Could Milo speak at BYU?

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, dahlia said:

This is fine by me. I wanted to know if there were limits to who gets invited. BYU is a church school. If the admin thinks all speakers should be guided by the spirit and have an LDS outlook (tho I'm not sure that's exactly what you're saying). Surely someone like Justice Clarence Thomas could speak, and he's not LDS. 

 

I do not think that it is a matter so much of who is invited but who will accept the standards during their presentation.   For example I remember attending a concert with Peter, Paul and Mary at BYU when the power to their speakers was turned off.  After about a half hour they returned to finish their performance and apologized for using the L-rd’s name in vain and other “off color” jokes that was a part of their normal college format.  They promised to alter their program format for the BYU crowd.   They were astonished when their apology got a standing ovation and from there on the entire “spirit” of the concert changed.  At the end of the concert they said they had never had an experience like the one at BYU and that they wanted to give the audience a standing ovation.

I was also present at BYU when a distinguished Jewish Rabbi (forget his name and position) can to speak and started off saying that this was the only place in the world he has ever been to where he could be called and felt like a gentile.

I very much enjoyed my experience at BYU with the exception of some professors that did not seem to understand why BYU was special and thought that the real reason was because they taught there.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

Just because one uses foul language does not prevent them from talking (or even teaching) at BYU. 

I don't think he would be accepted as a speaker for a devotional (for obvious reasons) or at a forum.  The most obvious would be in relation to #4 on the OPs list.  That would not be seen as an acceptable thing in a devotional or a forum.

I once went to a gathering at BYU where Orson Scott Card was invited to speak (before he was teaching there).  It was an informal group in a classroom where Orson Scott Card talked about his writing and answered questions.  It was surprising that during that group discussion, Card actually used what some would call foul language.  He talked about how he portrayed church history and Book of Mormon ideas in his books, but used things he felt modern audiences could relate to (including adult language and situations in some of his books).  In some ways, that was an eye opener.  I believe later on, Card actually taught some classes at BYU.

So, while I wouldn't expect any devotionals or forums with Milo, I don't think it is out of the question that he may be asked to a similar group type discussion as a guest for something like the College Republicans (if they so desired) or another group on campus.  I'm not sure if any of them would actually wish to invite him, OR, if invited, if he would actually desire to go to BYU.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, while I wouldn't expect any devotionals or forums with Milo, I don't think it is out of the question that he may be asked to a similar group type discussion as a guest for something like the College Republicans (if they so desired) or another group on campus.  I'm not sure if any of them would actually wish to invite him, OR, if invited, if he would actually desire to go to BYU.

You make a good point.  I tend to think of the OP's question in terms of just forums and devotionals.  But I believe you are right.  He may very well be invited to speak at a smaller gathering of a college related but private group such as College Republicans.  I don't think anyone would / should have a problem with that.

[NightSG]

On 2/7/2017 at 10:58 AM, Traveler said:

a distinguished Jewish Rabbi

As opposed to those Presbyterian Rabbis?

[Just_A_Guy]

Reason 7.5:  He apparently thinks it's just hunky dory for older men to capitalize on confused questioning teenagers' natural alienation from their parents, for those men's own sexual gain.

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Reason 7.5:  He apparently thinks it's just hunky dory for older men to capitalize on confused questioning teenagers' natural alienation from their parents, for those men's own sexual gain.

I don't have time to post it all here, but in a nutshell his full history of comments provides far more context and nuance. 

[NeuroTypical]

For me, the latest deal with his age of consent comments and apology is only the second thing preventing me from taking him more seriously.  Here's the first thing -  a picture of him from his early '20's, that was grabbed from his old feed and made viral before he took it down:

Yeah, that's an iron cross.  As in "Nazi Germany military medal for bravery in battle" iron cross.  As in, "Hi, I'm Milo, a Jew, who is wearing a symbol of bravery for those who enacted the holocaust because that's how I roll" iron cross.  After I saw that picture, I just started caring less about Milo and everything he had to say.  

A vague analogy would be a Mormon wearing a shirt that had the text of Gov Boggs' extradition order stylishly embroidered on it.  Or a black guy wearing an emblem symbolizing slave ownership. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, the latest deal with his age of consent comments and apology is only the second thing preventing me from taking him more seriously.  Here's the first thing -  a picture of him from his early '20's, that was grabbed from his old feed and made viral before he took it down:

Yeah, that's an iron cross.  As in "Nazi Germany military medal for bravery in battle" iron cross.  As in, "Hi, I'm Milo, a Jew, who is wearing a symbol of bravery for those who enacted the holocaust because that's how I roll" iron cross.  After I saw that picture, I just started caring less about Milo and everything he had to say.  

A vague analogy would be a Mormon wearing a shirt that had the text of Gov Boggs' extradition order stylishly embroidered on it.  Or a black guy wearing an emblem symbolizing slave ownership. 

Sigh.  I would expect this kind of drivel from the left.  But somebody from the right being this shallow is disappointing.

Yes, Milo is not somebody serious conservatives want to promote.  He is labeled a provocateur for a legitimate reason.  He's not somebody to be taken seriously.  He provokes dissent.  He is a societal rebel.  In a sense, he falls on the side of the fence with the biker gangs and the extreme tattoo'd/pierced/goth people. Basically, that sector of society that keep Hot Topics and Spencers in business.  The iron cross is so popular with this crowd that fans of MMA wear them on their shirts.  Shirts like Affliction, American Fighter, etc.  The skull and bones is the same way.  My husband has several of them.  I bought him one for Christmas which cost me $98!  For a Shirt!

That iron cross (without the swastika) is a very common jewelry for these sectors of society.  They sell them at Hot Topics even.  Yes, Milo is Jew by blood.  Yes, his mother is German.  I doubt any of those had any bearing on his wearing the iron cross (without the swastika) on his neck in the same manner that my husband's wearing the iron cross on his shirt has anything to do with his white skin and blonde hair.

The Anti-Defamation League even warns us about misinterpreting the use of the iron cross in modern society.

http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/iron-cross.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/#.WKjLdVWLTIU

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, the latest deal with his age of consent comments and apology is only the second thing preventing me from taking him more seriously.  Here's the first thing -  a picture of him from his early '20's, that was grabbed from his old feed and made viral before he took it down:

Yeah, that's an iron cross.  As in "Nazi Germany military medal for bravery in battle" iron cross.  As in, "Hi, I'm Milo, a Jew, who is wearing a symbol of bravery for those who enacted the holocaust because that's how I roll" iron cross.  After I saw that picture, I just started caring less about Milo and everything he had to say.  

A vague analogy would be a Mormon wearing a shirt that had the text of Gov Boggs' extradition order stylishly embroidered on it.  Or a black guy wearing an emblem symbolizing slave ownership. 

Milo is first and foremost, a provocateur. He's not someone you can take seriously. He's someone who has a twinkle in his eye when he says something controversial. You either get it or you don't. He's like Trump-the WWE of politics. He's the embodiment of every over the top, mannerless person you meet in online forums. 

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.  I would expect this kind of drivel from the left.  But somebody from the right being this shallow is disappointing.

Yes, Milo is not somebody serious conservatives want to promote.  He is labeled a provocateur for a legitimate reason.  He's not somebody to be taken seriously.  He provokes dissent.  He is a societal rebel.  In a sense, he falls on the side of the fence with the biker gangs and the extreme tattoo'd/pierced/goth people. Basically, that sector of society that keep Hot Topics and Spencers in business.  The iron cross is so popular with this crowd that fans of MMA wear them on their shirts.  Shirts like Affliction, American Fighter, etc.  The skull and bones is the same way.  My husband has several of them.  I bought him one for Christmas which cost me $98!  For a Shirt!

That iron cross (without the swastika) is a very common jewelry for these sectors of society.  They sell them at Hot Topics even.  Yes, Milo is Jew by blood.  Yes, his mother is German.  I doubt any of those had any bearing on his wearing the iron cross (without the swastika) on his neck in the same manner that my husband's wearing the iron cross on his shirt has anything to do with his white skin and blonde hair.

The Anti-Defamation League even warns us about misinterpreting the use of the iron cross in modern society.

http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/iron-cross.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/#.WKjLdVWLTIU

 

This. The Iron Cross was a military distinction that significantly pre-dated the Nazi Party. And in term of modern US usage, when displayed on its own, it's nothing more than a commercial symbol for skaters and bikers. I myself used to wear it on T-shirts and one of my favorite hats in my teen years. Though I ended up being a pretty lousy skater.

[NightSG]

14 minutes ago, Godless said:

This. The Iron Cross was a military distinction that significantly pre-dated the Nazi Party. And in term of modern US usage, when displayed on its own, it's nothing more than a commercial symbol for skaters and bikers. I myself used to wear it on T-shirts and one of my favorite hats in my teen years. Though I ended up being a pretty lousy skater.

Oh...and all this time I just figured you had a thing for French soccer players.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Milo is first and foremost, a provocateur. He's not someone you can take seriously. He's someone who has a twinkle in his eye when he says something controversial. You either get it or you don't. He's like Trump-the WWE of politics. He's the embodiment of every over the top, mannerless person you meet in online forums. 

Yep.  Consider me provoked out of his fan base.  I mean, I get it.  Paraphrasing him: When he takes flak for ticking people off, his only regret is he didn't tick more people off.   That's fine, I can appreciate that, especially when the people he tends to tick off, are people I really like to see ticked off.  There is a pretty darn short list of things a professional rabble-rouser can do that will get me disgusted.  One is push child abuse, and one is making light of the holocaust.  I don't need to defend my reaction, I barely need to mention he was 22 in that photo, living in England, not the US with all it's Hot Topix's and biker gangs.  It's just my reaction.  If'n y'all wanna think it's "drivel", no skin off my nose. 

Anyway, I figure he's going to fade out of the spotlight now.  Resigned from Breitbart.  Simon & Schuster dropped publication of his book, days after it hit #1 on Amazon pre-sales.  His glory speaking gig at CPAC all rescinded.   I figure in a year or three, he'll be that guy who was a flash in the pan during the Trump election drama.  I've been wrong with predictions before, so whatever.  Maybe he'll stay in the spotlight as long as speaking gigs make the news.

I've seen this happen before, with nationally syndicated talk show host, author, and tv show personality, Dr. Laura Schlessinger.  Drops one N-word in 2010, and now she's running a podcast out of itunes and broadcasting on SiriusXM's version of channel ocho.  Think quick - when was the last time you heard anyone talking about her?

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I don't have time to post it all here, but in a nutshell his full history of comments provides far more context and nuance. 

No, I get--and even partially sympathize with--the larger points that a) "pedophilia", strictly speaking, consists of attraction to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers; and b) legal ages of consent can be somewhat arbitrary, and that there do exist "precocious" teens who are physically and emotionally competent to handle relationships with older adults.  Anyone who's discussed Joseph Smith's polygamy has had to grapple with these concepts.

But none of that changes Milo's follow-up point, which is the truly outrageous thing: 

Quote

“You know people are messy and complex and actually, in the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, that sort of coming of age relationships.

“The relationships with those with older men have helped those young boys discover who they are. And give them security and safety, provide them with love and reliable and sort of a rock. Where they can’t […] parents. Some of those relationships are some of the most…”

If I had told you a year ago that in 2017 Republicans--and Mormons!!--would be defending a guy who had advocated gay men recruiting underage youths into sexual relationships behind their parents' backs--you'd have said I was crazy.  But here we are--some of us, anyways--circling the wagons around a guy who is the incarnation of everything we've suspected, feared, and loathed about social liberals in general and the gay-rights lobby in particular.

But remember--it's the NeverTrumpers who have sold out conservatism!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep.  Consider me provoked out of his fan base.  I mean, I get it.  Paraphrasing him: When he takes flak for ticking people off, his only regret is he didn't tick more people off.   That's fine, I can appreciate that, especially when the people he tends to tick off, are people I really like to see ticked off.  There is a pretty darn short list of things a professional rabble-rouser can do that will get me disgusted.  One is push child abuse, and one is making light of the holocaust.  I don't need to defend my reaction, I barely need to mention he was 22 in that photo, living in England, not the US with all it's Hot Topix's and biker gangs.  It's just my reaction.  If'n y'all wanna think it's "drivel", no skin off my nose. 

Anyway, I figure he's going to fade out of the spotlight now.  Resigned from Breitbart.  Simon & Schuster dropped publication of his book, days after it hit #1 on Amazon pre-sales.  His glory speaking gig at CPAC all rescinded.   I figure in a year or three, he'll be that guy who was a flash in the pan during the Trump election drama.  I've been wrong with predictions before, so whatever.  Maybe he'll stay in the spotlight as long as speaking gigs make the news.

I've seen this happen before, with nationally syndicated talk show host, author, and tv show personality, Dr. Laura Schlessinger.  Drops one N-word in 2010, and now she's running a podcast out of itunes and broadcasting on SiriusXM's version of channel ocho.  Think quick - when was the last time you heard anyone talking about her?

His career. 

[NeuroTypical]

Gator, that is totally you at 0:52.  Top left.  Your 'big hair' phase. 

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Gator, that is totally you at 0:52.  Top left.  Your 'big hair' phase. 

I'll never tell. 

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep.  Consider me provoked out of his fan base.  I mean, I get it.  Paraphrasing him: When he takes flak for ticking people off, his only regret is he didn't tick more people off.   That's fine, I can appreciate that, especially when the people he tends to tick off, are people I really like to see ticked off.  There is a pretty darn short list of things a professional rabble-rouser can do that will get me disgusted.  One is push child abuse, and one is making light of the holocaust.  I don't need to defend my reaction, I barely need to mention he was 22 in that photo, living in England, not the US with all it's Hot Topix's and biker gangs.  It's just my reaction.  If'n y'all wanna think it's "drivel", no skin off my nose.

I thought you were older than a Millennial.  I'd be surprised if you were in his fan base provoked or not.  He's as irritating as the snowflakes even as he is on the conservative side.  His popularity is exclusive to college campuses and nowhere else.  He just hit the conservative radar because of his support for Trump.  Brietbart didn't make him.  He got dropped by Twitter because of his bullying of Leslie Jones yet he became even more popular on college campuses because of it.  Him resigning from Brietbart is even smaller potato than his Twitter controversies.  The conservative millennials and Gen Z's will continue to love him because r/The_Donald types love that in-your-face non-PC stuff.  But then, if your definition of Milo's popularity is based on the mainstream conservatives' acceptance of him, then yeah, that's not Milo's fan base.  That's just something recent that splashed on the mainstream radar due to the UC Berkley protests.

Pop-culture is not exclusive to America.  Especially Millennial pop-culture.  UK and the US are pretty much in lock step when it comes to that.  I mean, remember the British invasion of pop music in the 80's?  It didn't stay in the 80's.  Hot Topic is as Hot in London as it is in LA.  MMA is just as hot in the UK and even the rest of Europe.  You can just take a look at the nationalities of the UFC Champs.   And it's a stretch to say the iron cross is making light of the holocaust.  The iron cross is not exclusive to the Nazis and white supremacists.  My husband's Affliction and American Fighter shirts sporting the iron cross is definitely not making light of the holocaust.  I don't even know why everything has to point back to the Nazis.  It's like a political discussion can't possibly occur without it devolving back to the Nazis.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by anatess2

[Ironhold]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, I get--and even partially sympathize with--the larger points that a) "pedophilia", strictly speaking, consists of attraction to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers; and b) legal ages of consent can be somewhat arbitrary, and that there do exist "precocious" teens who are physically and emotionally competent to handle relationships with older adults.  Anyone who's discussed Joseph Smith's polygamy has had to grapple with these concepts.

But none of that changes Milo's follow-up point, which is the truly outrageous thing: 

If I had told you a year ago that in 2017 Republicans--and Mormons!!--would be defending a guy who had advocated gay men recruiting underage youths into sexual relationships behind their parents' backs--you'd have said I was crazy.  But here we are--some of us, anyways--circling the wagons around a guy who is the incarnation of everything we've suspected, feared, and loathed about social liberals in general and the gay-rights lobby in particular.

But remember--it's the NeverTrumpers who have sold out conservatism!

The second statement is one of the things he clarified. 

When he was 17, he was in a relationship with a man who was 27. By the standards of the homosexual community, he was still a "boy" even though he was over the legal age of consent where he lived. Hence his specific wording in that remark. 

[Blackmarch]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, the latest deal with his age of consent comments and apology is only the second thing preventing me from taking him more seriously.  Here's the first thing -  a picture of him from his early '20's, that was grabbed from his old feed and made viral before he took it down:

Yeah, that's an iron cross.  As in "Nazi Germany military medal for bravery in battle" iron cross.  As in, "Hi, I'm Milo, a Jew, who is wearing a symbol of bravery for those who enacted the holocaust because that's how I roll" iron cross.  After I saw that picture, I just started caring less about Milo and everything he had to say.  

A vague analogy would be a Mormon wearing a shirt that had the text of Gov Boggs' extradition order stylishly embroidered on it.  Or a black guy wearing an emblem symbolizing slave ownership. 

the guy has some serious stockholm syndrome going on. that style of cross is much older than the nazis- it doesn't bother me, less than the swastika does which isn't much at all. it takes more than that to be a neo nazi. or a certain way of usage to actually become offensive. the mormon -boggs analogy is bad the slave ownership is pretty dependant on other variables.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The second statement is one of the things he clarified. 

When he was 17, he was in a relationship with a man who was 27. By the standards of the homosexual community, he was still a "boy" even though he was over the legal age of consent where he lived. Hence his specific wording in that remark. 

Sorry, but no.  The premise of this portion of the conversation was that there were gay "boys" who were emotionally ready for sex even if they weren't legally of age; and Milo presented it as a good thing for older gay men to take advantage of these boys' estrangement from their parents to form a sexual relationship.  And in this portion, the specific age mentioned (twice) wasn't 17.  It was 13.

We should have learned from Zedekiah's example.  You can't defend Israel from Babylon by forming an alliance with the flesh pots of Egypt.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, I get--and even partially sympathize with--the larger points that a) "pedophilia", strictly speaking, consists of attraction to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers; and b) legal ages of consent can be somewhat arbitrary, and that there do exist "precocious" teens who are physically and emotionally competent to handle relationships with older adults.  Anyone who's discussed Joseph Smith's polygamy has had to grapple with these concepts.

But none of that changes Milo's follow-up point, which is the truly outrageous thing: 

If I had told you a year ago that in 2017 Republicans--and Mormons!!--would be defending a guy who had advocated gay men recruiting underage youths into sexual relationships behind their parents' backs--you'd have said I was crazy.  But here we are--some of us, anyways--circling the wagons around a guy who is the incarnation of everything we've suspected, feared, and loathed about social liberals in general and the gay-rights lobby in particular.

But remember--it's the NeverTrumpers who have sold out conservatism!

This is off the mark.  Conservatives - including Trumpers - do not like Milo.  The CPAC invite and the circle-the-wagons effect over Milo is solely limited to the UC Berkley event.  It is a backlash over the muzzling of conservative free speech using riots with Milo as the latest poster child example.  Milo has been a popular person years before Berkley.  He is considered a troll among the "adults".  College campus millennials love him because he is a very effective troll, and a charismatic one at that with his gay label a bonus,  ramming the liberal trolls into head spin.  They sure don't invite him to speak on campuses to give a serious, albeit controversial, speech.  For that they invite Shapiro.  Milo's over-the-top style and irreverent treatment of anything serious does not appeal to people who take conservatism seriously.  His treatment of Leslie Jones appalled conservatives just as much as liberals and they were vocal with their rebuke.  And that wasn't the first time they tried putting Milo in his place.  But the guy has journalistic talent and when he is serious - like when he practices discipline in Brietbart - he can be very eloquent in his defense of conservative principles.

So yeah.  Sitting on your Never Trumper high horse is not applicable here.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is off the mark.  Conservatives - including Trumpers - do not like Milo.

. . . .

So yeah.  Sitting on your Never Trumper high horse is not applicable here.

I get the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing; but I was primarily referring to the apologetics that have come out in Milo's favor in the wake of these new transcripts.

Are you denying that certain conservatives are circling the wagons around Milo even after the release of these remarks?

Folks who accuse us NeverTrumpers of being on a "high horse", might first want to consider that perhaps we only look tall because those who have sold their souls to the Trump-Bannon-Milo coalition have sunk so low. 

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I get the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing; but I was primarily referring to the apologetics that have come out in Milo's favor in the wake of these new transcripts.

Are you denying that certain conservatives are circling the wagons around Milo even after the release of these remarks?

Folks who accuse us NeverTrumpers of being on a "high horse", might first want to consider that perhaps we only look tall because those who have sold their souls to the Trump-Bannon-Milo coalition have sunk so low. 

Certain conservatives does not speak for conservatives.  Neither do they speak for Trump conservatives.  Broad brushes like that are always bad regardless of whether you use them or they use it against you.

"Sold their souls".  What a high horse thing to say.  Because, you know.  Everything Trump has promised to do and is doing is OH SO FASCIST!  Give me a break.

[NeuroTypical]

[Just_A_Guy]

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

"Sold their souls".  What a high horse thing to say.  Because, you know.  Everything Trump has promised to do and is doing is OH SO FASCIST!  Give me a break.

Since you're so concerned about using overly broad brushes, perhaps you can explain why on earth you were so bold as to assert that "conservatives -  including Trumpers - do not like Milo".  And then explain why you tried to associate me with the "Trump-is-fascist" set even though a forum search will reveal that I have *NEVER* applied that word to him.

And, you know what?  If being on a "high horse" entails being openly relieved that I will never have to explain why I made excuses for Milo's debaucheries and Trump's character assassinations and predations and outright lies in the name of political expediency--

Guilty.  

In my defense, I would have been happy to have more Americans up here with me and I did my darnedest to keep them from selling their own high horses to Trump's glue factory.  But some folks thought it would be better to Win™.

Well, they Won™.  So why are they so hot and bothered by the sight of us NeverTrumpers, alone on the hilltop, still astride our horses?

Edited February 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy