LogicalFallacy

Petition to bar Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from entering NZ

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Blood said:

Thanks for the video. I didn't realize that Molyneaux's insistence that "black people" as a race score the lowest on IQ tests was not just limited to the "Shithole Countries" video, but is also prominently featured in the Dave Rubin interview (where it isn't challenged). Sad. Is this a regular theme of his? He sure seems to have a blind faith in IQ tests, unlike say, climate science, of which he's highly skeptical. He's highly selective in what he chooses to be skeptical about. 

 

It keeps coming up, both with LF's left wing PhD and Molyneux because they're both merely discussing the raw data. The ranking of average IQ according to racial groups that we keep discussing is simply the empirical results of testing. The controversy is not about the test scores, but rather the conclusions drawn from the test scores. The issue of genetics verses environment is the hot topic. And the other issue is that IQ testing is apparently the corner stone of psychology. I'm hearing that every other aspect of psychology is less firm and stands on weaker ground.  So dismissing IQ domino effects the entire science of psychology itself. I'm not opposed to the assertion that psychology itself may be errant from the top down, but that's where the argument against IQ testing seems to lead. 

 

Below is a reminder from LF's left wing PhD discussing the averages per racial group: 

 

Quote

Race differences in average IQ score. People who identify as black or Hispanic in the US and elsewhere on average obtain lower IQ scores than people who identify as white or Asian. That is simply a fact, and stating it plainly offers no support in itself for a biological interpretation of the difference. To what extent is the observed difference in cognitive function a reflection of the myriad ways black people in the US experience historical, social, and economic disadvantage — earning less money, suffering more from chronic disease, dying younger, living in more dangerous and chaotic neighborhoods, attending inferior schools? Or, following Murray, is IQ an essential inborn characteristic of a group’s genetic background, a biologically inherent deficit in cognitive ability that in part causes their other disadvantages?

 

 

The above is a recap of the science being discussed, in the context of Murry's own words. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Blood said:

Molyneaux's convinced you he's some objective philosopher who just wants "the facts" and has no emotional investment in any issue? I guess skilled con-men have that ability. His entire channel is emotional fear-mongering. He's emotionally invested in some future utopian ideal where government doesn't exist. He's emotionally invested in the vague concept of "western culture" and 19th century ideas about nationalism, as if they were eternally true and unchanging. He doesn't align himself with white nationalism? His Charlottesville video blamed the victims and pretended that the guys marching around with Nazi flags and guns were innocent civil war historians there to protest the removal of a statue. He didn't condemn them. That's not the same as joining them, but it's a long way from being unsympathetic. 

 

You made a very emotional paragraph in the process of branding Molyneux as emotional, though, Blood. How is an objective reader supposed to take all of this? I've watched apparently the same material where he's (very unemotionally, calm and collected) discussing his libertarian views on government and how voluntary cooperation is preferred in his view, as opposed to government authoritarian rule. He makes these arguments as a philosopher. All I know about Charlottesville, from an objective take, is that there was a mix of people there some of which were radicals and some of which were not. When Trump said the comment about good people on both sides, I took that to mean the people on both sides who were not radicals, who were there for the sake of the removal of a statue with better intentions than the radicals. I would give Molyneux the same benefit of the doubt keeping in line with the on going context. 

 

11 hours ago, Blood said:

And why wouldn't a future libertarian oasis involve the creation of a white "ethno-state"? Molyneaux's entire ethos would be incomprehensible without the idea of the self-appointed inheritors of "western culture" having the absolute authority to decide who gets to participate in that culture. Why would such a group allow "low IQ" people from non-European countries like Africa to participate? 

 

I keep saying that I don't know why he's taken up the cross of a controversial issue this strong. In context, he says that he wants to change these issues and find out how to even up IQ scores and things like that. That's the direction he takes with Rubin. I'm not convinced of the arguments about immigration and the multiculturalism thing seems like a firmer argument, permitting that the two of them aren't just raising straw men. If indeed multiculturalism amounts to a segregation of cultures instead of mixing, then sure, there's probably problems with the system. But I don't know that that's the case.

 

The hard edge anarchist range of libertarian philosophy, again, I'm not sold on the philosophy. I wouldn't want to speculate or put words in Molyneux's mouth about how he sees the two issues of IQ average and an anarchist libertarian utopia. All of this stuff ventures in to extreme sounding philosophy, granted, but I'm not afraid to read through it or hear the guy out. I'm certainly not afraid that he'll sway a majority of the population into removing government altogether. But I can see how big government proponents (whether left or right) would find this discussion off putting and want to lash out at it. Indeed, that's the core of the issue here with NZ. 

 

But again, most of this is besides the point of whether or not Molyneux and Southern should be shut down or allowed to speak. We could spin their words, we could call them bat shit crazy, we could photo shop dunce caps on to the two of them. But should we let them speak anyways? That's the real issue here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But again, most of this is besides the point of whether or not Molyneux and Southern should be shut down or allowed to speak. We could spin their words, we could call them bat shit crazy, we could photo shop dunce caps on to the two of them. But should we let them speak anyways? That's the real issue here.

 

If they can find a venue they should absolutely be allowed to speak and a government that espouses Free Speech should not impede them.  As someone upthread mentioned that without letting unpopular speech be free, then it isn't free speech at all, but acceptable speech or even privileged speech.  Not letting them speak is not much different that having blasphemy laws.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It keeps coming up, both with LF's left wing PhD and Molyneux because they're both merely discussing the raw data. The ranking of average IQ according to racial groups that we keep discussing is simply the empirical results of testing. The controversy is not about the test scores, but rather the conclusions drawn from the test scores. The issue of genetics verses environment is the hot topic. And the other issue is that IQ testing is apparently the corner stone of psychology. I'm hearing that every other aspect of psychology is less firm and stands on weaker ground.  So dismissing IQ domino effects the entire science of psychology itself. I'm not opposed to the assertion that psychology itself may be errant from the top down, but that's where the argument against IQ testing seems to lead. 

 

Below is a reminder from LF's left wing PhD discussing the averages per racial group: 

 

 

 

The above is a recap of the science being discussed, in the context of Murry's own words. 

 

 

 

You made a very emotional paragraph in the process of branding Molyneux as emotional, though, Blood. How is an objective reader supposed to take all of this? I've watched apparently the same material where he's (very unemotionally, calm and collected) discussing his libertarian views on government and how voluntary cooperation is preferred in his view, as opposed to government authoritarian rule. He makes these arguments as a philosopher. All I know about Charlottesville, from an objective take, is that there was a mix of people there some of which were radicals and some of which were not. When Trump said the comment about good people on both sides, I took that to mean the people on both sides who were not radicals, who were there for the sake of the removal of a statue with better intentions than the radicals. I would give Molyneux the same benefit of the doubt keeping in line with the on going context. 

 

 

I keep saying that I don't know why he's taken up the cross of a controversial issue this strong. In context, he says that he wants to change these issues and find out how to even up IQ scores and things like that. That's the direction he takes with Rubin. I'm not convinced of the arguments about immigration and the multiculturalism thing seems like a firmer argument, permitting that the two of them aren't just raising straw men. If indeed multiculturalism amounts to a segregation of cultures instead of mixing, then sure, there's probably problems with the system. But I don't know that that's the case.

 

The hard edge anarchist range of libertarian philosophy, again, I'm not sold on the philosophy. I wouldn't want to speculate or put words in Molyneux's mouth about how he sees the two issues of IQ average and an anarchist libertarian utopia. All of this stuff ventures in to extreme sounding philosophy, granted, but I'm not afraid to read through it or hear the guy out. I'm certainly not afraid that he'll sway a majority of the population into removing government altogether. But I can see how big government proponents (whether left or right) would find this discussion off putting and want to lash out at it. Indeed, that's the core of the issue here with NZ. 

 

But again, most of this is besides the point of whether or not Molyneux and Southern should be shut down or allowed to speak. We could spin their words, we could call them bat shit crazy, we could photo shop dunce caps on to the two of them. But should we let them speak anyways? That's the real issue here. 

 

 

Judging by that interview with Charles Murray, it sounds like Molyneaux got all of his IQ testing knowledge from reading The Bell Curve, or perhaps just watching Murray videos. Does he ever cite any other data or research regarding IQ? Does he ever engage with research from qualified psychologists that refute Murray's data or approach? Because a philosopher would do that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molyneux makes the claim on the Rubin Report. He begs people to go to his sources and read for themselves.

 

I've gone through this left bent video pretty much aimed against "the right," which is doing an analysis of race and IQ trying to counter many of the claims that are asserted as coming from the right. What I've found here is more of the same, though. The focus is on genetics verses environment as we've been discussing already. And as you can see in the Rubin Report and the Murry interview, both Molyneux and Murry admit that the question of environment verses genetics is 'unsettled' concerning how much is genetic and how much is environmental. They are both very clear about that, which, seems pretty intellectually honest considering the landscape of this controversial topic. Anyways, the video below is an attempt to contrast the claims of the Bell Curve in the spirit of philosophical inquiry (my comments on his summaries in bold): 

 

 

00:40 - "Yes, certain races do score higher or lower on IQ tests." 

 

00:50 - Some people on the right want to make claims about genetics. 

 

1:00 - It is true that on 'average', white's score higher than both hispanics and blacks on IQ tests. 

 

1:10 - Asian's, on 'average,' score higher than whites. 

 

1:30 - But this does not establish that certain races are 'genetically' smarter than others. 

 

This seems more than obvious to me just because each race has a range of above and below average within each respective racial group. It can't be genetic in whole, or else each group would be limited to the average score because it would be genetically impossible to score outside of that genetic based range. The thing is, both Murry and Molyneux admit this in the literal context examples. And they admit that how much is genetic is unknown. They do not claim that it's 100% genetic and I'm starting to see that as a straw man claim now. Because neither of them make that argument. It's critics and opponents drawing that conclusion (more or less unwarranted). And the critics seem to admit that some amount of IQ is genetic and some amount environmental, so both camps seem to be saying the very same thing.

 

3:00 - IQ is measured in a socioeconomic way, which then leads to racial groups of a socioeconomic system testing better than other groups (this needs verification). It doesn't measure innate intelligence (that's inconsistent with everything else I've heard about IQ testing). 

 

3:49 - Simply calling people racist is not the best way to address the issue of discussing the issue of race and IQ. 

 

4:00 - A history of racist views (This is good to consider)

 

10:00 - Going for the throat by linking The Pioneer Fund with the Bell Curve. 

 

12:00 - The major critique, again, is not that the test results are wrong but that a genetic interpretation is unwarranted. 

 

15:00 - A break down of the technicalities involved in 'genetic' as opposed to regional race. And how that impacts IQ testing racial groups. 

 

21:00 - We shouldn't discredit IQ tests because they're good at what they measure. But the range tested is narrower than what could be considered an over all intelligence. 

 

22:00 - Some people are born with innate skills that will render better IQ testing, but after birth it's largely environment which determines these same skills that are tested for. 

 

28:00 - Environment plays a bigger role than genetics when determining IQ. No way of measuring innate intelligence between races is the final summary. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Having listened to both Murry and Molyneux, I have to wonder how much of this was a straw man because they never at any point accept that IQ scores are anything other than partially biological and partially environmental. Nor do either claim that IQ is static or unchangeable. There seems to be an emphasis on arguing that IQ averages are going up, when, that's exactly what Molyneux says in the Rubin Report. This is all in line with Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" analysis. So a lot of this is more the case of the left and right "agreeing to agree" than "agreeing to disagree," it would seem. But carrying on as if they disagree when the evidence points to both parties pretty much using the same data and admitting the same basic things, while trying to preserve the angles of coming at the same thing from two different perspectives. 

 

Who's fighting who, and for what reason? 

 

And more importantly, why in the world are Molyneux and Southern being banned for it. They haven't said anything that left wing voices haven't said and admitted to as well.

 

As to the claims about environment and socioeconomics as the driving force for higher IQ, I have to wonder why both Asians and Jews score higher. As a whole, are they both more privileged than white's socioeconomically? Is there some Jewish and Asian "privilege" we should be discussing? There doesn't seem to be. And if not, then that would probably be a big hit to the socioeconomic theory discussed in the video.

 

More food for thought... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Molyneux makes the claim on the Rubin Report. He begs people to go to his sources and read for themselves.

 

I've gone through this left bent video pretty much aimed against "the right," which is doing an analysis of race and IQ trying to counter many of the claims that are asserted as coming from the right. What I've found here is more of the same, though. The focus is on genetics verses environment as we've been discussing already. And as you can see in the Rubin Report and the Murry interview, both Molyneux and Murry admit that the question of environment verses genetics is 'unsettled' concerning how much is genetic and how much is environmental. They are both very clear about that, which, seems pretty intellectually honest considering the landscape of this controversial topic. Anyways, the video below is an attempt to contrast the claims of the Bell Curve in the spirit of philosophical inquiry (my comments on his summaries in bold): 

 

 

00:40 - "Yes, certain races do score higher or lower on IQ tests." 

 

00:50 - Some people on the right want to make claims about genetics. 

 

1:00 - It is true that on 'average', white's score higher than both hispanics and blacks on IQ tests. 

 

1:10 - Asian's, on 'average,' score higher than whites. 

 

1:30 - But this does not establish that certain races are 'genetically' smarter than others. 

 

This seems more than obvious to me just because each race has a range of above and below average within each respective racial group. It can't be genetic in whole, or else each group would be limited to the average score because it would be genetically impossible to score outside of that genetic based range. The thing is, both Murry and Molyneux admit this in the literal context examples. And they admit that how much is genetic is unknown. They do not claim that it's 100% genetic and I'm starting to see that as a straw man claim now. Because neither of them make that argument. It's critics and opponents drawing that conclusion (more or less unwarranted). And the critics seem to admit that some amount of IQ is genetic and some amount environmental, so both camps seem to be saying the very same thing.

 

3:00 - IQ is measured in a socioeconomic way, which then leads to racial groups of a socioeconomic system testing better than other groups (this needs verification). It doesn't measure innate intelligence (that's inconsistent with everything else I've heard about IQ testing). 

 

3:49 - Simply calling people racist is not the best way to address the issue of discussing the issue of race and IQ. 

 

4:00 - A history of racist views (This is good to consider)

 

10:00 - Going for the throat by linking The Pioneer Fund with the Bell Curve. 

 

12:00 - The major critique, again, is not that the test results are wrong but that a genetic interpretation is unwarranted. 

 

15:00 - A break down of the technicalities involved in 'genetic' as opposed to regional race. And how that impacts IQ testing racial groups. 

 

21:00 - We shouldn't discredit IQ tests because they're good at what they measure. But the range tested is narrower than what could be considered an over all intelligence. 

 

22:00 - Some people are born with innate skills that will render better IQ testing, but after birth it's largely environment which determines these same skills that are tested for. 

 

28:00 - Environment plays a bigger role than genetics when determining IQ. No way of measuring innate intelligence between races is the final summary. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Having listened to both Murry and Molyneux, I have to wonder how much of this was a straw man because they never at any point accept that IQ scores are anything other than partially biological and partially environmental. Nor do either claim that IQ is static or unchangeable. There seems to be an emphasis on arguing that IQ averages are going up, when, that's exactly what Molyneux says in the Rubin Report. This is all in line with Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" analysis. So a lot of this is more the case of the left and right "agreeing to agree" than "agreeing to disagree," it would seem. But carrying on as if they disagree when the evidence points to both parties pretty much using the same data and admitting the same basic things, while trying to preserve the angles of coming at the same thing from two different perspectives. 

 

Who's fighting who, and for what reason? 

 

And more importantly, why in the world are Molyneux and Southern being banned for it. They haven't said anything that left wing voices haven't said and admitted to as well.

 

As to the claims about environment and socioeconomics as the driving force for higher IQ, I have to wonder why both Asians and Jews score higher. As a whole, are they both more privileged than white's socioeconomically? Is there some Jewish and Asian "privilege" we should be discussing? There doesn't seem to be. And if not, then that would probably be a big hit to the socioeconomic theory discussed in the video.

 

More food for thought... 

 

 

The Pakman video was informative and covers a lot of ground. Too much to absorb and comment on. However, at a certain point Pakman pointed out how "race" itself was a nebulous concept that's indefensible as a biological reality. He could have added that the IQ test as a barometer of intelligence is also subjective and has often been questioned by those within the behavioral sciences. 

 

I don't recall any such nuance from Molyneaux that you've ascribed to him. The blunt message of "Shithole Countries" was that Haiti is a "shithole" because blacks as a race are stupid genetically. That's the take-away. Perhaps in one of his 5,000 other videos he introduces a mild qualifier to that position. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blood said:

 

 

The Pakman video was informative and covers a lot of ground. Too much to absorb and comment on. However, at a certain point Pakman pointed out how "race" itself was a nebulous concept that's indefensible as a biological reality. He could have added that the IQ test as a barometer of intelligence is also subjective and has often been questioned by those within the behavioral sciences. 

 

I don't recall any such nuance from Molyneaux that you've ascribed to him. The blunt message of "Shithole Countries" was that Haiti is a "shithole" because blacks as a race are stupid genetically. That's the take-away. Perhaps in one of his 5,000 other videos he introduces a mild qualifier to that position. 

 

 

At 31:00 - The average IQ in Haiti is around 67. He lays out claims that in youth IQ is thought to be around 50% genetic and 50% environment, and by later age it creeps up to 80% genetic 20% environment. 

 

35:35 Sub Saharan Africa IQ averages around 70, Haiti averages around 67. But there's still a bell curve, there's still some very smart people in Haiti.

 

37:30 A free market is needed in places where the average IQ is low so that the smart people within the population can work towards the betterment of the nation. 

 

So here he is going over philosophical arguments contrasting the environment theories. But ends up summarizing at the end that it seems evolution has just worked in these ways based on survival in specific locations. Such as higher IQ required in colder regions where you have to think ahead and prepare for the long winters verses equatorial region zones where you can hunt all year and don't have to think ahead and make similar preparation in order to survive. That would apparently go into his views on partial genetics, partial environment arguments. 

 

All in all, Molyneux does attempt to come at this topics as a philosopher. The philosophy may be weak in some areas, but it's still presented within a philosophical framework and not a scathing hate based presentation. There's a considerable amount of appealing to logic and reason involved. But it's easy to look past what's being said and jump to emotionally charged responses when the topic is IQ and race. He's chosen one hell of an uphill battle for himself as far as that goes. I doubt he'll ever be heard out or taken serious by a majority of people because of it. 

 

And I don't know that the point is, with respect to Haiti. It sounds like he wants a free market so the smarter Haitian's can lift up the average and below average Haitians. And possibly he's aiming at a greater mix of races in order to introduce higher IQ averages into the environment to help elevate the local socioeconomic situation. He doesn't spell it out that clearly but it's a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the context of the video. In some way it seems like he at least thinks that he's trying to help a bad situation, although via an extremely controversial hot button topic. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joshpantera - well put! Very balanced post!

 

I really like Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, but I feel slightly uncomfortable with Stefan's style sometimes (though I must say that it has improved in my opinion over the years, he's becoming more balanced) and  very uncomfortable with some of the topics that they speak about - for good reason, because some are very controversial as you say. That said, I do think that all of these are important topics (immigration, race and iq, political extremes on both sides, etc), and I respect them for covering them. I do not wish to be in their shoes. And I do not agree with them on everything (I agree with no one on everything), but I do think that we should talk about these things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

At 31:00 - The average IQ in Haiti is around 67. He lays out claims that in youth IQ is thought to be around 50% genetic and 50% environment, and by later age it creeps up to 80% genetic 20% environment. 

 

35:35 Sub Saharan Africa IQ averages around 70, Haiti averages around 67. But there's still a bell curve, there's still some very smart people in Haiti.

 

37:30 A free market is needed in places where the average IQ is low so that the smart people within the population can work towards the betterment of the nation. 

 

So here he is going over philosophical arguments contrasting the environment theories. But ends up summarizing at the end that it seems evolution has just worked in these ways based on survival in specific locations. Such as higher IQ required in colder regions where you have to think ahead and prepare for the long winters verses equatorial region zones where you can hunt all year and don't have to think ahead and make similar preparation in order to survive. That would apparently go into his views on partial genetics, partial environment arguments. 

 

All in all, Molyneux does attempt to come at this topics as a philosopher. The philosophy may be weak in some areas, but it's still presented within a philosophical framework and not a scathing hate based presentation. There's a considerable amount of appealing to logic and reason involved. But it's easy to look past what's being said and jump to emotionally charged responses when the topic is IQ and race. He's chosen one hell of an uphill battle for himself as far as that goes. I doubt he'll ever be heard out or taken serious by a majority of people because of it. 

 

And I don't know that the point is, with respect to Haiti. It sounds like he wants a free market so the smarter Haitian's can lift up the average and below average Haitians. And possibly he's aiming at a greater mix of races in order to introduce higher IQ averages into the environment to help elevate the local socioeconomic situation. He doesn't spell it out that clearly but it's a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the context of the video. In some way it seems like he at least thinks that he's trying to help a bad situation, although via an extremely controversial hot button topic. 

 

 

 

Not seeing much nuance there. 

 

Haiti does have a free market. 

 

I'm amazed that anyone thinks a doomsday prophet like Molyneaux is an objective philosopher and that only his critics are the emotional ones. I've yet to see any evidence that he's aware of IQ arguments beyond what he superficially cribbed from Murray. Hundreds of books exist on the subject but he only cares about the one that comports with his prejudices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Blood said:

 

Not seeing much nuance there. 

 

Haiti does have a free market. 

 

I'm amazed that anyone thinks a doomsday prophet like Molyneaux is an objective philosopher and that only his critics are the emotional ones. I've yet to see any evidence that he's aware of IQ arguments beyond what he superficially cribbed from Murray. Hundreds of books exist on the subject but he only cares about the one that comports with his prejudices. 

 

Seriously though, where's the doomsday stuff? You know I hate fear mongering. I've haven't seen Molyneux doing it yet. Otherwise I'd be taking issue with him over it myself. Is there citation to where the doomsday aspect of all of this is discussed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heimir said:

@Joshpantera - well put! Very balanced post!

 

I really like Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, but I feel slightly uncomfortable with Stefan's style sometimes (though I must say that it has improved in my opinion over the years, he's becoming more balanced) and  very uncomfortable with some of the topics that they speak about - for good reason, because some are very controversial as you say. That said, I do think that all of these are important topics (immigration, race and iq, political extremes on both sides, etc), and I respect them for covering them. I do not wish to be in their shoes. And I do not agree with them on everything (I agree with no one on everything), but I do think that we should talk about these things.

 

Thanks Heimir, I am trying to do a fair analysis. NZ shut them out, but at least we can have a descent discussion here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Seriously though, where's the doomsday stuff? You know I hate fear mongering. I've haven't seen Molyneux doing it yet. Otherwise I'd be taking issue with him over it myself. Is there citation to where the doomsday aspect of all of this is discussed? 

 

The general drift of his channel is that "the Left" is destroying "western civilization" and if we don't heed the warning of prophets like himself, the West will soon become a Stalinist hellhole. I think it's fair to call that a doomsday perspective. It's a bit novel because it's a secular doomsday rather than the usual Christian one, but the underlying message is basically the same as the fundamentalists. Their panacea is the Bible. I don't know what Stefan's is -- the free market? Deportation for all non-whites? Enforced Ayn Rand Re-Education Camps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blood said:

 

The general drift of his channel is that "the Left" is destroying "western civilization" and if we don't heed the warning of prophets like himself, the West will soon become a Stalinist hellhole. I think it's fair to call that a doomsday perspective. It's a bit novel because it's a secular doomsday rather than the usual Christian one, but the underlying message is basically the same as the fundamentalists. Their panacea is the Bible. I don't know what Stefan's is -- the free market? Deportation for all non-whites? Enforced Ayn Rand Re-Education Camps?

 

I haven't watched enough of his personal channel to catch that. I have seen a fear mongering element on youtube by some right wing (often female conservative) voices suggesting that western culture is under siege by male, patriarchal, and white hating marxist's and post modernists. These videos venture into areas such as claims that "they" are trying to breed out white people with interracial sex, relationships and marriages. As part of this marxist agenda to de-patriarch western culture and take out the oppressive white civilization. Now right away, this IS heavily emotional fear mongering in the highest degree. From right wing voices. I haven't caught Molyneux in this yet, but I'll check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Asians have higher IQ than whites" - White supremacy, you're doing it wrong 🤔

 

I think they have achieved their goal of getting conversations started. I see Stefan posted his NZ speech on YouTube (48mins) and it was sitting at ~100k views. Without the controversy a whole load of people would have never known they existed. I've certainly watched more videos to understand the subject than I would have bothered with otherwise. 

He has a mix of ideas, some of which are straight forward and some of which are faulty conclusions. Disagreeing on one subject doesn't mean you automatically rule out everything they say and likewise having some good ideas doesn't mean everything you say is worthy of respect. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

"Asians have higher IQ than whites" - White supremacy, you're doing it wrong 🤔

 

I think they have achieved their goal of getting conversations started. I see Stefan posted his NZ speech on YouTube (48mins) and it was sitting at ~100k views. Without the controversy a whole load of people would have never known they existed. I've certainly watched more videos to understand the subject than I would have bothered with otherwise. 

He has a mix of ideas, some of which are straight forward and some of which are faulty conclusions. Disagreeing on one subject doesn't mean you automatically rule out everything they say and likewise having some good ideas doesn't mean everything you say is worthy of respect. 

 

Yeah they succeeded in getting a lot of shitty conversations started. I still need evidence that Molyneux has even read The Bell Curve, much less any other book on IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's kind of like a drama queen doped up on steroids.

 

YouTube kind of obviously violated its own standards when some angry tweets made them reverse course.  However, as a private entity it can do more or less what it wants.  The question here is that should a private company be beholden to free speech once it becomes so integral to daily life as YouTube has proven to be.  Twitter and Facebook have the same questions to answer.  Can you just suspend or delete accounts because you don't like what they say and then reverse engineer some policy transgression?  These are kind of murky waters here.  As I've said before, I'm an absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech, but just because you have something to say doesn't mean people have an obligation to hear it.  I don't have any answers here, but I'm interested in hearing other's opinions on this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Stefan, I thought under a libertarian utopia that the private owner class gets to do whatever it wants, which would include deleting some French-Canadian douchebag's video channel for any reason they choose. Did I misunderstand your "philosophy"?  Go start your own video network. It's the free enterprise system you always whine about, remember? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molyneaux can always move to Washington, DC, and get rich grifting the conservative circles there. Especially since he's become a Trump sycophant. Hell, Trump would probably give Molyneaux a cabinet-level position right now. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blood said:

Molyneaux can always move to Washington, DC, and get rich grifting the conservative circles there. Especially since he's become a Trump sycophant. Hell, Trump would probably give Molyneaux a cabinet-level position right now. 

 

Sure why not? Chief political strategist maybe?

 

Notice Trumps comment about "low IQ" during the Ohio speech? That wasn't lost on me. He's obviously been tuned into the IQ average issues among conservatives concerning the Bell Curve. He tried to down play the comment by extending it to Pelosi. But I'm pretty sure that was a quick back peddle to try and cover up the comment quickly. And anyone who's unfamiliar with this topic probably wouldn't pick up on it at all. So, yeah, that was a little telling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now