OftenÂ dialogical public argument consists in the search for closers, Archimedean points from which to eject others and their views from consideration. As a pragmatic and rhetorical matter, this doesn’t usually work (or at least it doesn’t work on the target). The accusation of “racism” is quickly countered, for instance, with “the real racist,” and so on for the others (sexist, etc.).
There does, however seem to be one (for today, at least) that you cannot counter: Â advocate of pedophilia.
Enter infamous troll and white nationalist Â Milo Yiannopoulos, who was recently discovered to have advocated relationships between older men and boys as young as 13:
â€œIn the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men â€” the sort of â€˜coming of ageâ€™ relationship â€” those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they canâ€™t speak to their parents,â€ he added.
This cost him his book contract and got him disinvited from CPAC (some of whose stars advocated genocide).
It’s nice, perhaps, to know there is a line somewhere with people.
I don’t mean to be flip here, with all of the other lines this guy crossed, why was it this one that finally made him unacceptable? Is it because we’re talking about children?