The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Ostroeuropa]

I can't argue much against that because frankly, in the United States, it remains fundamentally true.

That still doesn't answer why bring the liberal media into this whole thing when a conservative group is actually not endorsing Milo. I mean, one would think that, if conservatives think that liberals are full of shit and that liberals are a bunch of SJW cucks, that conservatives would no-platform the accusations against Milo, who is their flagship gay conservative.

Because, according to some people, literally every problem in the world eventually comes down to the liberal media, SJWs, and, at some point, probably women too.

*shrug*
You come across a dead black guy hanging from a tree and a bunch of Klan members in outfits surrounding him.

"He hung himself."

"Maybe. But I don't believe you, and you've earned by contempt and suspicion by this point, to a sufficient extent that i'd say you're guilty until you prove your claim that he hung himself, given your proclivities. So would most juries."

Basically what it comes down to.
At some point, mainstream journalists even talking about something invites suspicion, because it's been well founded to do so in the past. You can complain about it if you like, but nobody is entitled to trust if they have pissed it away. The press are the enemy, and should be treated as such.
A majority of people agree with that sentiment at this point too.

Freedom of the press has outlived its usefulness IMO. "The freedom to wear ghost costumes in public."

They're a gang of terrorizers. That's all.
More people dead from the press than the klan too probably when you get right down to it.

[Corrian]

Man, all the threads have discussions I'm just scrolling through now.

I should probably listen further to the whole video to have a more clear opinion, but I'm not a huge fan of listening to Milo...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So Conservatives are truly Liberals?

No, simply that conservatives and liberals are far more alike than either would like to admit.

Although, let me be clear here, whilst I've not heard the interview in question, if it does seem to be even implying an endorsement of some sort of limited pedophilia, then I do understand why groups would be keen to distance themselves.

I heard some raws on YouTube, and while I think Milo's different culture makes a point (he's British, not American, so I can see the background where he comes from, sort of), American audiences are not too keen on someone trying to define pedophilia as "only being attracted to prepubescent children".

From what I understand, he talks about having sex at 13-14 years old and being promiscuous and able to give consent to someone in their late 20s, so he had no issues with dealing with adults and trying to excuse his behavior by saying that pedophilia is just being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. He also talks about how this age difference is perfectly normal where he comes from and that teen girls end up falling in love with older men and that this is perfectly normal.

The problem here is that while in British culture that would be okay, and I am sure in Mexico where the age of consent is much lower as well (depending on the state, Federal is 18) , in America there's a very hard line at 18, and any age under that is both illegal and wrong from an American standpoint. I can see why American conservatives were not all that okay with Milo's comments, considering that rather hard stance. I'm inclined to believe CPAC, after hearing and investigating the allegations, didn't feel all that comfortable with that culture shock so they decided to drop him.

[Vassenor]

No, simply that conservatives and liberals are far more alike than either would like to admit.

Although, let me be clear here, whilst I've not heard the interview in question, if it does seem to be even implying an endorsement of some sort of limited pedophilia, then I do understand why groups would be keen to distance themselves.

I heard some raws on YouTube, and while I think Milo's different culture makes a point (he's British, not American, so I can see the background where he comes from, sort of), American audiences are not too keen on someone trying to define pedophilia as "only being attracted to prepubescent children".

He talks about having sex at 13-14 years old and being promiscuous and able to give consent to someone in their late 20s, so he had no issues with dealing with adults and trying to excuse his behavior by saying that pedophilia is just being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. He also talks about how this age difference is perfectly normal where he comes from and that teen girls end up falling in love with older men and that this is perfectly normal.

The problem here is that while in British culture that would be okay, and I am sure in Mexico where the age of consent is much lower as well (depending on the state, Federal is 18) , in America there's a very hard line at 18, and any age under that is both illegal and wrong from an American standpoint. I can see why American conservatives were not all that okay with Milo's comments, considering that rather hard stance.

No, it's not really considered that OK in the UK. Especially in outlets like the Sun which seem to be obsessed with finding pedophiles everywhere.

Or the Mail which does it alongside leery long-lens photos of barely over-age celebs in swimsuits.

[Hirota]

I remember when Milo ran an article/hitpiece on essjaydubya "Srbuts" for similar viewpoints...well apart from butts was talking about actually doing things to a specific child, as opposed to the rhetorical advocacy I'm seeing so far.

At the very least how dumb does he have to be to think he can get away with advocating this whilst condemning it elsewhere?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because, according to some people, literally every problem in the world eventually comes down to the liberal media, SJWs, and, at some point, probably women too.

*shrug*
You come across a dead black guy hanging from a tree and a bunch of Klan members in outfits surrounding him.

"He hung himself."

"Maybe. But I don't believe you, and you've earned by contempt and suspicion by this point, to a sufficient extent that i'd say you're guilty until you prove your claim that he hung himself, given your proclivities. So would most juries."

Basically what it comes down to.
At some point, mainstream journalists even talking about something invites suspicion, because it's been well founded to do so in the past. You can complain about it if you like, but nobody is entitled to trust if they have pissed it away. The press are the enemy, and should be treated as such.
A majority of people agree with that sentiment at this point too.

Freedom of the press has outlived its usefulness IMO. "The freedom to wear ghost costumes in public."

They're a gang of terrorizers. That's all.
More people dead from the press than the klan too probably when you get right down to it.

While your disdain of the press is fine and all that STILL doesn't necessarily mean that anything that even Conservatives do against their standard-bearers brings the press by default.

[Ostroeuropa]

I heard some raws on YouTube, and while I think Milo's different culture makes a point (he's British, not American, so I can see the background where he comes from, sort of), American audiences are not too keen on someone trying to define pedophilia as "only being attracted to prepubescent children".

He talks about having sex at 13-14 years old and being promiscuous and able to give consent to someone in their late 20s, so he had no issues with dealing with adults and trying to excuse his behavior by saying that pedophilia is just being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. He also talks about how this age difference is perfectly normal where he comes from and that teen girls end up falling in love with older men and that this is perfectly normal.

The problem here is that while in British culture that would be okay, and I am sure in Mexico where the age of consent is much lower as well (depending on the state, Federal is 18) , in America there's a very hard line at 18, and any age under that is both illegal and wrong from an American standpoint. I can see why American conservatives were not all that okay with Milo's comments, considering that rather hard stance.

No, it's not really considered that OK in the UK. Especially in outlets like the Sun which seem to be obsessed with finding pedophiles everywhere.

Or the Mail which does it alongside leery long-lens photos of barely over-age celebs in swimsuits.

That's the press, so it's bollocks tbh.

I'm having trouble thinking of a girl I know that didn't date an adult while underage, except ones that simply didn't date.

14-20 is fairly typical. I dated a 15 year old when I was 17. I've also been dated by a 17 year old while 15. Whether it should be is another matter, but I would say yes, it's normal in the UK.

EDIT:
Just noticed "Late 20's" which does shake things up.
No, that's not normal. I've seen it happen with one of my close friends growing up. He was an utter manchild and she was very mature.
Of our group of friends, nobody saw anything wrong with it, but that was only after we knew him for a while. At first we were suspicious and told her to dump him.

(15 to 28)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it's not really considered that OK in the UK. Especially in outlets like the Sun which seem to be obsessed with finding pedophiles everywhere.

Or the Mail which does it alongside leery long-lens photos of barely over-age celebs in swimsuits.

That's the press, so it's bollocks tbh.

I'm having trouble thinking of a girl I know that didn't date an adult while underage, except ones that simply didn't date.

14-20 is fairly typical. I dated a 15 year old when I was 17. I've also been dated by a 17 year old while 15. Whether it should be is another matter, but I would say yes, it's normal in the UK.

This is why I am giving Milo some leeway on his comments, because they seem to be distinctly talking about Britain.

However, in the United States that doesn't fly. 18 year olds should date 18+ and 17 year olds should date 14-17 year olds and then you either break up with them or ask parents permission to keep dating, that's just how it is over here.

Over here an 18 year old dating a teen minor without the family's consent to it is severely frowned upon by conservatives. It's not what they consider "normal", even with Romeo and Juliet laws. And over here most people find it fucked up if the age difference is as significant as Milo narrated about his own encounters with adults as a 13-14 year old.

[Hirota]

I heard some raws on YouTube, and while I think Milo's different culture makes a point (he's British, not American, so I can see the background where he comes from, sort of), American audiences are not too keen on someone trying to define pedophilia as "only being attracted to prepubescent children".

I am British, so maybe I'll pick up on it, but taking his account second hand via you, it sounds like he is making the case for Hebephilia rather than pedophilia. I don't endorse that viewpoint.

The problem here is that while in British culture that would be okay, and I am sure in Mexico where the age of consent is much lower as well (depending on the state, Federal is 18) , in America there's a very hard line at 18, and any age under that is both illegal and wrong from an American standpoint. I can see why American conservatives were not all that okay with Milo's comments, considering that rather hard stance. I'm inclined to believe CPAC, after hearing and investigating the allegations, didn't feel all that comfortable with that culture shock so they decided to drop him.

I think you are probably right that it has a larger impact in the more conservative US, but I don't think it would be considered particularly "okay" here in blighty, especially after Jimmy Saville and friends.

No, it's not really considered that OK in the UK. Especially in outlets like the Sun which seem to be obsessed with finding pedophiles everywhere.

Or the Mail which does it alongside leery long-lens photos of barely over-age celebs in swimsuits.

Sorry, it's not progressing the topic, but you reminded me of this UK invention.

[Wallenburg]

Because, according to some people, literally every problem in the world eventually comes down to the liberal media, SJWs, and, at some point, probably women too.

*shrug*
You come across a dead black guy hanging from a tree and a bunch of Klan members in outfits surrounding him.

"He hung himself."

"Maybe. But I don't believe you, and you've earned by contempt and suspicion by this point, to a sufficient extent that i'd say you're guilty until you prove your claim that he hung himself, given your proclivities. So would most juries."

Basically what it comes down to.
At some point, mainstream journalists even talking about something invites suspicion, because it's been well founded to do so in the past. You can complain about it if you like, but nobody is entitled to trust if they have pissed it away. The press are the enemy, and should be treated as such.
A majority of people agree with that sentiment at this point too.

Freedom of the press has outlived its usefulness IMO. "The freedom to wear ghost costumes in public."

They're a gang of terrorizers. That's all.
More people dead from the press than the klan too probably when you get right down to it.

I don't know why, but it is extremely refreshing to see you quite plainly say that you hate free speech and want to stop the flow of information to the people.

[Proctopeo]

I remember when Milo ran an article/hitpiece on essjaydubya "Srbuts" for similar viewpoints...well apart from butts was talking about actually doing things to a specific child, as opposed to the rhetorical advocacy I'm seeing so far.

At the very least how dumb does he have to be to think he can get away with advocating this whilst condemning it elsewhere?

I would assume that there's a difference between someone, according to chat logs, being an actual active pedophile and what Milo said. I have yet to watch the whole, unedited stream for proper context, so I can't really form a complete opinion. But I am more inclined to believe Milo, especially after recent events with the media.

Also important to note is that it can be argued that there is a major moral difference between the three forbidden age-related philias.

[Ostroeuropa]

*shrug*
You come across a dead black guy hanging from a tree and a bunch of Klan members in outfits surrounding him.

"He hung himself."

"Maybe. But I don't believe you, and you've earned by contempt and suspicion by this point, to a sufficient extent that i'd say you're guilty until you prove your claim that he hung himself, given your proclivities. So would most juries."

Basically what it comes down to.
At some point, mainstream journalists even talking about something invites suspicion, because it's been well founded to do so in the past. You can complain about it if you like, but nobody is entitled to trust if they have pissed it away. The press are the enemy, and should be treated as such.
A majority of people agree with that sentiment at this point too.

Freedom of the press has outlived its usefulness IMO. "The freedom to wear ghost costumes in public."

They're a gang of terrorizers. That's all.
More people dead from the press than the klan too probably when you get right down to it.

I don't know why, but it is extremely refreshing to see you quite plainly say that you hate free speech and want to stop the flow of information to the people.

I'm fine with free speech.
I'd just ban most of the methods the newspapers use to raise money.

Free speech /=/ Freedom to profit from speech.
The latter can burn in a great bonfire along with all their hack articles.

Make a law saying they are absolutely required to have a full page disclaimer before they attempt to sell you an idea or product if they have any connections to it, in big capital letters, along with a prominent picture of the journalist and the editor. That kind of thing.

distinguish blogs and organizations. An individual has no requirements, an organization does, etc. There's ways to single out the mainstream press specifically if you word it correctly.

Then just jail the ones who don't and throw away the key. I'm fine with being draconian at this point, it's war.

[Wallenburg]

I don't know why, but it is extremely refreshing to see you quite plainly say that you hate free speech and want to stop the flow of information to the people.

I'm fine with free speech.
I'd just ban most of the methods the newspapers use to raise money.

Free speech /=/ Freedom to profit from speech.
The latter can burn in a great bonfire along with all their hack articles.

Yeah, I don't really believe you. If news organizations cannot make a profit from their work, news is going to be rather hard to find at all. What you really want is, again, to stifle the flow of information as much as possible. Besides, why the fuck should news media be unable to make money? Should software engineers be unable to make money from their work? Should waiters be unable to make money from their work? Should the entire workforce simply labor for free, with no expectation of personal profit?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fine with free speech.
I'd just ban most of the methods the newspapers use to raise money.

Free speech /=/ Freedom to profit from speech.
The latter can burn in a great bonfire along with all their hack articles.

Yeah, I don't really believe you. If news organizations cannot make a profit from their work, news is going to be rather hard to find at all. What you really want is, again, to stifle the flow of information as much as possible. Besides, why the fuck should news media be unable to make money? Should software engineers be unable to make money from their work? Should waiters be unable to make money from their work? Should the entire workforce simply labor for free, with no expectation of personal profit?

When a profession no longer benefits society and in fact seems to actively damage it, banning that profession or severely curtailing its freedoms is common sense.
"Journalist" belongs in the category with "Spy" and "Saboteur" not "Waiter."

People need to be reminded rights aren't absolute and enduring.
Abuse the spirit of the right to the point that society is better off without it, and no amount of talking about your rights will stop the crackdown.

The press overplayed their hand, so now freedom of the press will probably die at some point.
so it goes.

A future press might look back at this one and learn it's lesson.

"muh property rights"
Says the man owning all the water as the peasants light him on fire.

[Alvecia]

Yeah, I don't really believe you. If news organizations cannot make a profit from their work, news is going to be rather hard to find at all. What you really want is, again, to stifle the flow of information as much as possible. Besides, why the fuck should news media be unable to make money? Should software engineers be unable to make money from their work? Should waiters be unable to make money from their work? Should the entire workforce simply labor for free, with no expectation of personal profit?

When a profession no longer benefits society and in fact seems to actively damage it, banning that profession or severely curtailing its freedoms is common sense.
"Journalist" belongs in the category with "Spy" and "Saboteur" not "Waiter."

Arguably the consumers of news are equally at fault, if not more.
People tend towards news that supports their bias and narrative.

[Proctopeo]

I'm fine with free speech.
I'd just ban most of the methods the newspapers use to raise money.

Free speech /=/ Freedom to profit from speech.
The latter can burn in a great bonfire along with all their hack articles.

Yeah, I don't really believe you. If news organizations cannot make a profit from their work, news is going to be rather hard to find at all. What you really want is, again, to stifle the flow of information as much as possible. Besides, why the fuck should news media be unable to make money? Should software engineers be unable to make money from their work? Should waiters be unable to make money from their work? Should the entire workforce simply labor for free, with no expectation of personal profit?

I think I see the idea behind what they're saying - news outlets making profit promotes yellow journalism, because lies and half-truths make more money, which can be seen in action with tabloids and their digital equivalents, and to a lesser degree in less frequently stigmatized outlets, like the Wall Street Journal.

I don't agree, mind you - I think that lies deserve to be told, and others should exercise their free speech rights by partaking in mocking of whoever told the lies.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah, I don't really believe you. If news organizations cannot make a profit from their work, news is going to be rather hard to find at all. What you really want is, again, to stifle the flow of information as much as possible. Besides, why the fuck should news media be unable to make money? Should software engineers be unable to make money from their work? Should waiters be unable to make money from their work? Should the entire workforce simply labor for free, with no expectation of personal profit?

When a profession no longer benefits society and in fact seems to actively damage it, banning that profession or severely curtailing its freedoms is common sense.
"Journalist" belongs in the category with "Spy" and "Saboteur" not "Waiter."

People need to be reminded rights aren't absolute and enduring.
Abuse the spirit of the right to the point that society is better off without it, and no amount of bawwing about your rights will stop the crackdown.

The press overplayed their hand, so now freedom of the press will probably die at some point.
so it goes.

A future press might look back at this one and learn it's lesson.

"muh property rights"
Says the man owning all the water as the peasants light him on fire.

How can you even imagine that I would ever believe you support free speech when you advocate banning anyone who relays news to other people? You must think I'm real fucking stupid.

[Gauthier]

When a profession no longer benefits society and in fact seems to actively damage it, banning that profession or severely curtailing its freedoms is common sense.
"Journalist" belongs in the category with "Spy" and "Saboteur" not "Waiter."

People need to be reminded rights aren't absolute and enduring.
Abuse the spirit of the right to the point that society is better off without it, and no amount of bawwing about your rights will stop the crackdown.

The press overplayed their hand, so now freedom of the press will probably die at some point.
so it goes.

A future press might look back at this one and learn it's lesson.

"muh property rights"
Says the man owning all the water as the peasants light him on fire.

How can you even imagine that I would ever believe you support free speech when you advocate banning anyone who relays news to other people? You must think I'm real fucking stupid.

And yet he gets outraged when he perceives someone he likes getting banned by some SJW college.

[Ostroeuropa]

When a profession no longer benefits society and in fact seems to actively damage it, banning that profession or severely curtailing its freedoms is common sense.
"Journalist" belongs in the category with "Spy" and "Saboteur" not "Waiter."

People need to be reminded rights aren't absolute and enduring.
Abuse the spirit of the right to the point that society is better off without it, and no amount of bawwing about your rights will stop the crackdown.

The press overplayed their hand, so now freedom of the press will probably die at some point.
so it goes.

A future press might look back at this one and learn it's lesson.

"muh property rights"
Says the man owning all the water as the peasants light him on fire.

How can you even imagine that I would ever believe you support free speech when you advocate banning anyone who relays news to other people? You must think I'm real fucking stupid.

Thing is, rights and all that are part of the social contract, which is based partly in good faith.
When you're dealing with bad faith actors, rights are of no real consequence.

The SJW does not cry out in protest when you strike them with the baton because they oppose violence, they cry out because they do not hold the baton.
Having people like that in society eventually leads to the rest of us getting beaten when we assume they are genuine and try to respect their rights.

The press has spent fucking decades desperately trying to destroy new media.
Time for the baton.
Time for the crackdown.

Ultimately it isn't about philosophy or rights anymore, it's a war. The social contract doesn't apply.

Non-violent means of press suppression are preferable, but the analogy holds.

[Alvecia]

How can you even imagine that I would ever believe you support free speech when you advocate banning anyone who relays news to other people? You must think I'm real fucking stupid.

Thing is, rights and all that are part of the social contract, which is based partly in good faith.
When you're dealing with bad faith actors, rights are of no real consequence.

The SJW does not cry out in protest when you strike them with the baton because they oppose violence, they cry out because they do not hold the baton.
Having people like that in society eventually leads to the rest of us getting beaten.

The press has spent fucking decades desperately trying to destroy new media.
Time for the baton.

It's weird actually, and kind of interesting watching how over time your posts have become more and more...fanatic.

[Ostroeuropa]

Thing is, rights and all that are part of the social contract, which is based partly in good faith.
When you're dealing with bad faith actors, rights are of no real consequence.

The SJW does not cry out in protest when you strike them with the baton because they oppose violence, they cry out because they do not hold the baton.
Having people like that in society eventually leads to the rest of us getting beaten.

The press has spent fucking decades desperately trying to destroy new media.
Time for the baton.

It's weird actually, and kind of interesting watching how over time your posts have become more and more...fanatic.

More and more evidence of the damage and danger the radical progressive left poses comes to light by the day.
My point is that, ultimately, the freedom of the press argument is pointless.
The press doesn't even believe in freedom of the press, as their consistent efforts to destroy new media shows.

They cry out because they don't hold the baton, that's all. We don't have to pretend to respect freedom of the press anymore. Call it out for what it is, a lie they tell people to keep their own power.

[Wallenburg]

Thing is, rights and all that are part of the social contract, which is based partly in good faith.
When you're dealing with bad faith actors, rights are of no real consequence.

Your assumption that all news outlets, large and small, liberal or conservative, are bad faith actors is unsubstantiated.

The SJW does not cry out in protest when you strike them with the baton because they oppose violence, they cry out because they do not hold the baton.
Having people like that in society eventually leads to the rest of us getting beaten.

Cute analogy. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The press has spent fucking decades desperately trying to destroy new media.

Hey genius, I have news for you: new media is a part of the press.

Time for the baton.
Time for the crackdown.

Ultimately it isn't about philosophy or rights anymore, it's a war. The social contract doesn't apply.

Adolf Hitler would be proud. The alt-rightist does not cry out in protest when you strike them with the baton because they oppose violence, they cry out because they do not hold the baton.

Non-violent means of press suppression are preferable, but the analogy holds.

So you would also be fine with violently suppressing the media?

[Alvecia]

It's weird actually, and kind of interesting watching how over time your posts have become more and more...fanatic.

More and more evidence of the damage and danger the radical progressive left poses comes to light by the day.
My point is that, ultimately, the freedom of the press argument is pointless.
The press doesn't even believe in freedom of the press, as their consistent efforts to destroy new media shows.

They cry out because they don't hold the baton, that's all. We don't have to pretend to respect freedom of the press anymore. Call it out for what it is, a lie they tell people to keep their own power.

Yeah, very weird.
I just can't take you seriously any more. I can't distinguish you from the narrative.

[Wallenburg]

How can you even imagine that I would ever believe you support free speech when you advocate banning anyone who relays news to other people? You must think I'm real fucking stupid.

And yet he gets outraged when he perceives someone he likes getting banned by some SJW college.

You see, it's good if you ban liberals or progressives from freely expressing their opinions, but it's bad if you ban conservatives or neo-Nazis.

[Ostroeuropa]

More and more evidence of the damage and danger the radical progressive left poses comes to light by the day.
My point is that, ultimately, the freedom of the press argument is pointless.
The press doesn't even believe in freedom of the press, as their consistent efforts to destroy new media shows.

They cry out because they don't hold the baton, that's all. We don't have to pretend to respect freedom of the press anymore. Call it out for what it is, a lie they tell people to keep their own power.

Yeah, very weird.
I just can't take you seriously any more. I can't distinguish you from the narrative.

A gang that went around assaulting people wouldn't be taken seriously when they whined about us being violent to stop them.
After decades of them doing this, you can imagine the violence to stop them might even be severe when people finally get sick of their shit.

So it goes with the press. They should be suppressed and censored, as they have actively tried to do to everyone else in their efforts to control the overton window. "Freedom of the press" is as ridiculous a notion as "Freedom from poverty" being championed by the rich as an excuse for why they have so much money.
It's a "Rights for me but not for thee" refrain. We shouldn't take it as a serious argument anymore.
I accept you think i'm radical, but polling seems to agree with me that the public considers the media an enemy of the people.