Some weeks back during the Milo Yiannopoulus scandal involving his being a victim of and then making light of child abuse a friend posted this
These sort of things are why I’ve been so critical of the Left.. Lena Dunham openly admitted to molesting her sister, George Takei happily talked about being taken advantage of by an older man, and Roman Polanski was convicted of it and ran away.
.. And yet, only Milo gets criticized.
with this link : Bill Maher condoned Sex between an Adult and a Minor
The friend (Stephen from here on) had others chime in on his comment and I (Silas from here on) decided to engage one (Clarissa from here on).
What initially started as a sarcastic engagement turned into quite a long conversation that was instructive to me and may be to you. Shall post this in a several parts with only slight spelling corrections. Shall keep it free of commentary but may have a post at the end to mention some observations. The main one could be what may be some major gender based differences in how we communicate as I went over in the Babel of the Sexes.
When we left off in the previous part Stephen had bowed out, and I had was roused out of trolling by what appeared to have been making light of the serious issue of abuses Milo’s abuses and calling into question the most recent riots at one of his speaking engagements.
Silas : …I nor Stephen disagree with how horrendous the practice is. Your initial comment was disingenuous to his comments and indicative of certain tactics used to obfuscate issues. Where at all in his comment did he state that because these other, likely themselves broken by abuses people said or did what they did that it minimizes what Milo did?
Clarissa : The way I took his post was that he pointed out people on the left only to say “they did it to,” my point was that I am tired of hearing that. Right, left both sides do it. The past is not a justification of the present. I mentioned examples of that above. If you don’t agree with the Muslim ban, but still justify it because “Obama did it,” (wasn’t the same, but that is another debate). Trump mentioned Sweden, instead of people saying “wtf is he talking about now,” they looked for crime stats to defend his statement. He still said it based off of a Fox News segment that was not accurate he said “last night, ” there was no attack or major tragedy the night before. Both sides do it, that is why I said hypocrisy is alive and well on both sides. Instead of researching the past, denounce the current. I didn’t see him post anything criticizing Milo, just saw a “they did it to,” I know STK is a very smart and intelligent person, that is why I said he was above just pointing out that there were liberals in the past that did something similar to justify someone on the right at present.
Silas : it is not a Muslim ban, hypocrisy sucks sure. I do not know your posting but best of luck continuing to point this out equally where you see it. Are you claiming Trumps ‘last night’ should be taken literally to only mean that night then where did STK say anything about Milo should not be criticized? or that he doesn’t criticize them? If you truly think SK is as intelligent and smart as you say, why not give the benefit of the doubt instead of inferring this lessening by omission?
Clarissa : Because the weight of importance is more on hypocrisy than denouncing the disgusting things that came out of his mouth. What is more important? To me criticism of him defending child abuse is more important than the hypocrisy. Also he only pointed out people on the left and that is not the only side he is getting backlash from
Silas : OK where did he literally say that? You pointed out the annoyance with trump defenders puling out external evidence to bolster his comments. Where did Stephen say anything to support that the only side he is getting backlash from? Where does he say things Milo said are not disgusting and worthy of criticism? To me its more of a case of Milo’s comments are disgusting and anyone else who says similar should be equally criticized. Which I do not even think you disagree with. Thank you for your time though. Did you look at this which is what Stephen referred to when he said look below?
“Scott Adams’ argument that pointing out hypocrisy on the other side doesn’t work, and I’m starting to believe him”
The hypocrisy isn’t Milo should be treated as they were, but why were they not treated as Milo is and should be? I am quite convinced though that your reality tunnel processes things in a way that we may be unable to reconcile this. Thanks for your time though, it interests me to see how different things happen for the same reasons.
Clarissa : My point is that hypocrisy is not as important as criticism of his behavior. I have seen no criticism, only pointing out hypocrisy. For a topic like this, I don’t think it matters how people were treated in the past, it is irrelevant to denouncing what Milo said in this interview in the present. As far as the comment about pointing out hypocrisy on the other side that was the only side that was being called out when the backlash came from both
Clarissa : So that in itself is hypocritical
Silas : What was the main topic of his original post? As in what did you think hes ‘well they did it too’ was defending? a general use for that is 2 people do somehtign wrong, one gets caught and says well the other person did it too., usually as an excuse for their own bad behavior. If this is similar to how you use it then where at all did Stephen say he was excusing any behavior?
Clarissa : I didn’t say he was excusing it. I said I am tired of hearing it. 1. Denounce Milo’s statement 2. Point on both sides of hypocrisy in this situation, not just one 3. What is more important, hypocrisy or criticism of said statement. I am allowed to express my opinion especially because we don’t don’t get anywhere or make any progress when we continue to justify the present with the past. It doesn’t matter who was treated in such ways in the past, if the situations were identical than make the comparison. We need to move forward and not taking leaps into the past and that is what I am seeing on every level.
Clarissa : He didn’t mention the speaker of the house who had more victims than Jerry Sandusky. If you are going to point about HYPOCRISY, then point fingers in both directions
Clarissa : This didn’t have to be a political, right v. Left debate. It could of just been about hypocrisy. Dredge up the past all you want, but be fair about it. Also my main problem was not about hypocrisy it was about bringing up the past to say “they did it to,” they should all come under criticism if they promote child abuse and some did, some fled the country, and others also fell under scrutiny. None of those other people said older gay men are a necessity to help young boys cope with their sexuality, that is agreeing with that behavior
Silas : how did he justify the present with pointing out the past. You are allowed to post whatever you want, just as Stephen is of which again you are allowed to criticize and wish he posted something else.
Silas : your tendency to jump between literal and figurative is quite fascinating.
Silas : I agree with your sentiment of this being an occasion to focus on reducing this and other evils in the future. Here are some of my thoughts on it, You of course do not have to listen but yeah…
Good a place as any to stop. As I told Clarissa You do not have to watch the video to get what I was or will be saying in the next posts, but you may as well. 🙂 Till next time.
- Part 1 : Unsure She said What He Said
- Check back in for the next part shall Link them here when posted.
- About the Tower of babel and the European union Parliament buildings similar appearance. : Why Is The EU Parliament Building Modeled After The Cursed Tower Of Babel? So that was, ehh Dun Dun DUNNNNNNN
Thank you for reading. Subscribe to the Blog for more or: