Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart

[Time the Crestfallen]

Oh yes, today is a good day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-news/2017/02/21/0217c128-f7cc-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.f11b9ea84360

Lost his book deal and speaking slot at the CPAC as well.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal-cancelled/8289142

 

[Ken Masters]

How is the cancelation of a book a positive thing, again?

[Raumata]

Eh, I've no idea why you're so happy, it's not like Milo doesn't have the option to publish it himself or make it into a downloadable pdf. 

[Time the Crestfallen]

14 minutes ago, Raumata said:

Eh, I've no idea why you're so happy, it's not like Milo doesn't have the option to publish it himself or make it into a downloadable pdf. 

Broadly speaking, I am happy because the consequences of him seemingly going out of his way to be the biggest arsehole on the planet have finally caught up with him. This is more to do with his resignation and losing his seat on the CPAC though, the book is something I never really cared about. Mostly just commenting that it happened. Apologies for my poor wording.

Edited February 22, 2017 by The Blind Idiot God

[Raumata]

Just now, The Blind Idiot God said:

Broadly speaking, I am happy because the consequences of him being a malicious troll who goes out of his way to upset people has finally caught up with him. This is more to do with his resignation and losing his seat on the CPAC though, the book is something I never really cared about. Mostly just commenting that it happened. Apologies for my poor wording.

Nah, it's okay. 

[Radiant head]

this guy is garbage, so i'm pretty content

[Heptade]

1 hour ago, Sarcopathic said:

How is the cancelation of a book a positive thing, again?

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed 100% with you. Now it's more 99.99%. Sadly, Milo Yiannopoulos is pretty much the 0.01% where I disagree. Let's not waste paper on the slimy dung that comes out of his pen.

[Ken Masters]

9 minutes ago, Heptade said:

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed 100% with you. Now it's more 99.99%. Sadly, Milo Yiannopoulos is pretty much the 0.01% where I disagree. Let's not waste paper on the slimy dung that comes out of his pen.

See, I think that regardless of who the author is and what he/she said, every single point of view should be published and explored in detail. If we start to celebrate someone not being able to express themselves because "he/she is an asshole" then what is stopping us from celebrating censure?

I despise Voltaire, and I think the guy was slimy at best, rigged lotteries for his own bennefit and his critics towards Shakespeare were quite petty. But I'm glad he could publish his views on the world, that eventually shaped some of the western principles.

 

No, I'm not saying Milo is the new Voltaire.

I think the guy is using his ideology as a PR stunt to push his agenda, but I WANT him to be able to publish whatever he wants, just like any other person should.

I am not happy with these news.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Sarcopathic

[Heptade]

I, for one, really like Voltaire's writings, and I actually agree with you on principle.

I wasn't being 100% serious (just wanted an excuse to diss Milo).

[Radiant head]

9 minutes ago, Sarcopathic said:

No, I'm not saying Milo is the new Voltaire.

I think the guy is using his ideology as a PR stunt to push his agenda, but I WANT him to be able to publish whatever he wants, just like any other person should.

I am not happy with these news.

unless you're saying book publishers should be coerced into publishing his work, i'm not seeing the problem here

[Ken Masters]

Just now, Radiant head said:

unless you're saying book publishers should be coerced into publishing his work, i'm not seeing the problem here

Had you read the context of this post, you should have realized my complaint is towards people celebrating these news, not the publisher.

[Slumber]

33 minutes ago, Sarcopathic said:

See, I think that regardless of who the author is and what he/she said, every single point of view should be published and explored in detail. If we start to celebrate someone not being able to express themselves because "he/she is an asshole" then what is stopping us from celebrating censure?

I despise Voltaire, and I think the guy was slimy at best, rigged lotteries for his own bennefit and his critics towards Shakespeare were quite petty. But I'm glad he could publish his views on the world, that eventually shaped some of the western principles.

 

No, I'm not saying Milo is the new Voltaire.

I think the guy is using his ideology as a PR stunt to push his agenda, but I WANT him to be able to publish whatever he wants, just like any other person should.

I am not happy with these news.

I mean, this is a case of capitalism biting him in the ass more than it is people not wanting to publish his views or censorship. He basically defended pederasty. I'm not going to say he ADVOCATED it like some people, but he definitely said that adult men having sex with little boys is a "rite of passage" for young gay boys in the gay community, and that he wouldn't be the man he is today if his priest didn't regularly molest him(Which is a far more damning statement against pederasty than he probably realizes).

So his book publisher decided "Whoa, this guy just said shit that would make Brian Singer raise an eyebrow, dealing with him would probably cost us more money than if we cancelled the deal." It's a simple conclusion that publishing Milo's work, after he defended pederasty, was probably a bad idea financially. If it was censorship, it would have happened a long time ago, and it would have happened before Milo took his career out to a field and murdered it.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Slumber

[Radiant head]

that doesn't make any sense to me either but ok

[Time the Crestfallen]

12 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I mean, this is a case of capitalism biting him in the ass more than it is people not wanting to publish his views or censorship. He basically defended pederasty. I'm not going to say he ADVOCATED it like some people, but he definitely said that adult men having sex with little boys is a "rite of passage" in the young gay boys in the gay community, and that he wouldn't be the man he is today if his priest didn't regularly molest him(Which is a far more damning statement against pederasty than he probably realizes).

So his book publisher decided "Whoa, this guy just said shit that would make Brian Singer raise an eyebrow, dealing with him would probably cost us more money than if we cancelled the deal." It's a simple conclusion that publishing Milo's work, after he defended pederasty, was probably a bad idea financially. If it was censorship, it would have happened a long time ago, and it would have happened before Milo took his career out to a field and murdered it.

Pretty much this. If it were following the backlash of them signing him for a book deal in the first place, you would have a point. But this is following the coming to light of statements that basically torpedo his current career. The thing about people with attitudes like Milo's is that they're always at risk of saying that one thing that's going to ruin them, and if sponsors decide they don't want to be associated with that, then that's just the way the world works.

[Res]

There's also a difference between being permitted to publish one's writings and being given a quarter of a million dollars as an advance.

[eclipse]

8 hours ago, Sarcopathic said:

How is the cancelation of a book a positive thing, again?

I'll cheer for the lack of capital gain he'd get if he had a publishing deal.  Whether the book is published or not is irrelevant - I'm not interested in him, and I sure as hell ain't giving him my money.

I'll wait for the full story promised in the Twitter account, though.  This will be interesting.

[The Geek]

They say that if you play with fire, expect to get burned.  He's been playing with very hot fire for a very long time.

[Water Mage]

The guy is a jerk, and he brought that upon himself, but I do wish people were more civil when opposing him. I mean, he's just a conceited idiot, not the next coming of Hitler, and yet some people go crazy when opposing him.

[Rend Keaven]

This is kind of awkward for me because a few days ago I was originally planning on preordering his book and then this happens. I do not support everything Milo says, my only reason for planning on buying the book was because the past few months was when I started to get more involved in politics than I've every been. I could of bought any other book, but it was after the riot in Berkeley when I had enough of people going full extremist because someone they don't like has arrived to say a few words and that was the catalyst of my original decision.

Supporting pederasty is wrong, even if Milo said it as a joke, he should have been aware of what was going to happen, especially after the Leslie Jones Twitter fiasco. I don't care if he did that to prove a point that the "liberal media wants to abolish freedom of speech". There are even some conservatives that despise Milo, such as Ben Shapiro from what I've heard.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Rend Keaven

[Moblin Major General]

Ding, Dong, the fuck('s career) is dead. Berkeley knew better, and should've expected that. Pederasty is probably the worst form of pedophilia also, especially given the clerical implications of it as well. I hope his resignation cripples Breitbart's ability to spit vitriol. 

[Lord Raven]

8 hours ago, Rend Keaven said:

This is kind of awkward for me because a few days ago I was originally planning on preordering his book and then this happens. I do not support everything Milo says, my only reason for planning on buying the book was because the past few months was when I started to get more involved in politics than I've every been. I could of bought any other book, but it was after the riot in Berkeley when I had enough of people going full extremist because someone they don't like has arrived to say a few words and that was the catalyst of my original decision.

Supporting pederasty is wrong, even if Milo said it as a joke, he should have been aware of what was going to happen, especially after the Leslie Jones Twitter fiasco. I don't care if he did that to prove a point that the "liberal media wants to abolish freedom of speech". There are even some conservatives that despise Milo, such as Ben Shapiro from what I've heard.

I don't understand? Shapiro isn't a particularly good guy either - but there's a reason nobody wants to deal with him. It's not suppressing his freedom of speech (since freedom of speech also doesn't exempt you from social consequence), he's just awful and he says shit just for publicity. He's a bonafide attention whore that ends up using the "black friend" excuse or "as a [demographic] person" to justify all of the bigoted shit he says. This is a dude who argues that the LGBT crowd have a mental disorder and makes up shit and posts it on breitbart. He is a fascist and his ideology is poison.

6 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Ding, Dong, the fuck('s career) is dead. Berkeley knew better, and should've expected that. Pederasty is probably the worst form of pedophilia also, especially given the clerical implications of it as well. I hope his resignation cripples Breitbart's ability to spit vitriol. 

It won't. They have a section for black crime, he was the social media guy in the end.

What does Milo have to say about this?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

5 hours ago, Rend Keaven said:

I could of bought any other book, but it was after the riot in Berkeley when I had enough of people going full extremist because someone they don't like has arrived to say a few words and that was the catalyst of my original decision.

It wasn't just 'a few words'; he's used his platform before to harass and target specific people.

Why is pederasty where people are drawing the line?

6 hours ago, Water Mage said:

The guy is a jerk, and he brought that upon himself, but I do wish people were more civil when opposing him. I mean, he's just a conceited idiot, not the next coming of Hitler, and yet some people go crazy when opposing him.

Because he and his followers are so civil, right?

I agree that he's conceited - maybe not an idiot, more just of a troll - but I'm not sure why the onus is always on the targeted people (and on discriminated people in general) to 'be civil'. Bullies are never stopped by kind words or by turning the other cheek.

This is a really interesting read on the whole Milo issue. 

Quote

It is horribly ironic that of all the disgusting nonsense Yiannopoulos has said — about women, about Muslims, about transgender people, about immigrants — it is only now that the moderate right appears to have reached the limits of what it will tolerate in the name of free speech. The hypocrisy is clarion-clear: This was never, in fact, about free speech at all. It was about making it OK to say racist, sexist, transphobic, and xenophobic things, about tolerating the public expression of those views right up to the point where it becomes financially unwise to do so. Those suddenly dropping Yiannopoulos are making a business decision, not a moral one — and yes, even in Donald Trump’s America, there’s still a difference. If that difference devours Yiannopoulos and his minions, they will find few mourners.

...

He has been brought down not by reasoned liberal argument, nor by moral victory over his cod theories, nor by anti-fascist agitation. He has been brought down by conservative moral outrage. Specifically, by conservative moral outrage over gay male sexuality. 

Delicious as you might find it to see karma come for Yiannopoulos, what he actually said about gay relationships and child molestation was less offensive than a great many bigoted things he has come out with — in part because, for once, it seemed just a little bit true to his experience. When he spoke about consenting relationships between adult men where there’s a large age gap, he was talking about something that is a real and meaningful part of romantic experience for a lot of gay men — and something that American conservatives seem to have no problem with when the participants are heterosexual or, indeed, presidential candidates. His mangled age-of-consent comments and crass priest jokes are a bridge too far, especially for the conservative mainstream, which has so far held performative racism, transphobia, sexism, and xenophobia as well within the bounds of free speech. Today, absolutely nobody, from his publishers to his former tour promoter, is defending Yiannopoulos’ right to consequence-free speech. This is not liberalism winning the day. This is the victorious far right purging the brownshirts.

 

[Tryhard]

mainly because Breitbart probably agrees with all the honestly worse things he's said before

they can't defend pederasty, though

edit: also, wasn't he fired? or "walked before he was pushed" in terms of resigning

Edited February 22, 2017 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

Quote

See, I think that regardless of who the author is and what he/she said, every single point of view should be published and explored in detail. If we start to celebrate someone not being able to express themselves because "he/she is an asshole" then what is stopping us from celebrating censure?

he can publish the thing himself by uploading it onto the internet if he wants, and he's not really being stopped from expressing himself either (ie, state authorities are not cracking down on putting him into jail or something to restrict his ability to communicate)

he's not being censored, he's being denied money and publicity because of his actions.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Irysa

[Water Mage]

14 minutes ago, Res said:

It wasn't just 'a few words'; he's used his platform before to harass and target specific people.

Why is pederasty where people are drawing the line?

Because he and his followers are so civil, right?

I agree that he's conceited - maybe not an idiot, more just of a troll - but I'm not sure why the onus is always on the targeted people (and on discriminated people in general) to 'be civil'. Bullies are never stopped by never stopped by kind words or by turning the other cheek. 

B

 

Yes, I am aware that his followers are uncivil as well, and that bullies aren't stopped by peaceful behavior, but I don't believe violence to be the answer. As the saying goes, violence begets more violence, and it creates a vicious cycle.