Milo is Broke, Sad, and Lonely

[Checkerboard Strangler]

actually milo is $4 mil in debt.

good!!!!

 

[Jetboogieman]

It's okay, I wished him enough ill for the both of us.
I'm usually fairly nice, but not when it comes to this guy.
Friends of mine have been beaten up on account of him, and they can't even stand him, but it happened anyway.
So yeah, I do wish him ill and I would dance on his grave, I'd even go drag for the chance to dance in a red dress.

Can you elaborate as to how that came to be?

 

[Kobie]

A lot of homophobic hate being expressed in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

:roll:

I don't give a rat's ass if he's gay or not, although he does have some strange (political) bedfellows for someone who is out and proud.

It's not "homophobic" to call a gay person a piece of **** if they're a piece of ****.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

If the House of Cards is being targeted from the top by Mueller, the foundation Trump built (and he's not very good at doing that either) is sinking into the Earth never to be seen again. If any DP members wanted to fund this troll for $750 a month, I guess you could always try to find his venmo.



Yiannopoulos kicked off of fundraising website after single day

I remember about 18 months ago his 10K per week clothing allowance wasn't enough, he was a Rock Star!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I do not think there is a milo equivalent on the left.

There is no one who has the complete opposite image of what a leftist should be. Amassed a huge following on social media platforms by promoting fake racist and hateful stuff. Proceeded to get kicked off of each of those platforms because he promoted said hateful and racist things. All the while getting kicked off college campuses for doing the same thing. Then went broke and begged his followers for money. I can't think of a leftist who has done this in modern times.

Uhhhhh, I dunno if there is a public speaker who is the equivalent but when I think of people who label themselves as artists, the guy that did the "Piss Christ" installation sorta comes to mind.

It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine.

And then if that wasn't enough, he goes even MORE lame by attempting to say:

"I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ."

Yeah, right...


And the organization that gave him an award is partially taxpayer funded.

Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art

SECCA gave a $15,000 arts prize awarded to controversial photographer Andres Serrano, Mister Piss Christ himself.
Now tell me that won't piss off a lot of conservatives, LOL.
It pissed ME off and I wasn't even all that offended by it, I just thought it was incredibly stupid to give fifteen large to a guy who paints with feces and urine, and then drops a plastic crucifix into a JAR of his own piss and shoots a photograph of it and thinks he's some great artist.

Please, let ME paint something with my turds and piss and get some taxpayer money for it, let's ALL paint with our turds and piss and get paid for it!!
Are you frikeen kidding me?

Yeah, I'm kinda thinking I don't blame the Right for getting angry about that one, and a few others, too by the way. It's almost as if Andres Serrano WANTED to destroy public funding for the arts and, let's see, how could we do that?
Oh I know !!! :2wave:

 

[NeverTrump]

A lot of homophobic hate being expressed in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nobody cares that he's gay. We're enjoying karma kicking his ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[poweRob]

:roll:

I don't give a rat's ass if he's gay or not, although he does have some strange (political) bedfellows for someone who is out and proud.

It's not "homophobic" to call a gay person a piece of **** if they're a piece of ****.

The right is so desperate for diversity that if one, as a minority, can pretend to self loathe enough to align with the right, you can get a lot of money for bashing the left for some quick coin.

 

[JasperL]

And any intelligent person who objectively looked at what he said would know he in no way defended or supported a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Right, you're hanging your defense on "pedophilia" versus "hebephilia" or attraction/sex with pubescents or early adolescents. Compelling!

Besides, I've seen the interview and there's a potentially honest interpretation that he's a guy who was sexually abused by authority figures and defending that as OK is what some victims of abuse do to get through the day, pretend that when a priest molested him as a 14 year old, which he said happened, that he wanted it and it was his fault. That's a way to deal with abuse.

But he doesn't condemn the behavior, excuses it repeatedly in fact. That's a bad look for someone in a political movement, a supposed role model. We wouldn't accept it from a straight person - "Hey, I'm a 30 year old man, but the 14 year old girls WANTED it! It's OK, they are often the aggressors!" Admitting it should get you arrested and jailed, because it's sexual assault, if not "pedophilia."

And besides, giving him complete benefit of the doubt on that (which I don't), he still delighted in heaping abuse on others, which got him banned from all manner of social media platforms. With Twitter, he instigated and cheered on racist attacks on a black woman, for essentially being in a bad movie, and that was just the last straw. He is an offensive troll who delighted in heaping abuse and misery on others. He's not worthy of anyone's sympathy IMO.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Can you elaborate as to how that came to be?

Beyond just finding out that a friend never showed up at our house for dinner and we got a call from from him at the local ER, and he said that the three guys beating the crap out of him mentioned Milo by name while they were kicking the snot out of him?

He recovered just fine but his ****'s still ****ed up mentally from it.
And just so you know, from personal experience, he IS actually quite capable of fighting, but not against three, not 3-on-1.

I'm afraid I don't have a play by play account beyond that. He just said that they kept talking about Milo and calling him a ****ing faggot and beating the snot out of him, and taking his wallet.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

:roll:

I don't give a rat's ass if he's gay or not, although he does have some strange (political) bedfellows for someone who is out and proud.

It's not "homophobic" to call a gay person a piece of **** if they're a piece of ****.

And that's what he is, and he's making life Hell for a lot of other gay people, that's a fact.

 

[JasperL]

A lot of homophobic hate being expressed in this thread.

If you mean disdain for an unrepentant asshole and troll who loved heaping abuse and misery on others, and you are confusing that with "homophobia" because this particular offender is gay, then good point.

Otherwise, no. Has nothing to do with him being gay, which I'm sure you know.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The right is so desperate for diversity that if one, as a minority, can pretend to self loathe enough to align with the right, you can get a lot of money for bashing the left for some quick coin.

There's ALWAYS at least ONE or TWO who will do it, too.
They're happy to whore themselves out.

And it's not just gay people either, it's members of any protected group. There's always a small handful of people in such groups who will stop at nothing to get that almighty dollar, even sell everyone else in the group up the river, just sign mah check, thank you!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Right, you're hanging your defense on "pedophilia" versus "hebephilia" or attraction/sex with pubescents or early adolescents. Compelling!

Besides, I've seen the interview and there's a potentially honest interpretation that he's a guy who was sexually abused by authority figures and defending that as OK is what some victims of abuse do to get through the day, pretend that when a priest molested him as a 14 year old, which he said happened, that he wanted it and it was his fault. That's a way to deal with abuse.

But he doesn't condemn the behavior, excuses it repeatedly in fact. That's a bad look for someone in a political movement, a supposed role model. We wouldn't accept it from a straight person - "Hey, I'm a 30 year old man, but the 14 year old girls WANTED it! It's OK, they are often the aggressors!" Admitting it should get you arrested and jailed, because it's sexual assault, if not "pedophilia."

And besides, giving him complete benefit of the doubt on that (which I don't), he still delighted in heaping abuse on others, which got him banned from all manner of social media platforms. With Twitter, he instigated and cheered on racist attacks on a black woman, for essentially being in a bad movie, and that was just the last straw. He is an offensive troll who delighted in heaping abuse and misery on others. He's not worthy of anyone's sympathy IMO.

Hmmmm, speaking of 4chan...

No, not YOU..... :lamo

 

[poweRob]

There's ALWAYS at least ONE or TWO who will do it, too.
They're happy to whore themselves out.

And it's not just gay people either, it's members of any protected group. There's always a small handful of people in such groups who will stop at nothing to get that almighty dollar, even sell everyone else in the group up the river, just sign mah check, thank you!

You can watch fox and it will be lilly freegin' white and then all the sudden, out of nowhere, there will be an African American you've never ever heard of with a background as solid as a blog or something... all the sudden becomes a regular talking head there. It's rather obvious.

A minority who speaks ill of the left is fast-tracked to the front of the line. Probably to bitch about affirmative action and the like.

 

[JasperL]

Hmmmm, speaking of 4chan...

No, not YOU..... :lamo

I'm a bit confused, sorry. Never been on/to 4chan, but I know OF it, and am kind of lost....

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You can watch fox and it will be lilly freegin' white and then all the sudden, out of nowhere, there will be an African American you've never ever heard of with a background as solid as a blog or something... all the sudden becomes a regular talking head there. It's rather obvious.

A minority who speaks ill of the left is fast-tracked to the front of the line. Probably to bitch about affirmative action and the like.

I was a union film editor.
It was 1988 and I was pulling in $2495 a week. In the 1980's that was "Eff You" money.
And yet there she was, a union editor who was spending almost ten hours a week protesting the Editor's Guild and she, like me, was a Z-1 On Call Picture Editor.

We had health insurance, we had massive overtime, we had sick days, personal days, we had guaranteed paid one hour lunches and additional "meal penalties", we had golden time, double time, triple time, we had damn near anything and everything a union brother or sister could possibly want. We even had open access to ALL sneak peek film screenings on any producer's lot that was a signatory. I can't begin to tell you the number of movies I got to go see MONTHS before they hit the street.
The first one I ever got invited to go see was "Brainstorm" with Natalie Wood.
My wife and I could walk onto any back lot and we were treated as if WE were the stars.

But to hear this bitch call it, the Editor's Guild was a tyrannical and evil cadre hell bent on destroying people's lives.
Why? Because she got docked for using a string of paid personal days to double dip on a decidedly NON-union gig which clearly needed to be unionized, and the producers of which had been repeatedly mentioned IN the union meetings when they were trying to muster up enough people to go picket them, as we should have, because the show was clearly in our purview.

She got docked for being a scab, plain and simple.
If you're going to sneak around and do non-union work, fine...do it discreetly, don't work for productions which are clearly in line to get unionized, don't do it on your paid personal days repeatedly, like nine days in a row, and don't raise up a giant flag calling attention to yourself!

Lots of union members do non-union work and never get nicked for it.
And they don't turn on their brothers and sisters.

Like I said, there's always a small handful from a protected group who are happy to take a giant crap on the group for the money and fame.

(PHOTO: My CURRENT wife, meeting legendary Director of Photography Haskell Wexler)

 

[Kobie]

The right is so desperate for diversity that if one, as a minority, can pretend to self loathe enough to align with the right, you can get a lot of money for bashing the left for some quick coin.

Now that's griftin'!

 

[NeverTrump]

The right is so desperate for diversity

I read this as disserviceability and thought you made a new word. Which we might as well.

Disserviceability- unhelpful, useless, chaotic. Pretty much describes the RW base these days when it comes to policy or traditions.

 

[NeverTrump]

But to hear this bitch call it, the Editor's Guild was a tyrannical and evil cadre hell bent on destroying people's lives.
Why? Because she got docked for using a string of paid personal days to double dip on a decidedly NON-union gig which clearly needed to be unionized, and the producers of which had been repeatedly mentioned IN the union meetings when they were trying to muster up enough people to go picket them, as we should have, because the show was clearly in our purview.

She got docked for being a scab, plain and simple.
If you're going to sneak around and do non-union work, fine...do it discreetly, don't work for productions which are clearly in line to get unionized, don't do it on your paid personal days repeatedly, like nine days in a row, and don't raise up a giant flag calling attention to yourself!

Part of my job is to recover deleted emails from ex-employees. I usually need to produce hard copy emails as well as electronic ones to give to legal on thumbdrives. Most of the employees sue us for discrimination. Then legal digs through their emails only to find that they barely worked, stole money, and a bunch of other stuff I'm not even allowed to be told. Some employees act really dumb during this process or at other times, but then we have trouble tracking down certain emails b/c they are very well hidden....

The moral of the story is we didn't fire you b/c of your race...

 

[beefheart]

If the House of Cards is being targeted from the top by Mueller, the foundation Trump built (and he's not very good at doing that either) is sinking into the Earth never to be seen again. If any DP members wanted to fund this troll for $750 a month, I guess you could always try to find his venmo.



Yiannopoulos kicked off of fundraising website after single day

Good. I hope he gets out of the monkey show he is in, stops hating, and actually starts doing actual work to employ his sorry ass.

Personally, I don't care about him, he is vile and can DIAF for all I care.

 

[Excon]

Right, you're hanging your defense on "pedophilia" versus "hebephilia" or attraction/sex with pubescents or early adolescents. Compelling!

Whether you like it or not that is a big difference.
Pedophilia has a specific meaning. The claim here was untrue. You should be criticizing and dismissing those who supported and pushed the untruth.

Besides, I've seen the interview and there's a potentially honest interpretation that he's a guy who was sexually abused by authority figures and defending that as OK is what some victims of abuse do to get through the day, pretend that when a priest molested him as a 14 year old, which he said happened, that he wanted it and it was his fault. That's a way to deal with abuse.

But he doesn't condemn the behavior, excuses it repeatedly in fact. That's a bad look for someone in a political movement, a supposed role model. We wouldn't accept it from a straight person - "Hey, I'm a 30 year old man, but the 14 year old girls WANTED it! It's OK, they are often the aggressors!" Admitting it should get you arrested and jailed, because it's sexual assault, if not "pedophilia."

Yeah, no. There clearly is no discussion to be had here. You have judged his experience through your eyes while ignoring what he himself says it was for him.

There was no support for pedophilia here, but because ignorant idiots exist that is the claim that was made and the one other idiots ran with.

And then to the other point he was making, every intelligent person knows is accurate.

Society's age of consent has increased over the years so that immature individuals will not be taken advantage of.
It doesn't mean that there are not sexually mature young individuals who are intellectually mature enough to give consent, it just means that legally they can not in our day and age. That is an accurate assessment. He believes he was one of those mature ones and believes he was the predator in said situation.

I have no problem enforcing our laws, but I do understand the point he was making. Sex between consenting individuals who are intellectually mature enough to make such decisions, should be allowed to do so.

Disagreeing with what he said is one thing, demonizing what he said as pedophilific is a whole other which is as wrong as it is idiotic.

And besides, giving him complete benefit of the doubt on that (which I don't), he still delighted in heaping abuse on others, which got him banned from all manner of social media platforms. With Twitter, he instigated and cheered on racist attacks on a black woman, for essentially being in a bad movie, and that was just the last straw. He is an offensive troll who delighted in heaping abuse and misery on others. He's not worthy of anyone's sympathy IMO.

Abuse? Oh please, that is as fragile as twitter was.
His responses to that "dude" were mild and he did not instigate or cheer on racist attacks.

 

[JasperL]

Whether you like it or not that is a big difference.
Pedophilia has a specific meaning. The claim here was untrue. You should be criticizing and dismissing those who supported and pushed the untruth.

Point noted and disregarded.

Yeah, no. There clearly is no discussion to be had here. You have judged his experience through your eyes while ignoring what he himself says it was for him.

WTF are you talking about? I very explicitly tried to look at this through his eyes, the victim of sexual abuse by an authority figure. And Milo doesn't say it was JUST for him - he generalizes about at least some gay people in the broader sense. He doesn't even condemn the sorry POS priest who had sex with a 14 year old BOY. It doesn't matter if Milo initiated the sex - any responsible adult serving as an authority figure in a school turns down the 'advance' because it's illegal, immoral, unconscionable.

And then to the other point he was making, every intelligent person knows is accurate.

Society's age of consent has increased over the years so that immature individuals will not be taken advantage of.
It doesn't mean that there are not sexually mature young individuals who are intellectually mature enough to give consent, it just means that legally they can not in our day and age. That is an accurate assessment. He believes he was one of those mature ones and believes he was the predator in said situation.

I have no problem enforcing our laws, but I do understand the point he was making. Sex between consenting individuals who are intellectually mature enough to make such decisions, should be allowed to do so.

There is no justifiable argument that a priest in a boarding school for young BOYS should be allowed to have sex with his 14 year old students. This is the excuse of perpetrators of child sexual assault, scum like Jeff Epstein or hundreds/thousands of priests like the man who sexually assaulted Milo, who could also claim that the sex with young girls/boys was "consensual" or that the kids wanted it. It's a disgusting attempt to rationalize sexual abuse of children. There's also a good reason why vermin like the priests and Epstein prey on vulnerable, troubled young people and it's because they make pliable victims, who are unlikely to complain or be believed if they do complain.

Abuse? Oh please, that is as fragile as twitter was.
His responses to that "dude" were mild and he did not instigate or cheer on racist attacks.

Yeah, OK. So sad Twitter was unfair to Milo.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I do not think there is a milo equivalent on the left.

There is no one who has the complete opposite image of what a leftist should be. Amassed a huge following on social media platforms by promoting fake racist and hateful stuff. Proceeded to get kicked off of each of those platforms because he promoted said hateful and racist things. All the while getting kicked off college campuses for doing the same thing. Then went broke and begged his followers for money. I can't think of a leftist who has done this in modern times.

Of course not. Everyone on the left is veritable saint.















/sarcasm

 

[NeverTrump]

Of course not. Everyone on the left is veritable saint.















/sarcasm

Without naming names your accusations ring hallow.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I take no joy. That being said, he would be so far down my list of those I consider worthy of financial humanitarian support/assistance, he will never see a dollar from me.

In addition to no dollars, he gets none of my sympathy either. He should have read the first two sentences of my sig if he didn't want to end up where he currently finds himself.