You can say that again. We'll have to agree to disagree on the utility of your having piled on here. This Milo-trashing is a witch hunt against the administration and its effective supporters. The extreme objections raised to Milo's having described his personal experience of being a 17-year-old gay teen who was seduced by an older person are biased by ignorance and hysteria on the right and by hypocrisy and disingenuousness on the left.
Milo is correct that the clinical word "pedophilia" only applies to pre-pubescent children, and is therefore an abhorrent and clear violation, even in these transgressive times. Adult-teen sex is defined by the words "hebephilia" for early teens and "ephebophilia" for older teens, but that's too narrowly accurate for our lamestream media's broad-brush preference for the ugliest possible smears. Adult teen-sex is a more ambiguous and difficult-to-define social problem that pedophilia, lately made even more difficult by the left's egregious blurring of all lines of biological sex, age, roles, law and even the definition of words in their indiscriminate, borderless existence.
Conservatives condemn at their peril the struggles of people like him who have been involved in gay ideation and/or seduction or rape since childhood, who need support from conservatives to reveal their experiences in order to break free. Little of your objections to Milo have anything to do with the subject matter of his defense of free speech, particularly as regards the protected marxist classes of identity activists.
Well said, AW.
would you excuse him doing the same to teen boys as part of his trauma?
Hearsay at this point, from people who worked with him...but the boys booze bus tour is perhaps why everyone is backing off.
I do find it telling, that none of his colleagues have stepped up to defend him and literally did not want him at Breitbart any longer.