The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Gay Social/Political Media Star Said it's OK to Have Sex With a 13-Year Old; No, it Wasn't Milo

So Milo didn't actually ever say it was OK for an adult to engage in sexual activity a 13 year old. He was very clear in stating that he believes in the current age of consent, and in the full version of the video that was doctored against him he makes it very clear that he thinks consent laws are a big part of what makes western civilization better than other cultures.

But guess who DID say it's ok to fool around with a 13 year old?

Yes, George Takei! Mr.Sulu himself, gay icon of the ctrl-left, adored by every fashionable leftist everywhere!

At the 2:20 mark he's talking about how it's totally ok to get sexy with a 13 year old if the boy doesn't complain.

I'm now waiting for every one of the Ctrl-Left activists out there, the same ones who suddenly found a deep concern for the welfare of children, to denounce Takei for statements vastly more explicit than anything Milo ever said

Do it! Or you are just proven shameless hypocrites on a witch-hunt against a political enemy who always humiliated you and who you despised.

Only it won't happen, will it? We know the Left will give Takei a free pass, because they are blatant and total hypocrites.

Milo and Takei were both in sexual encounters at the age of 13, both by much older authority figures (a scoutmaster in Takei's case, a catholic priest in Milo's), and both talked about it very bluntly in a public context.

But while Milo (as much as he, like Takei, talks about how he experienced pleasure from the encounter) insists that it's wrong for an adult to try to do something sexual with a 13 year old, George seems to be clearly saying that it's totally cool if the kid's into it.

And yet it's OK for George Takei to say that, as far as the Left is concerned. Hell, Lena Dunham admitted to molesting her little sister (she wrote about it in her book!) and she got an HBO show and an invitation to speak at the DNC for it!  

Plus, it's just different for the left, because George Takei is a "house homo". He's one of the "good ones". The ones who behave; who say the things the Left wants their homos to say. Takei doesn't get all "uppity" like Milo does. He doesn't try to run off the Democratic plantation. Takei doesn't challenge them like Milo does on issues that matter to him, like how Islamists want him thrown off a building.

The Left only loves LGBT people as long as they learn how to behave. They love their gay stars when those stars act as mouthpieces for leftist propaganda.
Milo doesn't.
George Takei does, so it's OK for him to openly endorse man-boy love, because he has the right politics.

And that's what this whole assault on Milo is about. No one involved gives even the teenie-tiniest little baby-sized shit about "protecting children". Not even a tiny bit. It's all about the politics of Destroying Milo because he represents something three totally different groups hate him for. He represents the future.

This is a panic play by Neocon NeverTrumpers, the Establishment Media, and the SJW left.

The Neocons, angry about CPAC, were the ones who doctored the Milofootage. It was a group associated with famous NeverTrumper, Establishment Puppet, fake Presidential Candidate and Mormon "lifelong bachelor" Evan McMullin (ironic!).
Trump's victory has ruined this group, and Breitbart and Milo were a huge part of Trump's victory.
The Establishment Media, angry about Breitbart, disseminated it the video. They know Milo has been a massive contributor to pointing out media lies.

And the Ctrl-Left, angry about Bill Maher not following the script, as well as despising Milo in general for being one of the "uppity gays" who doesn't let himself be controlled, charged in like sharks smelling blood.

The first group are on the verge of becoming extinct in the GOP; the second are losing their grip over control of information; the third, control over culture.

In all cases, Milo represents the force that has thwarted them all: young Cultural Libertarians who despise being told how to live or what to do, who don't trust the establishment, who don't really give a fuck about racism or sexism or homophobia but despise having people calling them those things to manipulate them into doing what they say, and who value Free Speech above all else.

Milo is the symbol of the totalitarian's (left, right, or corporate) impending doom. So they're trying to kill him as if that will stop what's started already, and keeps picking up speed: change.

Personally, I think Milo is clever and bold enough that he is going to get out from this and be twice as huge and influential on the Right in a year's time.  But even if he's not, it'll only be because someone (or SEVERAL someones) end up taking his place.

They can't stop us now.


Currently Smoking: Davidoff 400 series + C&D's Pirate Kake


  1. Milo just resigned out of Brietbart.

  2. I loathe Milo and am happy to see him take a fall, but your basic point is undeniable. What Milo said is pretty much what Oscar Wilde said on the subject (many people also choose to ignore that Oscar's hired partners were most likely underage and that if he was around today his sentence might be longer). The gay campaigner Peter Tatchell, while a brave man in many ways and by no means a paedophile, made comments in the past suggesting the age of consent should be significantly lowered, and it didn't destroy his career.

    1. And note that Milo didn't say the age of consent should be lowered.
      Anyways, the point here isn't to show bad behaviors among different gay people through history or something, & it's certainly not to suggest that gay people are any more likely to abuse children than straight people.
      It's to point out the smarmyness and hypocrisy of Milo's would-be assassins.

      As for 'taking a fall', feel happy about it while you can, because all this is only going to end up making him more influential in the long run.

      And this was literally the worst thing they could throw at him. They already did 'nazi' and that didn't work; so they used their last nuclear option and tried 'pedo'.
      Now when his book comes out and he starts his new projects, they'll literally have nothing left to throw at him.

  3. No, you fool, he did say it. Twice. Use your Google-fu. Knowledge is power.

    1. I suggest you use it to look at the undoctored tapes. Not to mention comments he's made over and over again while exposing leftist sexual offenders.

    2. I read the entire transcript. He outright said he supports the sexual relationship between young men (13) and older men. If you read his press release today, he even admitted - once again - to saying it, feeling terrible about it and apologizing for it. Are you purposefully being obtuse, or are you ignorant? Read the transcript, and then go to his Facebook page to read his apology.

    3. Here you go, since you clearly didn't do your research before posting this political bilge:

    4. He did not say that. He said that he had an experience at that age, which didn't ruin his life and that he didn't consider all bad. He also said that he supports the current age of consent, and that this is something that makes our culture better than certain other cultures.

      I don't know if you watched his presser, but it sure sounds like you didn't or were very particular in your hearing. He said he regrets some of the joking tone he took about his own experience of sexual abuse at the hands of a priest, he apologized for people who could be hurt by that. He reasserted what he'd already said before about supporting the age of consent, and his strong opposition to pedophilia, which is something he has a long track record of condemning (having exposed several prominent pedophiles, on the left, the right, and journalism). Then he condemned the media for their misrepresentation of his earlier comments.

    5. Here's the entire transcript, so that you can correct your original article:

    6. Sorry but that is NOT the "entire transcript". First of all, the hit-video spliced stuff from at least TWO SOURCES, the "drunken peasants" and the Joe Rogan show.
      Second, what's being presented there is only the transcript of the DOCTORED and spliced video, not of either of the original recordings!

    7. So +Daniel, I read the #facebook link you posted, and I'm confused at to what your argument is. Are you saying that #Milo is actually against these kinds of relationships, or that #RPGPundit is wrong?

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. To put into RPG terms. What Milo was arguing in the original video is that the age of consent rule is a lot like the level-up mechanic. They both serves a good purpose and should be kept the way they are. But, they're not the most precise instrument to understand the complexities of reality (not even of a fictional one).

    One can not imagine a young person who goes to sleep at night as an imature kid than wakes up in the morning with a full developed sense of personality and character. It does not make sense that a characters get healthier, smarter, stronger, and more skillful at the same time all of a sudden.

    Based on that, he felt that in his particular case he already has the ability to discern the situation despite the law do not acknowledge for it.

    Now in my opinion, despite if you agree or not on his expressed views. There is not a justificative to throw him in a fire. Specially when he is beeing so effective confronting the authoritarian, violent, anti-free speech left.

  6. 'Takei doesn't get all "uppity" like Milo does'

    Milo is a vacuous asshole and just a mean and dishonest persons all around. This is true irrespective of the amount of black dick he has touched.

    1. By 'vacuous asshole' you mean, "doesn't behave like how Leftists say a grateful homosexual should behave and obey their party line".

    2. No, no I don't.

      But your totally fabricated and paranoid quotation does go a long way to establish you how unreasonable you've become.

    3. Yes, yes you did.

      Stop lying and just accept the reality for what it is instead of relying on your made up fantasies.

  7. Funny how a guy who is so protective of his real name is supporting a guy who violates the privacy/outs other folks:
    To say nothing of Milo Y's aiding and abetting of doxxing and similar practices.
    I used to respect you - particularly your work on D&D 5e and Arrows of Indra. However, your hilarious hypocrisy makes me less inclined to support your publications.

    1. Do you have specific cases of Milo doxxing people?

      In any case, you have a right to choose not to buy my awesome products.

    2. I said "aiding and abetting" doxxing and harrassment. Don't try to move the goalposts.

      Am still looking for the justification of your hypocrisy regarding outing private figures. Again: Why the unquestioning support of someone who does to other people what you vociferously protest against yourself?
      I'm honestly asking this in good faith as a fellow gamer/culture junkie.

    3. "Aiding and abetting" seems to me to be the ultimate in quantum-state goalposts. You can accuse ANYONE of 'aiding and abetting harassment'.
      I could claim that by criticizing me here, you are inspiring people to harass me and thus 'aiding and abetting' someone sending me a death threat.
      Should you be banned from the internet for that?

      You have just FAILED TO PROVE that Milo doxxed anyone, so you can't claim any kind of "hypocrisy regarding outing private figures" until you can actually PROVE Milo outed private figures.

      Otherwise, it's YOU who's shifting the goalposts, in a weasely crock-of-shit sort of way typical to the Ctrl-Left.

    4. Hogwash. Milo regularly brags about his followers, and his flock clearly enjoy what they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

      He obviously identifies as a provocateur (presumably a component of his appeal to you), but there's a difference between being clever and being an asshole because you can.
      1: From the link (which I presume you didn't read, since you're apparently a hypocrite snowflake nowadays)
      "...spread fake Tweets in her [L. Jones'] name to disparage her character..." (Obviously to rile up his followers so they'd harrass her more)
      2: There are also screengrabs of his columns where he encourages his flock to harass/fat-shame - "armed with the knowledge that that you can hurl all kinds of abuse at fat people with a clean conscience..."
      3: He's also got a troubled history with employees of his old website The Kernel, including threatening his then-employees:
      Speaking of The Kernel, I guess I could cite it as supporting my argument regarding bad online behavior.
      Huh...I found a lost chapter from St. Milo the Martyr. I'll let him do the talking for me...

      Again, I'm not claiming that he doxxed anyone himself (provided address and phone #), but in my 1st post he does provide NAME and PHOTO of a trans student, also indicating that she was a student at you UW. If that's not violating someone's privacy and opening them up to harrassment, I don't know what is.

      If someone posted YOUR real name, photo and school of attendance online, what would you call that?

    5. There have been some instances where I'd disagree with some of what Milo has done, or said. I tend to disagree with him on the extremity of his views on transgenderism, for example. But the amount of lies that have been promoted about him, and the suggestion that he should be held responsible for things alleged fans of his did without actual prompting from him is ridiculous.

    6. You dodged my point regarding his actions at UW. He did something very hateful and very dangerous.
      He did exactly what you've repeatedly complained about when done to you, and unlike you, the person Milo named and showed ON STAGE and was in the audience, and very much at risk.
      You're sequestered away in the Switzerland of Latin America and unlikely to have any Swine come after you.