In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 20 2017 14:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just in time for CPAC:
Those are ~7th graders... middle schoolers.
Isn't consent based on the ability to have maturity and clarity of thought? I'm pretty sure that 13 year olds generally lack the mental maturity and psychological development to know what they'd be getting themselves into if they slept with their parents' friends. At the very least, one party would be taking advantage of the other party. It's really, really hard to draw a line that fits all people of a certain age perfectly in terms of maturity, but I'm 99% certain that that line needs to be later than 13 years old. Maybe 16ish?
As an aside, does Milo actually have any expertise in anything? Or does he just make provocative, condescending statements simply to sound like an intellectual rebel? Because, while he's good at riling up people, he rarely makes well-informed remarks with substance. He seems to be feed off triggering people, rather than intellectual discourse.
Isn't consent based on the ability to have maturity and clarity of thought? I'm pretty sure that 13 year olds generally lack the mental maturity and psychological development to know what they'd be getting themselves into if they slept with their parents' friends. At the very least, one party would be taking advantage of the other party. It's really, really hard to draw a line that fits all people of a certain age perfectly in terms of maturity, but I'm 99% certain that that line needs to be later than 13 years old. Maybe 16ish?
I have little experience with Focault but he's pretty hard to understand. And of course usual disclaimer that a lot of people think he's just plain wrong.
now I doubt Milo is making these kind of arguments.
off the top of my head I can imagine the argument where lots of cultures have child marriages or have people marry at like 13 or 14. Like some article on an Amazon tribe I read. I guess that could be an argument in a way.
Isn't consent based on the ability to have maturity and clarity of thought? I'm pretty sure that 13 year olds generally lack the mental maturity and psychological development to know what they'd be getting themselves into if they slept with their parents' friends. At the very least, one party would be taking advantage of the other party. It's really, really hard to draw a line that fits all people of a certain age perfectly in terms of maturity, but I'm 99% certain that that line needs to be later than 13 years old. Maybe 16ish?
Thanks, I found this part to be particularly interesting:
Childhood and the notion of consent[edit] While today the very possibility of consent before puberty is polemic – often raising emotional responses and leaving intellectuals in a defensive position, in 1977–1978 Foucault, Hocquenghem and Danet admitted openly and with naturalness the idea of a non-abusive pedophilia.[citation needed] The 1977 petition refers to all ages below the age of consent in France (fifteen), including the ages before puberty.[citation needed] The biological definition of pedophilia is recognized by the United Nations and accepted in the Francophone world. Both Foucault and Hocquenghem agreed that consent is a contractual notion. 'This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. No one signs a contract before making love', said Hocquenghem. "When we say that children are 'consenting' in these cases, all we intend to say is this: in any case, there was no violence, or organized manipulation in order to wrench out of them affective or erotic relations", he completed.
"No violence" seems to be a poor standard, considering raping an unconscious person doesn't have to be violent per se. Furthermore, intentional or not, I think a case could be made that a real adult who wants to sleep with a child- even if the child is okay with it- is involved in a level of "organized manipulation" simply because of the difference in authority and power one party has over the other, psychologically or otherwise. It's certainly an interesting conversation.
And ages below fifteen/ below puberty are just... ugh.
too be fair a lot of highly regarded French intellectuals once tried to push for a removal of age of consent laws. although I'm pretty sure they would all laugh milo out of the building if any of them were still around. Derrida would probably explain how Milo is just a reaction of to the deconstructive reversal and an attempt to further marginalize though's who were merely trying to show how irrational the center and the marginalized system that was in place was. Then he'd probably go back to getting in a long arguing match with Searle that never got resolved because they did not like each other at all. Then he'd go back to arguing that a dude who wrote in a pro Nazi newspaper in the 1930s/40s wasn't actually a Nazi. (He was a complicated guy.)
age of consent stuff gets tricky if you're really trying to analyze it too hard. In terms of Milo I see it more as being edgy then actually going through the entire argument that the postmodernists went through. It'll probably come back to backfire on him at some point. Usually does.
It's not something that plays well with women. Or survivors of sexual assault, apparently.
Milo's defenses, for what it's worth :
There's a video going around that purports to show me saying anti-semitic things (nope) and advocating for pedophilia (big nope). The shocking thing? It's Republicans doing it. Sad to see establishment types collapse into the same tactics as social justice warriors: name calling, deceptively edited videos, confected moral outrage and public shaming. This is why they deserve to burn -- and why they are burning. Here's how I actually feel about pedophilia, which you'd know if you'd actually watched or read anything I've ever done. Or, you know, if you had two brain cells to rub together. There's only one appropriate response to this sort of behavior, and it's a gigantic FUCK YOU! 🤷
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject. If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children. Some facts to consider: 1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist. (a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/ http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/ (b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/ (c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting. http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/ 2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism. http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/ 3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person. 4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers. 5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform. 6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys. 7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent. 8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret. 9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat. 10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
(Taken from Milo's facebook).
I do have to wonder how long people sat on that video waiting for Milo to gain prominence though.
I don't think Focault would validate having sex with someone in their sleep. Like I said I'm really not familiar with him but pretty sure he would not approve of that.
His argument is pretty tied into the idea that pyschiatry was trying to create this other in the idea of a pervert that could be treated or something like that. I have never actually read his works. I can kind of see where he's coming from I think but I don't want to try explaining it cause I know I would get it completely wrong.
There's video of him on Joe Rogan's podcast advocating it as well. I don't think people were sitting on it so much as the only people that can stand him for more than 5 minutes are his fans who will defend him to the grave.
Hell I listened to part of the Rogan podcast he was on till I couldn't bring myself to take another second of his pathetic bullshit. So I never made it to the part where he talks about loving being raped by a priest and that he's been at Hollywood sex parties with kids that he didn't report to the police. He can go fuck himself.
Foucault is very difficult to parse no matter the context. He's very useful when writing academic papers because you can argue that he means pretty much literally anything. It's probably part of why he's so frequently referenced. The other intellectuals were much more clear on the subject. The essential part they were arguing is that it was only a societally created morality that made the act "wrong", and that there was nothing inherently wrong about it. It's very much a relativistic society thing, and they also had questions regarding free will/the notion of consent itself.
I'm fairly sure there's no longer any academic debate on the issue though, basically regardless of "consent" it still causes far too much psychological trauma to under-developed brains. And please, please let's not debate this or go further down that particular rabbit hole.
edit: One thing to note is that Foucault was gay at a time when it was extremely highly persecuted, and likely saw society treat pedophiles in a similar fashion to gay men. The modern answer has been to stop conflating the two, but this was several decades ago.
On February 20 2017 14:45 Nevuk wrote: Foucault is very difficult to parse no matter the context. He's very useful when writing academic papers because you can argue that he means pretty much literally anything. It's probably part of why he's so frequently referenced. The other intellectuals were much more clear on the subject. The essential part they were arguing is that it was only a societally created morality that made the act "wrong", and that there was nothing inherently wrong about it. It's very much a relativistic society thing, and they also had questions regarding free will/the notion of consent itself.
I'm fairly sure there's no longer any academic debate on the issue though, basically regardless of "consent" it still causes far too much psychological trauma to under-developed brains. And please, please let's not debate this or go further down that particular rabbit hole.
edit: One thing to note is that Foucault was gay at a time when it was extremely highly persecuted, and likely saw society treat pedophiles in a similar fashion to gay men. The modern answer is to stop conflating the two, but this was several decades ago.
I don't personally plan too. The only thing I feel even remotely comfortable talking about complexly is stuff involving language or meaning. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Milo: Says gay people choose to be gay so that they can be naughty. Brags about being raped at age 14 by a child molesting priest and that the priest did a "fantastic" job sexually.
I think he might be legitimately fucked in the head.
On February 20 2017 04:13 Blisse wrote: Anyone have better sources on the Sweden "refugee crisis" stuff? It seems like Trump was quoting a Fox News segment that aired ... yesterday lmfao. I can't find any non-right-wing sources other than The Guardian talking about it or offering the other perspective. But I can totally see how bad it sounds if you watched Fox News and believed that segment, but I also know... it's Fox News.
On February 19 2017 23:14 Yurie wrote:
On February 19 2017 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So nothing bad actually happened last night/ two nights ago in Sweden that caused drama, just that Fox News negatively reported that Sweden welcomes refugees and Trump is just reporting Fox's biased report?
No, I just said, the Fox News segment aired the previous day and it's clear that it's where Trump got the impression there are problems in Sweden in his speech. There is plenty of coverage of the "refugee crisis" in Sweden over the last year unrelated to Trump news, but most of them appear to come from incredibly biased sources. I wanted to know more about the situation because it doesn't seem like any sources I've found is refuting the problems in Sweden, regardless of whether Swedish people continue to welcome refugees.
The joys of one side refusing to even talk about something while the other side thinks everything that happens is a sign of our future as a caliphate.
I've had the same problem trying to find unbiased information Some of the swedish people posting here last time this came up tho, said the situation was pretty grossly exaggerated for whatever it's worth.
I'm only in sweden once a year so hard to tell much.
On February 20 2017 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: When I talk to swedes they seem incredibly divided on the issue. Most swedes I trust seem to be of the opinion that the 'refugee disaster' is overblown and not really a thing, but there are also genuinely a lot of swedes who seem to think everything is going to hell, and even the swedes I trust acknowledge that certain parts of certain cities do have real problems with immigration, and that there have been a couple incidents of media self-censoring. But overall, 'mainstream' swedish media certainly give a more truthful portrayal than the fringe outlets only interested in covering negative aspects of immigration do, even if it is true that the mainstream media outlets on a couple occasions have made pretty huge mistakes- there was some groping incident at a festival which was deliberately not covered as to not spur anti-immigrant sentiments.
And I've heard from a lot of swedes that it's a very politically correct society where you need to weight your words carefully to not be considered a racist if you have anything critical to say about the immigration policies- and there seems to be this genuine fight for the narratives thing going on. My take is basically that there are genuine issues and grievances felt from the anti-refugee crowd, but they pale in comparison with how dire they themselves portray the situation as.
Missed these, thank you both for your input. Anecdotal but it seems to match what I've managed to read and corroborate. It's really annoying though, that the range and opinion of news coverage is so vast, of this and other issues.
He's also a self hating gay. He also clutches his pearls at transexual bathrooms because think of the children! But at the same time has zero problem defending and even praising pedos. The guy is a piece of shit of the highest order, he's dumber than hell, never made a valid point on anything in his life. He thinks America was founded on Christianity. He hated gamers still he figured out he could bilk the idiots in gamergate. Said the internet makes people monsters then became a monster himself. Anyone that is a fan of him I instantly lose any and all respect for. If you like Milo I don't give a shit about your thoughts or input on any topic in the universe, end of. He's a repugnant pile of dung, I praise twitter for banning him, I praise people for protesting him (though rioting is stupid, but go protest the hell out of him, the KKK, neo-nazis, the alt right, WBC, etc). People need to stop giving him, and other imbeciles of his ilk, along with people who don't ever discuss things in good faith, a platform to spread their shitty ideas to other idiots. There aren't 2 sides to every coin.
Milo will say anything, that causes outrage just to get attention, glad to see it backfire on a massive scale. Attention equals views and money, so it's pretty doubtful he'll change in the near future. I dislike extremists on either side, but this guy isn't even worth 5 seconds of our attention, the less he gets the better.
According to official statistics, 2015 saw an four percent increase in reported crimes compared to 2014. The categories of crimes that reported the highest increases were vandalism and computer-based fraud. 2015 saw a slight decrease in thefts, sex offenses, and traffic crimes. In 2015, car thefts and thefts from vehicles increased one percent from the previous year for a total number of 67,400 reported crimes.The homicide rate in 2015 remained relatively unchanged from 2014 with approximately 90 reported cases. The country is not immune to random acts of violence.
should also be noted that their rape numbers are inflated when compared to other countries because they have a wider definition for what constitutes that. not sure how much that helps
On February 20 2017 15:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: found this in terms of swedish crime rates. seems pretty steady. NBC news said that the rise of 4 percent in 2015 was due to computer crimes
should also be noted that their rape numbers are higher because they have a wider definition for what constitutes that.
From the wiki:
The high number of reported rapes in Sweden can partly be explained by the comparatively broad definition of rape, the method of which the Swedish police record rapes, a high confidence in the criminal justice system, and an effort by the Government to decrease the number of unreported rapes.
Another fun quote regarding that:
In 2013, of the 129 countries listed in the UNODC report, a total of 67 countries had no reported data on rape.
As far as I know Swedish crime rates has been steady for a long time. Which is a bad trend since it should go towards less crime over time in a well functioning society.
The biggest immigration problem I know of is that we don't have enough buildings. We had a long term trend of people moving from areas because there was no work and buildings being abandoned in those areas. Those now have refugees moving in while the trend to move to the major cities continues and thus there are no longer any free apartments anywhere in the country. 240 out of 290 municipalities report a lack of living spaces. So the real problem is that we need more buildings for living in to take more refugees and somehow develop more total job placements since it doesn't matter if you are a refugee or not in the difficulty of getting work without a university degree or other relevant education past high school.
http://hurvibor.se/bostader/laget-i-kommunerna/ Ignore the text, the graphics shows the municipalities that has plenty of apartments/houses in green, surplus in yellow and orange as a lack. From a cursory view none of the green or yellow areas are attractive living areas based on work and culture (city size).
The statement regarding very few people getting work was based on same year refugees that are likely in language learning classes and similar efforts. Havn't read up on it.
well at some time crime rates stop dropping because their is a floor to them. You don't want to try to eradicate crime by force or anything.
Housing is a problem everywhere. Think I read that Ireland's public housing list at the rate it's going would take 1300 years to completely take care of the homeless problem there.
On February 20 2017 14:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Ouchy, I looked that up on YouTube just now...
Milo: Says gay people choose to be gay so that they can be naughty. Brags about being raped at age 14 by a child molesting priest and that the priest did a "fantastic" job sexually.
I think he might be legitimately fucked in the head.
I don't find this video that bad...? What I mean is, given that he's talking about himself, maybe this is just a mental defence or a reality he has construed to protect himself.
Not outing names seems fine too.
Still disturbing but mostly making me feel sorry for him.
On February 20 2017 15:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: well at some time crime rates stop dropping because their is a floor to them. You don't want to try to eradicate crime by force or anything.
Housing is a problem everywhere. Think I read that Ireland's public housing list at the rate it's going would take 1300 years to completely take care of the homeless problem there.
That is why it is the biggest immigration problem. People want to live in Stockholm most of all but that isn't possible. So they end up in a small city somewhere in the middle of Sweden since that is where there is an open apartment. Leading to them not finding work since it is open due to people moving away from the rural areas. It is something that will probably solve itself over a generation but it is problematic now, I'll just wait it out amid the other changes happening.
Not having work available is among the worst problems a society can have (after war etc). It means people find stuff to do (sadly not always positive) and don't integrate among people of other backgrounds quickly since they don't really meet them.
On February 20 2017 01:10 pmh wrote: Milo is a guy I can not stand myself and I wonder why he gets so much floor time everywhere. I even doubt he is helping the case of the alt right in general. To have such a controversial and outspoken person/self proclaimed troll being a spokesman for the movement does help attract a certain group of people but at the same time it drives an even bigger group of people away. He is way to polarizing,works well with the internet community but it will fail in attracting a big following amongst moderate every day people I think.
I'm not too sure that the alt-right really has any one figurehead, its not an organized group but a loose confederation of people from all across the political spectrum, from staunch conservatives to disaffected liberals; some like his antics others don't, but that doesn't really do harm to what their cause is about because its generally more nebulous than one person.
But also, the alt-right celebrates political incorrectness, because it wants to live in a world free of safe spaces and PC culture, which in their minds has allowed dangerous ideas like thinking there is nothing wrong with Islam, and that any criticism = islamophobia, which ends up working against gay and women's rights activists in muslim majority countries. So people like Milo are an anathema to PC culture which is a big bonus. Particularly because the more extreme elements of the left (at least one of whom actually comments on this very board, I'll let you work out who that person is ) actually advocates physical violence against elements of the right as a way of solving problems.
When they do that of course, it backfires horribly, and the leftists (rightly) appear to be the authoritarians they purport to be fighting. So actually Milo ends up doing a lot of good for the movement, even though his trollish antics are probably pointless and emotionally harmful in and of themselves.
I don't see it but maybe. Anyway,it seems milo has backfired recently and everyone who attacked him in the past can feel better about having done so. I am not surprised,this imo descredits the whole alt right movement even more. How can this be any good for the movement??
Alt right by the lack of a better word had the opportunity to represent a relatively large group of people if they would have chosen a more moderate and mainstream approach. Instead they go over the edge all the time making themselves a fringe group.
Just imagine if the sanders movement was represented by "occupy wallstreet" you would not have sanders and his rallies, all you have to represent that part of the political spectrum is "occupy wallstreet" It would soon marginalize the whole movement and everything it stands for. That is what milo has been doing for the alt right,at least that is how I see it. He did no good for the movement at all in the end,on the contrary. He only made it more obscure.
The mainstream media (90% of them),my day is not complete without a rant about the media so here we go. More then 40% of the voters did vote for trump,that is a large group of people in the country. This group of people still supports trump today,despite all the negative media coverage. The media is loosing this large group of people with their one sided reporting. This group of people will never ever trust mainstream media again. If I had any mainstream media stocks I would sell them right now,they lost almost halve of their influence and they will not regain it because they are completely dug into their partisan agendas. A lot of people are sick of their propaganda. Cnn these days makes me sick,i can barely stand watching it. 10-15 years ago it was my favorit channel,had it on at the back ground all day. Now I mostly watch bbc for international news coverage,one of the few good channels left.
On February 20 2017 17:35 pmh wrote: The mainstream media (90% of them),my day is not complete without a rant about the media so here we go. More then 40% of the voters did vote for trump,that is a large group of people in the country. This group of people still supports trump today,despite all the negative media coverage. The media is loosing this large group of people with their one sided reporting. This group of people will never ever trust mainstream media again. If I had any mainstream media stocks I would sell them right now,they lost almost halve of their influence and they will not regain it because they are completely dug into their partisan agendas. A lot of people are sick of their propaganda.
The propaganda you refer to is, unfortunately, the truth. That half of America seems to have given up on the truth and moved on is not a new thing. Large sections of the American population thinks Obama isn't an American, is a Muslim, and should have done more to stop 9/11. Trump is just the first mainstream politician to make lies the primary part of their brand. It wasn't that people didn't believe falsehoods before, it was that no politician was willing to degrade themselves for the support of morons to the extent that Trump does, possibly because he's doing it by accident.
EPT
Some of the swedish people posting here last time this came up tho, said the situation was pretty grossly exaggerated for whatever it's worth.
