video keeps alive the question of Milo’s definition of “children.” Or at least his definition of what constitutes pedophilia.
He rightly asserts that an adult eyebrow raised in the direction of today’s rapidly developing older minors is not the same as a sexual taste for pre-pubescent children. But at this point, those layers of nuance became sufficiently uncomfortable that from the brain trust of CPAC to the offices of Simon & Schuster, conclusions were reached that it was time to distance.
So are these decisions justifiable, or has Milo been done wrong by people who should have stuck up for him?
Any perusal of Milo’s writings (and even more so his speaking) reveals that he makes life hard for defenders, and that seems to be the point. A tireless advocate for freedom of expression, he is a useful example of the old adage that innocuous speech requires no protection; it is the edgy firebrands who will draw negative attention requiring the armor of the Bill of Rights.
But I hope even Milo understands that this moment’s predicament has nothing to do with free speech. Unlike campus fascists who have sought to disrupt his invited appearances, a convention and a publisher have the right to associate with whomever they please. This includes the right to disassociate for whatever reasons they may cite.
We, in turn, are free to understand or lament these abandonments of Milo. So let’s move to whether he deserves such banishment.
Maybe it’s the months of explaining Donald Trump to people who cannot grasp his appeal, but I can understand the points Milo makes in the video without subscribing to any of them. While he may wistfully appreciate an older gay man offering comfort to an empathy-starved 17-year-old, my preference would be for young men to introspectively explore whether they might find and cling to the slightest thread of heterosexuality.
But that’s not the point. The issue surrounds whether Milo has crossed a line into ambivalence (if not approval) of even younger teens coming under the wing of gay mentors decades older.
Discussion groups are free to dive into the tricky layers of where those lines are drawn. A worthy distinction can be drawn between sexual attention toward pre-pubescent children and blossoming post-adolescents. But this is a roundtable millions of Americans have no interest in, and the very sound of these ruminations is apparently mortifying in a number of locations that mere days ago were pleased to do business with Milo.
His book deal, his CPAC speaking gig and his Breitbart job strike me as three different cases. CPAC first: it was stupid to invite him.
I can understand, even appreciate, how a Milo invitation looks appealing for about ten seconds. Here’s the guy whose very words sparked riots at Berkeley, the kind of thing that confers instant conservative heroism. Throw in his boldness on issues from Black Lives Matter to global jihad, wrapped in glib Brit-millennial patter, and it’s easy to see his potential for broadening the appeal of some conservative ideas.
But his caustic style, which he constantly brands with the asterisk of satire, may well have repulsed as many as it attracted. A speaking window somewhere at CPAC was justifiable. The keynote slot was not. Now one wonders if he’ll be allowed into the building.
Which brings us to another location considering his fate: his employer. Breitbart is free to cut ties with anyone whom it feels has damaged its brand, but has he? The Breitbart brand is so vague and splintered now, that it is hard to suggest that Milo has somehow caused a wave of new bad pub aimed its way.
Breitbart is the one forum where he should be able to expect a full ear for his denial of pedophilia advocacy, an argument that takes him some time, but resonates once made. There are smatterings of stories of Breitbart employees threatening to quit if he is not shown the door, but I’ll guess those are people who grew weary of his excesses long ago. My gut feeling is that this episode should not be a career-ender.
So if CPAC never should have reached out to him and Breitbart should restrain itself from jettisoning him, what about the book deal?
Totally the publisher’s call.
I would probably appreciate Simon and Schuster saying something like: “We signed Milo with the full knowledge that his views are intentionally, entertainingly incendiary. We expected his book to draw fiery reaction, and we welcome it as part of today’s many styles of political engagement, and we believe his assertions that he in no way turns a blind eye to the victimization of children.”
But that’s a lot to ask. Their job is to sell books in a nation currently filled with various hopped-up constituencies ready to wage economic warfare upon provocations large and small. I do not blame them for reducing to zero the chances of pickets swarming their midtown Manhattan headquarters.
So, the lessons? A livelihood steeped in edgy discourse has its hazards. It can reward its practitioners, but trap doors are common. Donald Trump can be elected president, surviving rhetorical moments his supporters chose to ignore. But Milo might suffer mightily as support he enjoyed mere days ago is yanked from various corners where his act grew too hot to handle. Our parents were right: life is unfair.
But if Milo Yiannopoulos is as resourceful as he seems to be, he can probably spin this into some new chapter, flaunting these latest rejections as further marketable evidence of the dangerous persona that some folks did not have the stomach for.
“I would just as soon people like this were not speaking for conservatism.”
I have mixed feelings about Milo. On one hand I like anyone who attacks leftists and can drive them bat-s*** crazy. On the other he is so flaming, barely in control and over the line that it is hard to see someone like him being a spokesman for conservatism. The guy clearly has major issues and like Glenn Beck seems likely to self destruct.
It also seems that those who support Milo but are against homos place themselves in the hypocritical position of “their perverts bad, our perverts good”.
Milo isn’t a “spokesman for conservatism”. He is a defender of anti-globalism. Don’t confuse the two, many conservatives are all in for globalism and preferred Hillary to Trump. Cpac can have them.
“Poor Milo. He should have claimed that he was a Muzzie and child rape is a cultural heritage of Islam.”
He is Greek so he can claim buggery is his cultural heritage. As they say down South, at least he comes by it honest.
Agreed.
“Milo isn’t a “spokesman for conservatism”. He is a defender of anti-globalism.”
Here’s how he is described in Wiki. “As a “cultural libertarian”[5] and “free speech fundamentalist”, he is a vocal critic of fourth-wave feminism,[6] Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he deems authoritarian or belonging to the “regressive left””.
If true he seems to fit in the conservative basket well enough.
Yet the liberals had no problem with Bill Maher’s comments on Michael Jackson, when he was on Craig Ferguson’s show a few years ago. Maher said that he had been bullied, and that he would rather have been “gently fondled by a pop star” than beaten up by other kids. Ferguson cut to a commercial immediately, and Maher had the audacity to look baffled at being cut off.
Bill Maher is a creep of the first water, yet the left has no problem with giving him a pass on every horrid thing he says. But Milo makes one verbal faux pas, and he’s instantly vilified.
These attacks aimed at Milo have nothing to do wit the left this time. This is CPAC and Friends doing everything they can to shut down anyone that is effective at changing minds.
Seems to me that Milo says things he wishes he could take back or rephrase. I do that too. That just makes him like the rest of the world. I don’t agree with what he said but sadly, as a victim of abuse, he may never be able to see what happened to him clearly.
Well, he should have used his brain, before he opened his mouth.
I know, but I for one cannot cast the first stone. I say things that I want to take back or that are misunderstood all the time.
“”but if he *WAS* a liberal and was actually promoting pedophilia he would probably be their brave hero of the day.””
Absolutely correct. I saw Santorum and Granholm on with (?) Hannity or Tucker last night... Their words and the expression on Santorum’s face was like they had both just received the most devastating news of their lives. Odd combination but they were sure in sync with one another. Don’t think I’d want either of them on my jury or anyone else condemning Milo without a fair trial. He’s posted and explained and clarified his words and people still want to crucify him??
There are a ton of people like him with YouTube channels that are on the forefront battling against the hard left.
They all have had threats against them, their families, their jobs, and their relationships. Many have to hide their IDs, but still go out there, sometimes for no pay, and fight the fight.
They are in nations like Canada, Japan, Ireland, UK, Israel, Australia, and others.
Some are black, white, middle eastern, females, gay, atheists, christian, and even some “trans” people.
And incredible array of people that are not the types that GET IT, and are willing to fight the real opponent. I never imagined at first that these people would espouse right-leaning POV so confidently and effectively.
These are the people that put Trump over the top. And might I remind many here was a candidate that was attacked along the same lines as Milo is today.
But the old AM talk radio generation of conservatives will never want to be seen with most of them. They will gladly help the regressive left take them down, so they can make the world safe for Glenn Beck to cry.
If some of the people on FR are too stuck up to open their eyes to what is in front of them, and WORK TOGETHER to stop the globalists from making life a living hell for the west, then they are no better than the left themselves.
I’ll gladly stand with the misfits than fall with the self-righteous cowards.
Go email your buddy John McCain. Get over it!
Why do you keep insisting that normal people become self-aggrandizing attention whores?
I will ask again.
When will you self-righteous, self-aggrandizing attention whore “real conservatives” take Milo’s place?
Or is your whole deal just being friends of the left to take out people that you have some stick up your ass over?
I will keep “insulting” you creeps until you either step up or shut up.
BRAVO on your post STEP UP or shut up, Milo has a spine of steel I don’t give a DAMN that he is gay, his being gay does not affect my life in any way, his TRUE FIGHT for our freedoms affects my life in EVERY WAY!!! Milo has NEVER BEEN one PUSHING the gay agenda as a matter of fact he pushes AGAINST the gay agenda he IS a WARRIOR for free speech MINUS the PC CRAP!!! He is also a WARRIOR for the 2nd amendment, I frankly don’t give a DAMN how anyone lives their life they SHOULD have the freedom to live their life anyway they please as long as they follow the law and don’t PUSH their lifestyle on EVERYONE ELSE!!!! Milo’s life is between him and God PERIOD!!!!
This is true. How many times has Ann Coulter said and done things that pissed us conservatives off. Yet she is still "one of us".
Having said that; Ann never went as far as Milo has.
I suggest you check into the homosexual agenda on FR. Coprophilic behavior is not a conservative value. Read the story of Sodom and tell me about it.
Check out the homosexual agenda section on FR. They have been undermining public health, raping little boys, and attacking Christianity in league with the Muslims for several decades. .
I suggest you check out the homosexual agenda section on FR. You might want to look at same sex pedophilia too, unless you consider both mental diseases conservative values. I’m not buying it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.