Oh look, Salon deleted their pro-pedophilia articles

In September of 2015, Salon published two articles by a self-professed pedophile Todd nickerson. The man stated that he has an attraction to girls, and went on to explain his “coming out” story (for lack of a better word). Salon and the author received a great deal of criticism, the man for his positions and Salon for running the article. It is worth noting that majority of the criticism came from victim advocacy groups and right-wing groups. Left-leaning people, particularly progressives, remained silent on the topic or supported Salon.

Things became more questionable when Salon published a follow-up article by this man in which he bemoaned the criticism, painting himself as a victim of people’s bias against pedophiles.

Now those articles are missing from Salon’s website.

This came to my attention yesterday, and it appeared to have happened in response to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation. That appears to be untrue. Salon quietly deleted the articles in January of this year.

It nevertheless looks bad for Salon to delete the articles without leaving a statement about why they deleted them. They did not simply allow one article, but also a follow-up article and video in which the man explained falling in love with a 5-year-old girl he babysat when he was 18.

Sorry, Salon, but you do not get to play this game. You allowed the man to publish on your site. You do not get to pretend that did not happen. And fortunately, because of your general dishonest nature, people archived the articles. Here they are:

I’m a pedophile, but not a monster

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine

The video

Salon did not delete the articles in order to cover themselves as they attack Milo over his comments about cross-generational sexual encounters, yet the hypocrisy remains. Salon and many other progressive outlets and people have turned a blind eye to left-leaning people they like who, unlike Milo, have actually committed sex offenses. They have ignored same jokes Milo told when they were told by their favored personalities. This blatant double standard of giving people who share your politics a pass while condemning the other side is far too common.

This, however, is more insidious because Salon did not leave a message stating why they removed the articles. It looks like they are trying to cover it up, and they do not get to do that. You published the articles and video, giving this man a chance to present his situation as if he were the victim of an unfair society because we do not condone his sexual attraction to five-year-olds, a notion so laughable that even societies that allowed adult-child sex would roll their eyes.

You gave him a platform, which I do not agree with, but you are allowed to do. Now own it.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Oh look, Salon deleted their pro-pedophilia articles

  1. I always have completely and absolutely agreed that those Salon articles are unspeakably disgusting, toxic, outrageous, hypocritical and dangerous.

    However, I must ask: Why are you so obsessed with and hell-bent on defending yiannopoulos? Your infatuation with the raving, dangerous, utterly incompetent, corrupt, stupid, barely literate, unhinged, lying, imbecilic, mentally unstable, lunatic ignoramus TV game show host that is now the president of the U.S.A. has blinded you in a horrible manner.

    Remember that on top of everything else yiannopoulos BOASTED and BRAGGED about being in “high-stature” Hollywood moguls’ parties where there were, *in his own words* “VERY YOUNG BOYS” (a phrase he stressed more than *twice*), “taking drugs and engaging in unprotected sex with much, much older men” and then refused to release the identities of such abusers. And, is now, like SO, SO, SO MANY feminists have done throughout so, so many years, playing the victim card; self-pityingly, cynically, shrewdly, boastingly, disgustingly advertising himself now as a “victim” of sexual abuse, when in the same interview he said that at *fourteen* HE was the “predator”.

    Have you thought of how many other boys and/or girls those disgusting catholic priests and Hollywood moguls may have raped and abused and all the suffering they’ve imposed on them?

    All those other girls, and especially boys, are THE ONLY victims in this whole drama. NOT yiannopoulos, who’s always been nothing but a cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whore, bully and careerist with absolutely no principles, ethics or morals.

  2. However, I must ask: Why are you so obsessed with and hell-bent on defending yiannopoulos

    I think it is important to be honest about what he said. The accusation against him is very serious. If one calls a person a pedophile or claims they support pedophilia, then one should make sure that is what the person did. Milo did not do that. He did not encourage or advocate for it. What he stated is that in some instances the sexual “relationships” between young boys and older men could be helpful to the boys searching for love and security as long as it is consensual.

    I do not agree with that statement, but it is not Milo telling anyone to have sex with boys. He never says that, nor does he state the men or boys should pursue such interactions.

    Remember that on top of everything else yiannopoulos BOASTED and BRAGGED about being in “high-stature” Hollywood moguls’ parties where there were, *in his own words* “VERY YOUNG BOYS”

    No, he did not. He stated that he had been to such parties in reference to Rogan’s comment about Bryan Singer. Milo mentioned the very young boys as a criticism, which is obvious from the context.

    “taking drugs and engaging in unprotected sex with much, much older men” and then refused to release the identities of such abusers.

    He cannot release the names because without corroborating evidence such an accusation would be libelous.

    And, is now, like SO, SO, SO MANY feminists have done throughout so, so many years, playing the victim card

    Yes, he is playing the victim. However, given people used his jokes about his own experiences, which by his critics own positions would count as abuse, he has every reason to bring it up. If he wants to joke about being good at oral sex because of his abuse, who are you to tell him he cannot?

    self-pityingly, cynically, shrewdly, boastingly, disgustingly advertising himself now as a “victim” of sexual abuse, when in the same interview he said that at *fourteen* HE was the “predator”.

    And I agree that he cannot have it both ways.

    Have you thought of how many other boys and/or girls those disgusting catholic priests and Hollywood moguls may have raped and abused and all the suffering they’ve imposed on them?

    You ask this of a person who spent the first 14 years of his life being sexually abused, and one who writes about the abuse committed by the religious and Hollywood figures.

    All those other girls, and especially boys, are THE ONLY victims in this whole drama.

    So because you find Milo detestable, it was not sexual abuse when those men had sex with him when he was 13? Do you think Milo is the only person who thinks about their abuse in the way he described? Do you think he is the only child who might have wanted to have sex with an adult?

    Do not be naive. Milo is a “cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whore”, yet he also appears to be a victim of abuse.

  3. TS, odds are Salon was tipped about Milo’s weird comments in January and knew of his impending media assault. Salon will suffer a miserable death of a thousand Streisand Effects as a result of this cover-up.
    Jimmy, while I agree with most of your opinions about Milo, I completely disagree about Trump. Clinton’s are LITERALLY in bed with pedophiles. Trump has been busting pedophiles to the tune of more than 1000 since taking office. He’s building a case. Watch for the big time heads to roll and/or expatriates to flee prosecution.

  4. TS, odds are Salon was tipped about Milo’s weird comments in January and knew of his impending media assault.

    This would be more probable if Salon broke the story.

  5. I am only guessing, but Milo is certainly a gadfly and they do come to grief. I appreciate him as a gadfly and wish that this had not come to pass. If he only wanted to get the word out, all he had to do was to produce You Tube videos from his home. Going to campuses limited his exposure and attracted troublemakers. As for Salon, those stories had to be a ticking time bomb and they are trying to do something that print media would never attempt.

  6. Milo’s been talking about the priest for a few years now. This story seems prepared and timed for maximum negative impact on Milo. Throw in some paid rioters for the full effect.

  7. I remember reading those articles (and other articles about Todd Nickerson). Those articles “were* pro-pedophile, but *not* pro-“pedophilia” (or rather, in more correct terms, child sexual abuse).

    Allow me to explain. Nickerson is a moderator at a site called Virtuous Pedophiles, a community to help pedophiles who want to overcome their desires and never, ever commit sexual acts with children or other types of sexual activity (e.g. watching child porn).

    That is different from what Milo Yiannopoulos did, which is to justify actual child sexual abuse.

    What Salon did is wrong, not only due to its Orwellian undertones and the Streisand effect, but especially due to the fact that their articles are *defensible* and it would be *right* should any “controversy” arise.

  8. I remember reading those articles (and other articles about Todd Nickerson). Those articles “were* pro-pedophile, but *not* pro-“pedophilia” (or rather, in more correct terms, child sexual abuse).

    Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction does not require action. Nickerson’s articles are about normalizing pedophilia by his implication that his attraction is merely a different sexual orientation.

    That is different from what Milo Yiannopoulos did, which is to justify actual child sexual abuse.

    Yes and no. The act itself can be considered abuse. However, what Milo condoned were situations in which the teen consented to or initiated sex. He opposed any activity with prepubescent children and anything exploitative or abusive. This is a nuanced position, although it is one I do not agree with.

  9. “No, he did not. He stated that he had been to such parties in reference to Rogan’s comment about Bryan Singer. Milo mentioned the very young boys as a criticism, which is obvious from the context.”

    Yes, he did. And, NO, it is not “obvious” he “meant” that comment as a “criticism”. He says how he’d been to *SEVERAL* parties with *”VERY YOUNG BOYS”* (again, his own words more than twice) “taking drugs and engaging in unprotected sex with much, much older men”. At *NO* point does he say he found that to be repulsive/bad/disgusting/amoral/unethical AT ALL. Plus, like I already said, he says he was at *”SEVERAL”* of this parties. I think if you are a victim of underage sexual abuse/rape and find that to be a disgusting, unspeakable crime and are living in Hollywood and see such things at *A* party, you just STOP going to Hollywood parties ALTOGETHER, *especially* when they are being thrown by the same people, or some of the same people of friends of the people who threw that first party.

    “He cannot release the names because without corroborating evidence such an accusation would be libelous.”

    Yet he’s more than happy to PUBLICALLY bully and intimidate a transgender woman whom he’s never met and hasn’t done ANY harm in the name of “protecting women and girls” from the disgusting perverts that are human beings who were born male. It’s really, really sad and incredible how you still refuse to see the disgusting hypocrisy.

    “If he wants to joke about being good at oral sex because of his abuse, who are you to tell him he cannot?”

    And who are you to tell me, a victim of child sexual abuse, anything when first he uses the topic of child sexual abuse as virtual signaling and as excuse to bully and harass and humiliate a transgender woman whom he’s never met and who hasn’t done any harm and then to make jokes and then to paint himself as a victim (something he’s always vilified and condemned and mocked when it comes to people he disagrees with politically and ideologically) and then you defend him?

    “You ask this of a person who spent the first 14 years of his life being sexually abused, and one who writes about the abuse committed by the religious and Hollywood figures.”

    Well, you are incredibly forgiving and dismissive when it comes to the abuses yiannopoulos has described and talked about, just because you agree with him politically and ideologically.

    “So because you find Milo detestable, it was not sexual abuse when those men had sex with him when he was 13? Do you think Milo is the only person who thinks about their abuse in the way he described? Do you think he is the only child who might have wanted to have sex with an adult?”

    Obviously that’s not what I think. But what you are doing now is playing apologetics towards homosexual men who prey on young homosexual boys (a group that’s obviously very, very vulnerable) and are masters at manipulating them. It is thanks to things like this and people like yiannopoulos that young homosexual boys who were victims of abuse/harassment/rape at the hand of older homosexual adult males are so vulnerable and unable to come out and accuse and face their victimizers.

    “Do not be naive. Milo is a “cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whore”, yet he also appears to be a victim of abuse.”

    Don’t be naive. As ALL cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whores, bullies and careerists with absolutely no principles, ethics or morals ALL he cares about is himself and his “career” and money. It’s ALL business for him. You really think he really cares about a single victim of rape/sexual abuse/sexual harassment???!!! Don’t make me laugh. And I don’t care about what he “appears to be”; I care about what he’s shown and proved himself to be. And that is, once again, a cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whore, bully and careerist with absolutely no principles, ethics or morals.

  10. Yes, he did.

    The video is linked above. I suggest you watch it and listen to what Milo says. He never brags about going to any parties. He stated that he went to boat parties and saw lots of drug use and boys who were very young. Rogan jokes about there being twinks, who are 18 to 22-years-old gay men who look boyish. Milo admits they were there, but continues to state some of the boys were very young. Again, he never condones or endorses this. He only noted that it happened.

    At *NO* point does he say he found that to be repulsive/bad/disgusting/amoral/unethical AT ALL.

    He does not have to. It is obvious from his tone of voice.

    Plus, like I already said, he says he was at *”SEVERAL”* of this parties. I think if you are a victim of underage sexual abuse/rape and find that to be a disgusting, unspeakable crime and are living in Hollywood and see such things at *A* party, you just STOP going to Hollywood parties ALTOGETHER, *especially* when they are being thrown by the same people, or some of the same people of friends of the people who threw that first party.

    Milo never stated who threw the parties. He did state that they were of the same stature as Bryan Singer, which would make them A-listers. I would imagine that few people would turn down an opportunity to attend an A-lister party. We also do not know the context of these parties. Where these parties thrown by the same person or different people? Was Milo aware of the age of the boys attending the parties beforehand? Did he witness any abuse or simply assume that because sex happened at these parties that the boys were being abused? Those are the types of questions you have to ask before assuming that Milo supported the sexual abuse of these boys.

    As for your outrage over this, do you feel the same way towards actor Corey Feldman? He has spoken repeatedly about the sexual abuse he experienced as a young actor, and yet never named a single person who abused him. He likely still attends parties with the people who abused him or who suspects are abusing children.

    Yet he’s more than happy to PUBLICALLY bully and intimidate a transgender woman whom he’s never met and hasn’t done ANY harm in the name of “protecting women and girls” from the disgusting perverts that are human beings who were born male. It’s really, really sad and incredible how you still refuse to see the disgusting hypocrisy.

    There is no hypocrisy. The student Milo mentioned filed a public lawsuit against the school, thereby making their name public. You can disagree with what Milo did, yet the two situations are in no way comparable. In order for it to be comparable, Milo would have had to name a transgender student who had never gone public.

    And who are you to tell me, a victim of child sexual abuse, anything when first he uses the topic of child sexual abuse as virtual signaling and as excuse to bully and harass and humiliate a transgender woman whom he’s never met and who hasn’t done any harm and then to make jokes and then to paint himself as a victim (something he’s always vilified and condemned and mocked when it comes to people he disagrees with politically and ideologically) and then you defend him?

    Milo’s comments about giving oral sex to a priest were made about six to eight months before his comments about the student, so your time frame is wrong. To the best of my recollection, Milo did not mention his experiences when talking about the student. As I stated above, these two situations are unrelated. You can dislike what Milo did with the student, but you cannot twist the time frame or his actions to suit your narrative against him.

    Well, you are incredibly forgiving and dismissive when it comes to the abuses yiannopoulos has described and talked about, just because you agree with him politically and ideologically.

    It has nothing to do with agreeing with him. It is a matter of what he actually said and did. I do not like when people exaggerate someone’s actions to make them worse than they are.

    Obviously that’s not what I think.

    If it were obvious I would not have to ask. You appear to wipe away Milo’s experiences (“All those other girls, and especially boys, are THE ONLY victims in this whole drama. NOT yiannopoulos“) because you do not like his opinions. He can be detestable and still be a victim.

    But what you are doing now is playing apologetics towards homosexual men who prey on young homosexual boys (a group that’s obviously very, very vulnerable) and are masters at manipulating them.

    No, I am being honest about how teenagers think. There are teens who want to have sex, who seek out sex, and who specifically seek out older people, often adults, to have sex with. That happens whether we want to accept it or not. The proper response is for the adult to refuse the sex. It is not to pretend that teens only want to have sex with other teens. It is also not to pretend that there are not some teens who look fondly on those interactions with adults.

    Like TJ and Milo said during the podcast, there are gay men who talk about having sex with older men and these gay men do not present it as victimization. I know plenty of them as well. This is very common, and while I would agree those men in those situations took advantage of those boys, it would be a lie say that the men targeted the boys. That sometimes happens, and sometimes these men simply exploit that the boys will seek them out.

    You really think he really cares about a single victim of rape/sexual abuse/sexual harassment???!!!

    Given that he has specifically gone after pedophiles in his reporting, I would say he does care. I would also say he uses that concern to his political and financial advantage. Yet nothing in his comments or behavior, having watched most of his interviews and seen many of his online interactions, leads me to think his concern about victims is phony.

    Don’t make me laugh. And I don’t care about what he “appears to be”; I care about what he’s shown and proved himself to be. And that is, once again, a cynic, fame-obsessed, narcissistic attention whore, bully and careerist with absolutely no principles, ethics or morals.

    That is an appearance, not proof. You do not know what Milo actually thinks. You only know how he presents himself. And I as noted, he can be all you claim and more and still be a victim of abuse. You do not have to like him or what he does to admit that.

  11. I recognise what Milo did. He’s dismissed his own abuse, probably as a mechanism, but the way he did so in public allowed people to take certain untrue but negative connotations (understandably) as a result.

    I used to do the same about my abuse until I was 25. What changed was when I accidentally let on about my abuse in casual conversation and the horrified reaction of one of my friends made me realise how serious is was what happened. I had a mental breakdown, and immediately got therapy. I chalk it up to lack of understanding of how a boy can be abused sexually.

    Of course, what I’ve said isn’t to excuse Milo. His words were very badly judged. Doesn’t make him an abuser, but that his own side have responded by severely criticising what he had to say, says something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s