I'd rather have a guy like Peter Thiel be the face of Gay Conservatives than Milo. Milo is more of an anti-PC guy. I like the guy and his anti-PC messages, but he's just too polarizing of a figure.
That's just it, Milo is more of a libertarian. In terms of the more intellectually deep of the two, and who should be taken more seriously, it's really not close when you consider Thiel's record of accomplishment on top of his (IMHO incredibly underrated) ability to successfully orate his positions without resorting to shtick. Added bonus for bankrolling a certain lawsuit, and driving possibly the biggest dumpster fire in existence out of business...brother.
Easily, half of what Milo does is a gimmick. I'm a wrestling fan I know gimmickry when I see it. However, considering the absolute regressive and toxic nature of college campuses around this country, and the inability of others who are attempting to do the same thing but fail miserably (Ben Shapiro can be the most intelligent guy in the room, break down the opposition like surgeon and it won't matter because he has the charisma of a wet fart), I do think his exposing of this militant mindset, and the exposure of absolute psychos and regressive pigs like Yvette Falcara is actually important work.
I'm gonna be nice and ignore the Soros conspiracy stuff and offer the measured response you deserve.
Why would you (or anyone) waste your time, energy, and credibility defending MY?
His entire shtick is based on two things: he says "non-PC" things to get a rise out of people (basically trolling) and being the token gay guy that the right can point to and say "It can't be homophobic/sexist/racist if Milo said it!"
I've been aware of him long before his recent rise to national prominence, and he was probably better off staying on the fringe of political commentary.
I agree that age of consent is a nuanced issue, I agree that we throw the word pedophile around too liberally, and I know he just made the priest comment for shock value. I'm not going to disavow Bill Maher or anyone else for having him on their show. But no way would I ever defend this guy.
Just let the left eat him so they can feel like they won something, and he can go back to the echo chamber he belongs in.
I'm going to make an analogy. When Richard Spenser got punched in the face, there was no defense on my end for him because Richard Spenser is a gigantic piece of excrement, who should be ostracized from any sort of reasonable community. Then Milo got accused of being a Nazi (he's not.). Then Gavin McGinnis got accused of being a Nazi and pepper-sprayed in the face (also not). Point is, there is an importance in nipping certain behavior in the bud, even if when the first time its perpetuated, the object of the behavior is someone we don't like.
If it's this easy to bring down a figure in taking statements completely out of context, and essentially using one's own traumatic experience against them, even if you despise Milo, how long until its able to be done against people with views you'd find more acceptable? Dave Rubin is a classical liberal who's building a conservative audience at the expense of douchey Glenn Beck, etc. He's also gay. How long until they manipulate questionable comments from his past, take them out of context and use an anti-gay stereotype to discredit him?
The old conservative guard lost its grip, and they know it. They can't take down Trump (and their best effort was comprised of a bald shitbag in Evan McMullin), so they'll shoot his most ardent messengers. Full disclosure, these people are also the same social regressives that I blame for the GOP not embracing a more moderate social platform, the same people that want government out of their lives but inexplicably want to legislate what occurs in the bedroom of two consulting adults. So as far as I'm concerned, they should've gotten fucked long before this.
As far as Milo's racism, homophobia etc...it's a common theme used to discredit Milo, but I've watched his stuff and can easily point to dozens of instances where he discusses the danger of identity politics and judging people based on immutable characteristics. I'm not going to sit here and say he isn't guilty of misogyny and transphobia, however they're usually said in jest (again, part of the shtick) and as a response to the absolute ridiculousness of third-wave feminism and the trans movements outright demand that social mores be abandoned and biological fact be disregarded to placate to 0.6 percent of the adult population.
