Milomeltdown continued

Just a couple of things from the comments that need elevating up to a post level.

Firstly Chris Gerrib’s review of Forbidden Thoughts

Secondly, Doris V Sutherland points out she had posted a link to the unedited version of the Milo interview over at Space Faring Kitten’s blog last May

Among the various blogs and comment sections you’ll see claims that the appearance of this video was somehow a complex operation – perhaps even involving left-right collusion in some 5-dimensional chess match etc etc. It wasn’t or if it was any such complex operation was unnecessary.

More to the point, the various Puppies (both Rabid and Sad) have had more than a year to come out and defend what Milo was saying in that video (as they now try to do in a kind of talking-not-talking sort of way). Notable that they didn’t.

[Update] and another pro-Milo post at Mad Genius from Kate Paulk basically eveil publishers can’t get away with not publishing stuff because then something something…

19 thoughts on “Milomeltdown continued

  1. Oh my, that Katie Paulk piece is extraordinary. The worst part about it is that she might actually have a good case but destroys it so spectacularly that it’s next to impossible to say that she might have a good case without spending far too long disentangling it from the rest of the trainwreck and, inevitably, being misunderstood anyway so it’s just not worth the bother.


    1. Scurra: Oh my, that Katie Paulk piece is extraordinary.

      It is certainly a valiant attempt to rewrite actual history:

      What I care about is that someone who has – objectively – done not one damn thing wrong is the subject of a coordinated effort to not merely silence him, but disappear him. I’ve seen this happen in the past. It happened to Larry Correia. To Brad Torgersen. I didn’t get the full force of it last year, but instead got the cold shoulder of people doing their best to pretend I’d already been disappeared.

      Because, of course:
      1) attempting to rig awards by cheating (and just because the rules allow something, that doesn’t preclude it from being cheating; see Heinlein’s skunk)
      2) calling people all sorts of vile epithets, and falsely accusing them of horrible deeds in blog post after blog post and comment after comment over a period of years, simply because their political beliefs and/or literary tastes are different
      3) claiming that women, minorities, and LGBTQ persons who have been nominated for awards didn’t actually deserve those nominations, they were just beneficiaries of Affirmative Action
      … are all examples of doing not one damn thing wrong. 🙄

      Also, Kate? I suggest you listen to the full, unedited audio. Because it’s just as incriminating as the edited version, and you look like a total fool for claiming otherwise.


  2. I like the review from Chris. I only ever read the sample so it’s helpful to know that it was representative.

    Paulk continues the attempts to work around the fact that this is the right eating its young while the rest of us make popcorn. Although – and to my mild surprise – our old friend Phantom is in the comments at least being honest about that aspect.

    I have to say that I haven’t bothered watching either video – as I’m not actually involving myself in criticising Milo about this then I don’t need to listen to him witter, after all – but I’d be interested to hear how selectively edited it is.


  3. Is that all that Milo really said? That when he was 14 he had sex with a priest but he didn’t have bad memories of it? That’s very far from condoning pedophilia. He’s just saying it didn’t damage him personally. Very little in nature is 100%, so I have no trouble believing that some children could be undamaged by that experience–just as some people walk away from car accidents that should have killed them. He’s clearly not generalizing his own experience to others. (E.g. when asked about X-men director Bryan Singer, he says that that’s something different.)

    Is there something I missed?


    1. No, Milo explicitly says that sexual relationships between 13 year old boys and much older men “can be” good, and that it’s “stupid” of the Left to insist on “one-size-fits-all” ages of consent. Like Sarah Hoyt, he’s arguing that because some boys have gone through puberty at 13, they are ready for sex — with grown men — and are able to give consent to those men.

      Elsewhere in the same discussion, he seems to argue that it’s fine for grown men to have sex with 15 year old girls, for the same reason. He claims this is not pedophilia, because the 13 year old boys and the 15 year old girls have gone through puberty. This is the same argument Hoyt makes on her blog.

      Partial transcript here:

      There’s a longer transcript linked, apparently, but I can only take so much.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. FWIW, I transcribed chunks of the videos on my own blog a few weeks before the scandal hit:

        I’d say this is the most crucial portion, although there are strong contenders elsewhere. As you read it, bear in mind that a) Milo expects us to believe that, by “boys”, he meant 17 year olds, despite the rest of the exchange clearly focusing on 13 year olds; and b) he thinks that saying the age of consent is “about right” before detailing instances where it’s okay for adults to have sex with minors somehow absolves him of suspicion.

        Ben: If I knew someone who was around my age, who was like, ‘I just had sex with a 13-year-old,’ I would be creeped out, honestly.

        Yiannopoulos: What is your age?

        Ben: I’m almost 35.

        Yiannopoulos: Okay, well, I’m talking about 28-year-olds.

        Scotty: [Sarcastically] Well, that changes everything!

        Yiannopoulos: I’m guessing, because I’ve never told this publicly, but you hear that in this video, but we’re talking about 13/25, 13/28, these things do happen perfectly consensually. Often it’s the women who suffer, by the way, because what normally happens in schools, very often, is that the boy is the predator in that situation – the boy is like, ‘let’s see if I can fuck the gym teacher’ or ‘let’s see if I can fuck the hot maths teacher’, and he does, the women fall in love with these nubile young men, these athletic young boys in their prime, and end up having their lives destroyed, end up having to move schools, leave the country, whatever. I would say that in the situation I describe in the Joe Rogan show, I was very definitely the predator on both occasions, as offensive as some people will find that, I don’t much care, that was certainly my experience of it. I was very much the predator in those situations.

        TJ: Ben, you said you’d be creeped out if someone came to you and said they’d had sex with a 13-year-old, but what if they said, you know, ‘the 13-year-old – they were the predator, they came on to me’? I mean, is it that unbelievable if you have some really horny 13-year-old comin’ at ya?

        Yiannopoulos: The point about this stuff is that we get hung up on abuse – this is a controversial point of view, I accept – but we get hung up on this child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing consent between consenting adults, like grad students and professors at universities.

        PaulsEgo: This whole consent thing, for me, it’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably. But I was also a 13-year-old. I hung around with 13-year-old guys when I was 13, and there were some of them who still thought that girls were fucking icky at 13. Not many, but they were just coming out of that phase. I don’t know that I was ready at 13 to get fucked in the ass by a 28-year-old black drag queen is what I’m saying. The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of barometer here, we’ve got to pick an age and say ‘okay, look, we can reasonably be assured you’re an adult, you can give informed consent, you understand the risks…’

        Yiannopoulos: Of course, and I think the law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age, I think it’s probably about okay, 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 are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way. This is one of the reasons I hate the left, this sort of stupid, one-size-fits-all policing of culture, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent which totally destroys the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex, and in the homosexual world particularly, some of these relationships between young boys and older men, these kind of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a rock for when they can’t talk to their parents.

        Ben: It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me.

        Yiannopoulos: And you know what? I am grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.

        PaulsEgo: It’s funny because Ben gave me some homework on you, Milo, he gave a few videos to watch to brush up on my Miloisms, and one of the things you said in one of these clips is that transgenderism is the new frontier in social progress and the next thing in line is gonna be paedophilia – and yet, here you are talking about how, ‘some of these kids that get diddled by these priests, it’s a good thing for them’.

        Yiannopoulos: You’re misunderstanding what paedophilia is. Paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to someone 13 years old who is sexually mature. Paedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Paedophilia is attraction to people who do not have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty, who do not understand how their bodies work. That is not what we’re talking about. You don’t understand what paedophilia is if you think that I’m defending it, I’m certainly not.

        Here’s the relevant video link:

        Liked by 1 person

      2. i know i’m just being excessively naïve, but i’m consistently amazed how self-proclaimed libertarians have the worst possible understanding of consent. like in this case, complaining that there’s not enough room allowed for nuance while at the same time ignoring issues of teacher/student power imbalance.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. What ligne said. As a professor at a university, I can tell you there is a reason we don’t want sex between professors and students — even when those students are graduate students and clearly able to give consent in other situations. A professor has far too much power over a student’s future. Then also, once a student begins sleeping with a professor, that student would have far too much power over the professor for the professor to evaluate the student’s performance fairly.

        We have these rules for obvious and clear reasons, in other words. To pretend it’s just because “the Left” is interested in policing the sexual behavior of people is silly.


      4. Thanks for the transcript, Doris.

        Yes, 13-year-old students occasionally become infatuated with their teachers. That’s perfectly normal at that age. However, what’s not okay is teachers acting on that infatuation. Because teachers are adults and know better.

        I have been the object of a 13-year-old student’s infatuation. He was a really nice kid from a difficult family background and was probably just grateful that an adult paid attention to him (most kids who become infatuated with teachers are from difficult backgrounds). And yes, the boy was going through puberty, but he was still very much a kid who was into dinosaurs and disaster movies and who wanted to become a fireman.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Having slept on it, it occurs to me that there never was a “Father Michael.” This was just something else that Milo made up so he could sound outrageous, but this time it backfired. That’s a hard claim to prove, of course, but I think it makes far more sense. Notice how no one has claimed to identify “Father Michael?” That’s because he doesn’t exist.

    If you believe that, it puts his comments in a much worse light.


  5. What YiaNOPE says here is basically the same as what Delany said in the Wool Sweater interview. I trust therefore that everyone across the world of fandom will therefore feel roughly the same about each utterance. I admit I am a little out of touch these days; nevertheless I am sure I’m justified in my confidence about the principled consistency of all interested parties.


    1. Yep, they both said they’d experienced sexual relations with adults while they were in their teens and that it was, for them, a positive experience. What they seem to have had in common was that they both seem to have felt at least partly in control of the relationships. Perhaps like a heterosexual teen boy who manages to score with an adult woman might feel. I suspect very little abuse is like that, though.


  6. I’m just stopping by to say that I find this crew to be beneath contempt. I read through Kate Paulk’s defense-cum-offense and was disgusted by her self-righteous, culture warrior, over-the-top analogy. Y’all are right when you talk about their criticism of the left as projection. Their utter lack of self-awareness is not just sobering but frightening.

    When Ms Paulk tries to claim that Milo is not only being silenced (wrongity wrong wrong) but that he is being “disappeared”, she crosses from simple ideological blind defense of “her side” to the wrong side of a morally repugnant line. For one thing, it was US-backed right-wing military regimes that are associated with that phrase, but second and more importantly — there were tens of thousands of real live, flesh-and-blood, actual human beings who were disappeared and the collective trauma that resulted from that experience is not even remotely comparable to milo’s (or the US right-wing) experience. I have friends whose family members were disappeared in the 1970s and 1980s, and have been to several gallery shows and seen documentaries and museum exhibits dedicated to that vicious and ongoing trauma. As a human being capable of reason and empathy, I find her analogy to be deeply despicable.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. While we’re at it, here’s how Infogalactic summarised the affair:

    “Simon & Schuster Abandons Dangerous
    On February 20, 2017, the originally intended publisher, Simon & Schuster, of Yiannopoulos’ Dangerous, the #1 Overall U.S. Bestseller (Amazon), announced that it would be abandoning the publication of the book, three weeks before publication.”

    That’s it. That’s all it says.


  8. People like to pretend that adults seeking sexual contact with teenagers does not involve wanting to abuse a child because teenagers’ bodies are changing toward adulthood and thus they claim that teenagers are not really children. But child abusers who target teenagers do so not because their bodies may have secondary sex characteristics but because the teenagers are still children. They are therefore easily manipulated, physically and emotionally controlled, and threatened, creating a power rush for the abuser and a better ability to get the teenager to hide the abuse than a younger child, especially when it often is incest. Unlike adults who have more experience and cognitive ability to perceive danger and lies, teenagers are much less likely to fight back, more likely to go along with what adults tell them, and their brains are still cognitively forming. Sexual abuse of teenagers almost always involves them making the teenagers dress more like young children and encouraging more child-like traits while also claiming that the teenagers are experienced adults who are the aggressors — a claim pedophiles also make about their young victims.

    This situation also makes teenagers ripe for abduction and blackmail for sex trafficking — they are easily controlled physically and mentally and easily threatened with harm and shame to themselves or their families. Because their brains are not fully formed like adult brains, they are also more impulsive and thus it’s easy to get them on drugs, which makes them even easier to control than adults. They have sexual impulses and it is easy to manipulate them into thinking that the adult is “helping” them with that.

    Adults who were sexually abused as teenagers often do rationalize their own experiences as okay, as their abuser taught them to rationalize it, and because it makes them feel like less of a victim. They may argue that teenagers or some teenagers can act like adults because that lets them see themselves as adults who were more in control when abuse happened to them. It’s part of the experience of abuse, of manipulation by the adult who had authority and responsibilities over the teenager. Teenagers like to see themselves as all grown up and abuse creates trauma that does make victims feel a lot older, so it affects their memories of the abuse and predation. It’s a result of trauma — Stockholm Syndrome, etc. — and is a way of coping.

    The arguments that Milo is making are typical — that victims of abuse aren’t victims, that it was their fault the experience happened and they were more in control of it, that abusers can’t help themselves despite being adults and “mature”, that the only appeal of the sexual contact is sexual (when that’s usually low down the list for the abuser,) and that adults trusted in positions of care-taking responsibility such as teachers have every right to control and use their charges as they please as a job perk. (These are used as rationalizations for things like adult professors abusing their adult students and domestic violence cases as well.) And they are also typical of the manipulations abusers use to control teenagers while sexually abusing them.

    Milo is arguing also that the age of the abuser is important — i.e. adults aren’t necessarily adults and therefore it’s okay for them to sleep with a 15 year old or a 13 year old. So the teenager is “mature” — an adult despite age, but the abuser is not an adult despite age, so that somehow meets up in the middle. And if the teenager feels adult, no one may judge that the teenager isn’t including the law, and if the abuser doesn’t feel adult, then the abuser isn’t doing anything wrong. It doesn’t make any sense, but the attempt is to insinuate that it is like two high-schoolers of slightly different ages having sex. The idea they put forth is that before puberty, the child is not fair game and is the dependent of parents or guardians charged with keeping the child safe from adult abusers. But as soon as the kid turns 11 or 13, these folks are arguing, then even though the teen is still the parents’ dependent legally, the parents no longer have any say and the teen is fair game for adults. This completely ignores actual biological development of human beings and that puberty and adulthood are not the same things biologically, even though a teenager can reproduce. It ignores the actual development of human brains. At 13, even if the bodily changes of puberty have occurred, the brain is not developed into adulthood. At 16, the brain is not developed into adulthood. It is only in the early twenties that people have a fully adult brain. And once they do have one, they have the cognitive ability to recognize that a teenager does not and therefore is not an equal consenting adult sexual partner. So if they proceed anyway, it’s abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.