Let me begin by saying I am strongly inclined to like Milo. I remain strongly inclined to like Milo.
I also do not intend to dwell further about this matter beyond this entry. But political error must be objectively studied so that we may learn from it.
There are things in the process of political persuasion that one simply does not do. Not even when fortunate enough to be facing somewhat respectable political opponents. And certainly not against utterly disreputable Technocrat opponents who happen to be his opponents as well as those of Hamiltonian Conservatives.
There are minimal standards in every kind of enterprise that desires success.
These minimal standards might be called the ‘duh‘ standards.
Part of the reason for having them is that those are the standards that must be adhered to so that someone exceptionally reputable (such as myself, and who is still favorably disposed towards Milo) is not placed in an impossible situation trying to defend him from violating the duhs.
Defending homosexual pederasty is one of those duhs.
Because he did disregard so obvious a rule I am now placed in a position where I (and others) have to either defend his statements or admit there is no explanation other than he screwed up – a position not unlike a soccer fan who watched his team’s goalie walk off the field to get coffee while the opposition team scored an open goal.
It is a fact Technocracy scored a goal left open by Milo.
Is it a fault of the Progressives they kicked it in? It was an open goal, afterall, and he knew they were an opposition on the field 24/7. An open goal is a beautifully written invitation to the other side to aim for it. That is why soccer teams don’t leave goals open as standard practice.
Soccer has its duh standards too.
Because – as you can tell from this blog’s ambitious subject matter – we deal with theory with as much enthusiasm as we do practicality, theoretically what is the best light we could put his statements in?
About the best that can be done is to say that Milo’s suggestion might have been that in his early teens he desired a relationship with older men, but that he was not making a broader point about the desirability of this relationship working for other teenagers.
This hypothetical attempt still falls short of credulity; therefore we cannot endorse it this experimental defense.
After reviewing his videos – and these were all publicly available videos on the internet, not surreptitious wiretaps of private conversations – his shock jock interviewers were fairer and more patient giving him time to explain himself than any mainstream crackpot journalist would have been. They gave him many opportunities to make a retreat in the face of their inquiries. But he didn’t take them. Instead he seemed to keep the door open to these kind of relationships being beneficial without making a conclusive statement.
That he always bordered on an endorsement without making one makes it very difficult for his allies to say he did not make an endorsement, even if he does not actually endorse it privately.
The lesson to take from this media event – don’t put potential allies in impossible situations. Heeding this advice is better for both you and your allies.