I read the article and it mentioned that in the past year YouTube started recommending videos from left-leaning creators.
"IN 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Cain had begun watching right-wing YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations.
These videos were made by left-wing creators, but they mimicked the aesthetics of right-wing YouTube, down to the combative titles and the mocking use of words like “triggered” and “snowflake.”
Paul Joseph Watson (prisonplanet) is the most conspiratorial of the anti-left, he works for InfoWars. There are plenty of anti-left (a more apt term, as many are liberal/libertarian) that add quite a bit to the conversation. Karen Straughan, 1791L, Sam Harris, Janice Fiamengo, Brett/Eric Weinstein, sometimes Jordan Peterson, Independent Man, Computing Forever, ShortFatOtaku, Asian Capitalists, among others.
Equally "bad" you mean (and assuming those are bad)? Cause I don't consider e.g. Jordan Peterson bad, or even really that right. Conservative yes (which is another thing). In terms of classic left/right politics (and not the modern fashion of id politics) I'd say he's more or less a social democrat.
That said, for people on the left I follow, I'd mention Slavoj Zizek, Chomsky, Michea, and others (including authors on Counterpunch, NLR, Mother Jones, etc).
I like my leftists old school, regarding class, colonization, imperialism, and such, and don't care about the US obsession with identity politics (in fact I dislike it). I don't think the US has had many real leftists since like the 60s, and surely none in the mainstream.
>site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol
You should be able to reply, I think it just takes a minute for the link to appear or so. Can always click on the parent comment's date though to go to a reply page iirc.
That said, I didn't say "Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul". I said those are some on the left I personally follow. I'm not sure what "equivalent" means here. Equivalent in what?
If it's about having polarizing opinions or away-of-centre opinions on things, well, all those mentioned have those.
>Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?
I wasn't sure who Hbomb is, so I paid a visit. Seems like someone making dumb jokes from what (in the US) passes for a leftist view. I haven't seen much Crowder (only heard about him through the recent fuss) but this Hbomb is not in my eyes any better than Prisonpaul. If anything, he's more grating.
(Also, better in what? Better person? Better opinions? More agreeable? More hipster-likable views?)
I would nominate folks like Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert, both very effective persuaders who use humor and selective facts to reinforce partisan beliefs in a like-thinking audience.
Peterson and Chomsky I would say are in a completely different league, as they tend to deal in a high-dimensional representation of reality, versus the comically low-dimensional representation that is typically a common denominator of all cultural meme war arguments.
I don't think most of the people I listed are tame, I think they're "hard liberal" or "hard libertarian." One of the problems is that there are really 3 camps in most western countries at this point. There is
1.) the authoritarian left, which prioritizes racial and gendered identity, collectivism, equity, all facilitated by the state.
2.) the anti-authoritarian liberal, which prioritizes individual liberty, universality under the law, accountability and self-determination.
3.) the authoritarian right, which prioritizes tradition and national identity.
An extreme person in any of these camps would not result in "great people." I do not think that the left's collectivization of society along racial and gendered lines is "great." I do not think the left's conviction in its moral superiority and subsequent willingness to censor and deplatform is "great." I do not think that the left's disassociation of merit and value in pursuit of arbitrary equity is "great." These are very dangerous things. Radical leftism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
Is it possible that a group/party can offer something you find very agreeable, like universal healthcare, while simultaneously being dedicated to installing unrelated authoritarian policies?
Any "national socialist" that tried to couple free healthcare with racist ideas about who gets it would be making a mockery of "universal", for example.
There's probably a good reason why health care/women's rights/pacifism/environmentalism all go hand in hand, something to do with compassion and one's idea of where hierarchies come from.
All's fair in love and meme wars, which is what this is. At the end of the day, I think the implicit "one side is using facts and truth, the other is using lies and deceit" narrative is effective, but it also has weakness in that it is a bit lacking in the truth department. I'm not liking the direction these debates are going though.
I'm not a fan of all of those YouTubers, but quite a few of the big ones (i.e. Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism, and have openly and many times said that they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons. Someone asked why neo-Nazis were attending one of their conferences, and the speaker (Peterson) said he had no idea and wanted them to leave for being idiots.
Doesn't change the fact that NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting." I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. Also, "white supremacist" is a great slam against someone you don't like regardless as to if it is true.
> but quite a few of the big ones (i.e. Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism ...
Yes, but the YT recommendation algorithm doesn't know that, and even if it could know it wouldn't care. It's enough to watch a few IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) videos, the system will assume that you want racist, far-right, etc. content and that's what will pop up in your recommendations and "Up Next" video plays. That's an entirely programmatically-generated "pathway" into the alt-right rabbit hole; it has nothing to do with who the IDW themselves would want to associate with.
Agreed. However, at the same time, this happens with almost _everything_ on YouTube. I bet you 5 Fake Bitcoins that if you watch a lot of Left-leaning videos from NYT, Vox, and others, that you will be in your own rabbit hole.
As a left leaning person, absolutely! I viewed a few of hbomberguy's tamer videos, next thing you know I've got videos with commenters suggesting we bust out the guillotines. But hey, thats what gets the eyeballs and the ad revenue flowing!
And he was totally blasted by his own fanbase for it. Everyone might say something, once in a while, too far. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make him completely wrong on everything.
Thanks for giving me a heads-up! Could you please clear up how is my comment different from the one I was answering to in regard to a flame war so I know how to understand such distinction in the future?
"I just have this other question, could you please clarify" is a classic troll gambit, as are "how is X a Y" and "how is ABC different from XYZ", so your comment comes across as litigious.
This is a sort of risky situation. I'm willing to help anyone who sincerely wants to use HN as intended. But it can be a considerable effort. It's draining, because these discussions are so repetitive and often adversarial. One spends a lot of effort on the boring task of weatherproofing whatever one says.
Such questions can amount to a DoS attack on moderators, because of the time it takes to patiently answer them, which then we can't spend making the site better. If you want us to invest those resources into helping you understand the intended use of HN, you need to clearly establish that that is your good-faith intention.
> I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies.
I'm probably going to bleed karma for this, but whatever - I think Trump's campaign had the same problem. I don't believe he's explicitly a white supremacist or that he wanted the support of neo-nazis, if for no other reason than that would be a stupid move politically, but for whatever reason neo-nazis seem to consider him their champion.
Likely in part it's a combination of his antagonistic (politically incorrect) demeanor and his populist rhetoric, but also (just to put it out there) the Republicans and Tea Party have been sort of low-key courting favor with racists for years, so there were already plenty in the base to begin with, they just needed to find their anti-establishment dark horse.
Even if they're less "white supremacist supporting" as "white supremacist supported," that's still a problem. They still feed on and profit from that element.
Why is this a problem? Is it everyone’s duty to deny “white supremacists” in all things, to make sure you have absolutely nothing in common? If they tended to shave, would it then be the duty of every right-thinking man to grow a beard?
It doesn't matter what those people you list personally believe; the fact is their speech and behavior is de facto functioning as an entry point funneling[1] people into fascist beliefs. If that isn't their intention, they really need to stop this kind of behavior.
> they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons
> NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting."
These are not in conflict; your actions can still support fascists unintentionally. When people point out your beliefs are supporting white supremacists, it might be a good idea to correct the problem. Continuing to defend the problematic behavior is when what might have been unintentional support begins to look more like intentional participation.
>It doesn't matter what those people you list personally believe; the fact is their speech and behavior is de facto functioning as an entry point funneling[1] people into fascist beliefs.
Sounds like "better not let anybody be right-wingers or they may someday turn to fascism!"
Only if "right-wingers" necessarily means someone with fascist beliefs. If that isn't your definition, don't imply that association by making them the target.
> Google Brain’s researchers wondered if they could keep YouTube users engaged for longer by steering them into different parts of YouTube, rather than feeding their existing interests. And they began testing a new algorithm that incorporated a different type of A.I., called reinforcement learning.
> The new A.I., known as Reinforce, was a kind of long-term addiction machine. It was designed to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one more video but many more.
It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.
A deep deceitful manipulation of the human brain in ways few people understand is having such a massive impact on the population. That's what VC's #Unicorn #10XBillionDollarValuation
Aside from the B.S. political Left Bias. The algos affect everyone. I disregarded the Failing NYTimes mentally ill reporter #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder
I see it from both sides. I love browsing youtube and finding relevant suggestions, I can kill hours of time clicking and watching. However I sometimes feel like a victim of some kind of manipulation. Youtube has incredible power to persuade you down certain paths (in the pursuit of maximizing # of views).
I think there is a difference here compared to other platforms: they slowly nudge you down paths of interest and you willingly oblige in watching it. And if you have lost interest in a subject, don't worry, it will pop up on your home page sooner or later, dangling it above your head "still interested? come over here, click on me!".
Sure I paint a sinister picture, perhaps it is exaggerated, but I truly believe that google knows more about me than everyone that I know personally, and maybe even myself. That is scary. If they combines all this information across their platforms, they are in possession of an incredibly accurate profile of myself. If they use this profile to suggest videos, I suppose it may not be as harmful as I have stated, but what if they were to use it for other purposes in the future? This is my greatest fear.
> It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.
Does it sadden you if it's instead worded as
"The entertainment platform worked on improving their promoted content selection to prevent users from getting bored".
Really, we can have a discussion about ML algorithms running wild and achieving far different results than intended, but trying to exploit every angle for the sake of the "evil, greedy people" narrative feels very dishonest.
> "The entertainment platform worked on improving their promoted content selection to prevent users from getting bored".
This summary crucially omits that the platform's goal was not to prevent users from getting bored, it was to make more money. They were optimizing for time spent watching ads, not user experience.
I'll refrain here from passing judgment either way, but it's an important clarification to make.
So now the idea is to make it so that the only algorithmic pathsways to information are to the sanctioned ideas? That's dangerous! Basically, in 2019, you don't have to burn books. The powers that be can bias the power of discovery and viral spread towards the ideas they like and away from the ideas they don't like. You don't have to suppress, just make the ratified ideas orders of magnitude louder. Or, that was the theory. Now they have to resort to mislabeling and mass deplatforming. This mental control scheme is failing just like the Soviet's control over official media failed: People will eventually see through the manipulation and stop believing it.
That's not to say that damage won't be done in the meantime. What's driving society crazy isn't some single percentage slice of economically disadvantaged under-educated fringers with theories just about everybody knows are crap. What's driving society crazy is the meddling in the free market of ideas. It's the breakdown of discourse itself. It's all of the perverse incentives to communication and other manipulation perpetrated by big tech firms that may or may not be monopolies. It's the meddling with people's speech by entities that aren't governments, but have more power and more tech savvy than most of them.
These big media/technology companies have been amplifying outrage, amplifying outrageous behavior, bubbling people into echo chambers to further amplify the outrage, and aiding and abetting the toxic mislabeling of ordinary views and formerly protected forms of discourse -- which just adds even more amplification in the form of outrage.
The problem is not the single-percentage fringers without access to economic power, the halls of power, and the ear of those who control the newest forms of media technology. They are merely a symptom. Look instead to the politically skewed access. Remember: power corrupts!
Look at the magnitude of how crazy society's gotten in the past several years. Who has the wealth, algorithmic/technological power, and reach to do all of that? The answer's simple. Look for the tickers with the multi-billion dollar valuations!
All society needs to fix things, is to actually have Free Speech and a level, non-manipulated free marketplace of ideas.
This piece of "journalism" is very biased towards the left. I have noticed that the left has increasingly declared traditional right-wing values as "extremist" or "alt-right" to attempt to whittle down what being right-wing means.
An example of this is abortion. No matter how you feel about it, saying that abortion is murder and should be banned is now, in the NYT's opinion, "alt-right" and "extremist" even though about half of America believes so and this has always been a Right-wing value.
Not only this, but this type of article is why the Right calls NYT "fake news." Not necessarily "fake," but the bias is boldly visible. It doesn't help with media credibility - and then the Left wonders why the Right doesn't take newspapers seriously. For the record, I think "Fake news" is overused - but I do understand, reading this, why the Right loves bashing NYT.
>But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.
I was struck by the apparent bias of the article. Not until the very end did the author note that the “right-wing rabbit hole” is not the only dangerous rabbit hole to be found on YouTube.
The right has always hated abortion in recent memory, but I think you've gone too far in saying that most conservatives think abortion is murder. Some of the extreme rightists, usually of the religious variety, think that abortion is murder, but rank and file conservatives will probably not tell you that they a woman who gets an abortion(even illegally) should go to prison for life for first degree murder and conspiracy(with her doctor).
Notice how none of the heartbeat abortion laws actually set the punishment as the same punishment for murder. So clearly those people do not see elective abortion as equivalent to killing an already-born human.
"clearly"... isn't as clear as it may first appear.
For Example: Plenty of Americans wanted to legalize gay marriages in every state, but proposition 8 lost.
My point: People could very well think that abortion ia the equivalent to killing an already born human, but getting a law to pass takes a majority and I think it's fair to say that America is pretty divided on the issue. To get anything to pass, there will be compromises.
Maybe conservatives feel stronger than the language of the laws that are being passed. Maybe not, but it's anything but clear.
It's easier to say that small extreme groups are exaggerating and then act stunned when trump wins the election. My entire social circle was stunned when he won, because they assumed they knew where conservatives stood.
Prop 8 passed because more people voted for it than against it.
If conservatives control the government, and they all believe abortion is murder and should be punished as such - then they can pass a law declaring that.
If conservatives control the government, and they still can't get an abortion=murder law passed, and need to form a coalition with other conservatives who simply hate abortion but don't think it is murder, then I think that goes to my point that not all conservatives believe abortion is murder.
I think very few right-wingers would agree with that (I'm talking non-religious right).
However, they would agree that the abortion doctor should experience prison for being a literal serial killer.
The most interesting thing though, is that the Scandinavian Countries (the leftiest in Europe) have the toughest regulations about abortions - the cut-off term AFAIR is only 12 weeks vs 24 in USA.
The most interesting thing about the article is the admission by google that it wages an ai-powered war on humanity. Rather than paperclips, the most likely ai apocalypse scenario consists of an ai that modifies and breeds humans (what it considers humans) to do nothing but watch ads.
For much of the article, the author portrays the “left-wing” as a bastion of sanity and moral good, a place where those who have been hijacked by the “right-wing” can be rehabilitated. Only at the very end does he pay passing lip-service to the possibility that there might be danger on both sides.
I am having trouble thinking of a way to answer this without being downvoted for either being "too left" or "too right" in my reply. Maybe I'll just try and take a side route: Ideology is one hell of a drug. I like Gary Bernhardt's talk[0] on the subject. He defines ideology as the stuff we don't know that we know. In any event, there are certainly shallow moralists on both sides.
I think there is a fundamental difference though. At some point the far right will start to promote really hateful messages such as anti-gay, anti-jew, anti-woman, etc. At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.
> At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.
Or violence against different thinking individuals.
Think third wave feminists. Antifa. BLM. Berkeley Riots.
Right now, the extreme left is much more dangerous than the extreme right (not to mention the similarly lumped not-so-extreme right), because people like you think they will do no “real” wrongs.
A. Millions murdered based on class: independent farmers [0], intellectuals, defined as anyone wearing glasses [1], entrepreneurs, professionals. Generally anyone perceived as better off than their neighbor was at risk of being labeled 'enemy of the people' by said neighbour and deported overnight into the Gulag [2]. Or executed on the spot.
B. Millions deported based on ethnicity. Entire populations were moved around USSR in the '30s, including Balts, Poles, Romanians, Tatars or Koreans, based simply on their ethnicity, partly as an attempt to forcefully disassociate them from their cultural legacy.
C. Millions murdered due to breakdown of basic economic structures. The great famine of Ukraine in '32/'33, and Mao's great famine of the '59/'63 stand out as marvels of far left ideology implemented by force in the economic sphere.
All in all, an estimated 100 million people lost their lives in the name of far left ideology [6]. It is repugnant to gloss over recent history and pretend there are no hideous monsters to be found.
This is off topic since I (and parents) was specifically talking about youtube creators. But sure, lets change the subject for a minute and talk about the general ramification of far left and far right policies.
I could go hat for hat and mention all the murders and genocieds far right regimes have conducted, regimes like Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, etc.
But I could also go through all the disasters caused by capitalism like the Bhopal disaster in 1984, or—the elephant in the room—global warming.
My third option would be to list all the social issues caused by unhindered capitalism, issues like the housing crisis, or the worker conditions in the late 19th to early 20th century.
But all this is conflating the fact that I would be blaming bad policies enacted by ignorant, greedy, or even malicious people in the name of a political or economical ideology, which is to say (at least in the case of Franco and Pinochet) I’m confusing capitalism with fascism, something I see quite a lot in the above comment. My point is that none of these (with the notable exception of global warming) are the necessary consequences of far left or far right policies.
Sure you could take me on this and claim that both far right and far left people are capable of performing horrible things, and you would not be wrong. And then again, I must point out that this is off topic, we are specifically talking about youtube creators, of which you can find numerous example of far right creators spreading hate towards a large generalized public while on the far left you at worst find this hate spread towards public figures that represent far-right ideologies.
You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.
There is no cosmic balance between left-wing and right-wing. What are the consequences of the left-wing rabbit hole vs the right-wing rabbit hole? Not all viewpoints are equal or even valid.
>You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.
Really? Why? Because conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good?
Sorry, you don't get to label whatever you don't like "flamebait". Or is the statement that '"a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole"' is not flamebait?
I've asked a question, and you even went ahead and answered "yes". You could have gone for nuance and made some differentiation, but you seem to consider everyone in the right as bad.
(I'm not even right, I'm old-school leftist and pro-common folk vs elites. I just can't stand hypocrisy and rigged fights).
If you want to accuse someone of not going for nuance, maybe don't start with the words "conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good" in your post?
That's a cyclical argument if I ever saw one - plus adding the weasel term "deep-right".
Yeah, white supremacists are scum. Why mention them though?
We were talking about right/conservative youtubers here (in fact my question asks exactly about right/conservative). Where does the "deep right" come in?
Are the ones shown in the screenshots "white supremacists"? E.g. Shapiro, Watson, Peterson, for a few I recognize. Have they shown any such tendencies?
Or does being concervative/right automatically means one can be labelled "deep-right" and thus "white supremacists"?
What word would you prefer I use? I was trying to avoid painting the right wiht that brush by using it, but I'll not use that term then. The guy in the article watched a lot of Stefan molyneux videos and he's a white supremacist. That's what the article was about, that's why I brought up white supremacists. You go down that youtube rabbit hole and you just get the "race realists" eventually. That's the topic of the article.
I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?
The word "significant" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. Statistically significant? Maybe, but even if that were the case, the actual, plausible consequences are really subtle - they're there of course, but most "race realists" like to talk about other things - go figure! "Significant" in an everyday sense? No way - that's so wildly implausible (keep in mind, we're only talking about what the innate difference might be, after screening out all of the environmentally-caused divergence!) that one can safely say that people who argue that this is what's going on, really are just parroting white-supremacist memes. I.e. they might not be white supremacists themselves, but they're ideologically-possessed memebots who are spreading a white-supremacist memetic infection.
Correct, believing some races are inherently superior does get you labeled a white supremacist because there's functionally not much of a difference between the two.
Barely a difference . Race realism is the same thing, sugar-coated to avoid openly admitting your racism and belief that some races are inherently superior .
> When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms. Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed.
Good to know apparently none of the right-wing videos used research or citations - only 'talking points'. Or at least it wasn't mentioned.
While there are lots of "far right" channels out there, the majority of of the channels shown as screenshots have nothing to do with the "far right" or conspiracy theories.
Looks like their main crime is being conservative.
I just scrolled down the screenshot section where it showed the videos he watched in one time period, are you really trying to say Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, thunderf00t and a lady complaining about "cuckservatives" aren't "far right" or conspiracy theorists?
I haven't watched Stefan Molyneux or thunderf00t, so can't tell.
I've watched a few Paul Joseph Watson videos. I've also watched Shapiro, Milo, and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree with the positions they take (e.g. Milo plays the extravagant provocateur for laughs and money), but where are those "conspiracy theories"?
Of course in these days, everything is labeled a "conspiracy theory" too. I keep the term for things involving the illuminati and aliens.
Regular corporatist interests and politicians conspire all the time -- the more open version is called lobbying.
Heck, politics is all about conspiring (including very covertly spy-shit, Nixon-Watergate like) against other parties and ideologies...
> Stefan Molyneux, thunderf00t, Paul Joseph Watson
I can see how Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson make people very uncomfortable (heck, they often make me feel uncomfortable, particularly Molyneux), they are certainly "extreme", for current mainstream definitions of the word.
But then again, FTA:
> “When I found this stuff, I felt like I was chasing uncomfortable truths,” he told me. “I felt like it was giving me power and respect and authority.”
I've watched some of these guys videos, and I believe anyone claiming that they do not have at least some valid perspectives worth discussion is being intellectually dishonest.
> Unlike most progressives Mr. Cain had seen take on the right, Mr. Bonnell and Ms. Wynn were funny and engaging. They spoke the native language of YouTube, and they didn’t get outraged by far-right ideas. Instead, they rolled their eyes at them, and made them seem shallow and unsophisticated. “I noticed that right-wing people were taking these old-fashioned, knee-jerk, reactionary politics and packing them as edgy punk rock,” Ms. Wynn told me. “One of my goals was to take the excitement out of it.” When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms. Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed. “I just kept watching more and more of that content, sympathizing and empathizing with her and also seeing that, wow, she really knows what she’s talking about,” Mr. Cain said.
"persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed" - the right-wing talking points that also used research and citations. That's the thing about propaganda and statistics - it's a double edged sword.
> I've also watched Shapiro, Milo, and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree with the positions they take, but where are those "conspiracy theories"?
I too noticed the subtle guilt by association. I wonder if the commonality of this tactic ever adds fuel to the fire of conspiratorial thinking.
I continue to believe that one of the biggest reasons that "right wing extremism" is so effective at recruiting is because there are so many holes in official/proper version of reality we're sold.
Paul Joseph Watson was an employee of Info Wars. Like, the whole thing of that site is conspiracy theories? I can't help but feel you're being disingenuous when you question Info Wars members being conspiracy theorists.
I found these in about 10 minutes. Don't act like being part of a conspiracy theory website makes calling you a conspiracy theorist is some sort of disingenuous leap. Like the point of the website is spreading conspiracy theories.
A lot of the prison planet blog was deleted it seems, I guess due to his and alex jones' fallout, but here are your links.
So, the kind of "conspiracy" you meant is speculation there is a cover up of a politician's ill health condition in the first video? That has been done time and again by all kinds of politicians and leaders, from the time of El Cid... If that's a "conspiracy theory", then sure, every journalist alluding to something not documented at the time, is a conspiracy theorist. I expected more aliens, illuminati, and lizard people.
The second is merely reporting, on a well known topic of public discussion. A document was requested, it appeared, and there were people raising questions about certain aspects. Should they not be reported? Where's the conspiracy part?
The others I'll give you are conspiracy theory material (though several of those kind of conspiracies (government conspiring, ordering executions, and so on), that a naive US person thinks "can never happen", have been found -- by courts and later evidence -- true in Europe time and again, just ask in Italy, Spain, France, Greece, etc. E.g:
Thunderf00t just hates SJWs, he's not right wing in the slightest. Stefan Molymeme on the other hand is literally alt-right and believes in race 'realism'.
What's wrong with thunderf00t? I only remember him for anti-creationist videos and exposing Solar Roadways. It seems he's anti-conspiracy theorist if anything.
A far cry from the conservatives of my time, hence the "alt" label. As the article mentions, how much discussion of a balanced budget is there in any of these videos? Do you think someone like former Senator McCain or Romney would be watching these? It's all about race and sex and identity issues.
Here in Sweden we had the national election last year.
I saw exactly zero news articles which covered the budget. Not a single one. Almost every single topic that bubbled up on national news, in debates, and on social media involved identity politics. Immigration, gender, religion, and then some climate on the side. The only political party in Sweden that still talk a bit about taxes is the one furthest on the left, and that mostly because capital tax has been their consistent talking point for about as long as the party has existed.
Budget and tax policy can easily be changed, but demographic changes from immigration are irreversible, so it is understandable they draw more attention.
Oh, the irony. Saying "bigotry is conservative" - while paying billions of people (a vast right half of the political spectrum) as bigots.
And taking for granted that of course progressives can't be bigots.
There weren't for example any massive pogroms against Jews under Stalin, or the destroying of thousands of years of historical treasures (not to mention millions of people) under Mao. Progressives never call whole swaths of people "white trash" or "deplorables". Leftist students never prevent people who doesn't share their views from speaking, and so on...
I closed out of the article at the suggestion that the likes of Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are "radicalizing" anyone. The New York times is such unbelievable garbage.
Joe Rogan and Dave rubin just have casual chats with stefan molyneux on their shows where they give him attention and let him just talk. They just give a platform to a literal white supremacist.
I would be interested in seeing you make a case for him being literally a white supremacist.
A convincing case would be:
1. a specific, authoritative definition of white supremacy
2. an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs
Is downvoting a request for evidence for an extraordinary claim (to be clear: this is not an assertion, so you "downvoting to express disagreement" is not valid) consistent with the HN guidelines?
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!”
—Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“You cannot run a high IQ society with low IQ people…these immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.”
—YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015
“...skills and abilities have not been distributed evenly by mother nature between various ethnicities and what that means is that when the shit hits the wall it hits some ethnicities a lot harder than others and then you get endless screams of “racism”...this is one fundamental reason why America is having trouble solving these problems is that everybody knows that if you cut spending which community is it going to be hit the hardest? Hint: it’s not Korean…if you cut social spending in America it’s going to hit the black community the hardest ...the black and Hispanic communities don’t end up acting the same as the white population or the Asian population...the media are compliant and willing to scream “racist” at anyone who points out basic fact-based differences between ethnicities…[and] you can’t deal with the situation until Obama’s out or until people understand that ethnicities in America and all around the world tend to act differently [collectively]...collectively ethnicities tend to act differently, they tend to have different incomes, they tend to have different rates of marital stability, they tend to have different rates of criminality...”
—YouTube video, The Impending Collapse of Western Civilization, November 15, 2015
“One of the biggest questions in America is ethnic crime rates...and y’know the [Asians] are the model minority…[while] the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality and the general explanation is y’know slavery plus racism plus poverty, whatever it is which creates this unholy brew...but as far as I understand it there are significant contributions that your field can make to help people untangle [why] there are such differences in ethnic positive and negative behaviours in society...American blacks have roughly a standard IQ below whites... ”
—YouTube video, Genetics and Crime: Interview with Kevin M. Beaver, May 28, 2016
“If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases. Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women.”
—Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014
Even his wikipedia article has links to most of this stuff:
[dead] mistermann↗
> Are you serious?
Yes I am. Are you serious? If so, accept my challenge, starting with an authoritative definition of white supremacy.
What you've done instead, you've skipped that and proceeded directly to cherry-picked, out of context and misleading sound bytes. For example, in "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!", he is referring to "crazy" people, not non-white people. Or, implying that the noting of a statistical fact is not only attribution to an underlying cause, but the assertion of a valid motive to proceed with sinister actions (in the form of a "dog whistle" I imagine, conveniently avoiding the complicated difficulty of having actual facts to back up a claim).
This is certainly an effective and persuasive approach, but it is also an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.
If you have the facts on your side, you should be able to mop the floor with me. (But, most likely I will be throttled for "posting too fast", which is also a very effective but intellectually dishonest (in that posting speed isn't all that the algorithm considers) behavior. But as I said earlier, all's fair in love and meme wars.)
edit: And, right on cue, no more commenting permissions for me.
Edit #2, reply to the below because I am no longer allowed to post....
> I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere.
It never ceases to amaze me how common (and apparently effective) characterizing legitimate disagreement as "game playing" has become. I suspect it's not that it's not going anywhere that bothers you, it's that you are unable to provide evidence for your claim.
> I gave you what you asked for.
This statement is false. I asked for an authoritative definition of your slur. You even explicitly admit that you didn't provide this.
> because you're not actually interested in that
You have no way of knowing what I am interested in. This is another commonly used evasive tactic to avoid substantiating claims, very common on both ends of the political spectrum.
> I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked.
This statement is false. I didn't just ask for "a" video, I asked for "an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs". You did not provide this. Are you able to?
> Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it.
Do I have to do the footwork to track down evidence that supports your claims? I suspect this is another untrue statement, but would be happy to have you prove me wrong.
> "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."
Is this the definition your are comfortable with? Seems acceptable to me, and I look forward to seeing evidence that he holds these specific (not approximate; "dog whistling" doesn't count) beliefs.
> You're being completely disingenuous.
By asking for actual evidence for your genuine (presumably) assertions?
> You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest.
None support your assertion. Change your claims to something more along the lines of "he's a complete dick" and I will no longer as for evidence, because I would not disagree.
> You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms.
This is an estimation, based on heuristics. It is also false. I want the terms stated explicitly because I enjoy dissecting non-fact-based memes. By pedantically and stubbornly demonstrating how some ideas and behavior (the manner and ...
I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere. I gave you what you asked for. I'm not defining words you can look up within a few seconds yourself because you're not actually interested in that. I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked.
Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it. Clicking on the words "white supremacist" there brings you to a wikipedia article that also gives you the definition that you are begging for for some reason:
"White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."
You're being completely disingenuous. Facts don't let you mop the floor with people as you put it. You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest. You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms. You can pretend that no one can imply anything and only if someone blatantly says "I am a white supremacist and I believe whites are the superior race and all other races are lesser" do they qualify as a white supremacist.
I don't need a lecture from you about being intellectually dishonest.
Post limits aren't intellectually dishonest also? Not sure what you're going with that.
As a third party observer of this exchange who did not hold opinions on molyneux before encountering it:
* honestly you’ve completely convinced me that molyneux is a racist piece of shit, fuck this guy!!
* but you haven’t convinced me he’s a literal white supremacist because he just doesn’t seem to be quoted anywhere asserting the supremacy of white people.
I think you did an incredibly good job proving that he is for sure “white supremacy-adjacent,” and also a fuckin weirdo d-bag. But compared to explicitly self-identifying white supremacists like Richard Spencer, Molyneux does not seem like a white supremacist.
All that said, fuck him. Those quotes you posted are insane.
Nice to see at least some people getting some enjoyment out of this exhibition!
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out I don't disagree with sentiments like "molyneux is a racist piece of shit, fuck this guy!!", I think that seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion that could be backed up with plenty of evidence. I honestly have trouble watching the guy, he creeps me out.
The point of my participation in these types of discussion, at least in part, is to illustrate how prone people on the extreme poles of both sides of political spectrum are to non-evidence-based thinking. Making fun of idiot Trump supporters is like shooting fish in a barrel, but look how easy it is for genuinely intelligent people to hold beliefs that are based on memes confused for facts, and how increasingly anti-intellectual and epistemically dishonest they can become when mistakes are pointed out in the basis of their beliefs.
And to anyone who thinks "well who cares, at the end of the day we're far more correct", which is certainly true, I would urge them to pay attention to whether extremist half-truths used on the left are ever used as ammunition in the ongoing culture wars, both by people like Molyneux as well as plain old enthusiasts online. If I think hard enough, I might even be able to come up with two or three instances where it was used in a recent political campaign.
Two possibly relevant sayings:
"Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It."
"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table."
Using pedantically concise, accurate, objectively correct language certainly isn't very popular nowadays, but I argue that it is very important. Otherwise, if neither side has a proper understanding of what the other is saying, how shall we have productive discussions and come to mutually acceptable compromises in an increasingly complex society?
I'm trying to figure out if I agree with your or not, but once again we have an unfortunate lack of clarity when it comes to terms.
There are a variety of formal definitions (not to mention casual, conversational interpretations / "dog whistle" characterizations) for the word "eugenics" - if you don't mind, could you provide clarity on which one your comment specifically refers to?
> Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people.
As I pointed out, there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them.
Would you minding explaining the relevance of that link to my question? Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant when he used the word "crazy" in the the video linked above, and also that he is advocating sterilizing and murdering the people he is referring to? If so, for the former, could you explain the similarities you see, and for the latter, explain how that conclusion follows? I see no strong connection for either.
And if you aren't suggesting this is meaningfully similar, then perhaps you could describe the relevance of that document to the discussion of whether Stefan Molyneux is literally a white supremacist.
> Use whatever word you want for it.
I'm making no assertion, so my choice of words or meanings isn't terribly important, I am only trying to ensure that I am understanding your meaning and avoiding putting words in your mouth, because doing such a thing is intellectually dishonest and often counter-productive.
> English speakers call it eugenics.
There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to?
> Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant...
It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.
>There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to?
>there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them.
I only know one definition and, as you say, you now have it. If you have other definitions in mind, my guessing them is irrelevant: I am obviously not using them. Beyond that I can not help except with this link[1].
But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening.
I'm going to reply to this a bit later today, would like to hear your thoughts on it....just putting this here in case this flows off your screen due to other discussion.
Ok, now how to go about this.....let's start with some logical evaluation of what you've said, see if there are any incorrect assertions, logical inconsistencies, that sort of thing.
> It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.
"It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally.
"...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing.
"...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death."
So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death".
There are a number of problems with this:
> "that is the one and only thing that phrase means"
For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true:
a) all phrases must have only one meaning
b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning
The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true.
I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point.
Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part.
> But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it.
Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound.
Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said:
Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no...
The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utterances have no exact meaning had to be so convinced using language.
So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic.
It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right.
What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted.
>Here you have completely manufactured reality
This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked.
>What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it.
I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit.
Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man.
Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it.
At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not t...
> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works.
The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it.
> So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable.
> It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic...
There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created.
> ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect
Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> ...and just obfuscates the more important topic
I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning.
> Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck.
Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming.
> What's remarkable is that people still fall for it.
Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them.
> When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
> It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam
Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence.
> ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any
That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him.
>> Here you have completely manufactured reality
> This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else.
You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here.
> It does not.
Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion.
> And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article.
Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either?
> I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people.
Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to ...
>The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion
You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.
Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
>You are restating your claim in a different way
Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
>There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too. But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
>Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
> I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic
On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener. The sole ambiguity is when. I won't be questioned for having that understanding. I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means. Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"
>without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said
On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics. Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)
>As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.
Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.
>Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.
Of course they agree. That is why I offered the partial explanation you are referring to. If he didn't have followers we would not have a problem. But 1946 is 73 years ago so what would have been zero followers has grown to a mob.
And "Nazism" is comically over used. The new batch of right wing autocrats implement similar but weaker policies with less violence and a smile rather than a scowl. Franco or Mussolini are a better but flawed comparisons. Especially the latter since his exact words and gestures are conscientiously imitated.
>...has a theory...youtube...
A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.
And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning, the opposite of promulgating them. And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences. Also he is speaking on the BBC which is telling.
>Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters
Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no do...
> You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.
That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails.
> Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning.
No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning"
> If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
Whether the phrase has an actual accepted meaning of what you say is not irrelevant, but I can see how you'd like that to be considered irrelevant.
> Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
Yet, you can present no evidence demonstrating this, and it is clearly contrary to the meaning he used in the context of its usage. Have you even listened to the clip in question?
>> There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
> Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too.
And therefore you can make up any meaning you like an expect it to be accepted?
> But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
a) There may be one dictionary meaning, but as already discussed, reality is independent of the words we use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics has significant discussion about a variety of different meanings.
b) "so too does the phrase in question" - a claim for which you provide no evidence.
>> Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
You can claim any phrase with no pre-existing accepted meaning means whatever you want, because "that's how language works generally"?
>> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
> Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
The environment in which he is raising his daughter.
You actually listening to what he actually said would have also saved a lot of typing.
> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
Friendly reminder #2: please address these questions.
If making any assertions based on supposed actions or words spoken by Molyneux, at a minimum include the timestamp of when he speaks the words you claim he speaks.
Of course, the same standard of proof should be expected of me, so if I slip up please bring it to my attention (as you did above, and I explicitly acknowledged - this is often referred to as intellectual honesty, by the way).
Pardon the double post but I think I see what you're looking for. The full diatribe is mostly advocating for a new lebensborn program. The direct talk of breeding up ubermensch/supermen with that exact word supports this.
Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
He also refers to _cleaning_ the gene pool ie removing "bad" genes. A breeding program alone won't clean any genes.
So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
As an aside, the absurd use of language and the poor guy who hopes to become one of the select few with the right genes is an archetype of the cult leader/follower relation with its nonsensical parallel reality.
> Pardon the double post but I think I see what you're looking for. The full diatribe is mostly advocating for a new lebensborn program. The direct talk of breeding up ubermensch/supermen with that exact word supports this.
Actually, what I'm looking for is some evidence or reasoning that supports your claims of Molyneux advocating white supremacy or eugenics.
> Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Unless you can demonstrate an ability to read minds, your perception of what Molyneux thinks doesn't count as evidence.
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena.
Does it? Please excerpt the literal words he's used so I know you're not using your imagination.
> So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
We shall see when you provide the evidence (actual spoken words) supporting your new claim.
> "absurd use of language", "nonsensical parallel reality"
Indeed.
EDIT: I'm not seeing the other post that goes with the "double" warning?
>Please excerpt the literal words he's used so I know you're not using your imagination.
Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? The one we've been talking about for two days and which you just said was about his daughter?
It is "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up". In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners ending with the goal of creating "supermen".
>> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
> Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning
There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words. Yet both are easily understood.
But if I noticed my bug statement was too shocking for the guys listening (maybe insulting a team by being so blunt about their code) I might walk it back by saying "I don't let my daughter write crazy code". Which is not particularly coherent and certainly does not make the sentence about my daughter. Nor change what it means nor its referent nor the impact it has.
Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers), we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter. Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it.
The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen"). Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence, a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. And even this still leaves him and his followers looking for the "good" in nazism.
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth? No other meaning could possibly be derived or intended? For example, when he says "Most of them will need to be bred, and they need to be bred in an environment uncontaminated by the endless bullshit of the old world", is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised?
How about when he says: "I can subject myself to my crazy (say, there's that word again) family of origin. I cannot subject my child, and I really don't have much of a right to subject my wife to it either. It wasn't her god damn fault"? You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family, which is what he literally says, but rather that he is referring to....non-white people? And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter (which is what he did), but rather the only possible intended meaning is to advocate eugenics?
If so, would it be too much to ask you to include the relevant portions of the transcript (or, a link to the video you're working from, with timestamps....I'm looking at https://youtu.be/sgBUGpXz9-8) that substantiates this interpretation?
> In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology
I don't see any problem with this. I certainly try to teach my children an ideology (knowing the difference between right and wrong, fairness, inclusiveness, sharing, kindness, love, understanding, responsibility, rationality, honesty, humility, etc) and I very much hope they marry someone similarly minded, have children, raise them according to a similar (or improved) ideology, and spread it to as many people in their lives as possible.
> ...and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners
Timestamp of that please.
> with the goal of creating "supermen"
A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning is possible?
> There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words.
Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
> Yet both are easily understood.
Cleaning up the gene pool has a generally accepted meaning. But did he say we need to clean up the gene pool? Google isn't coming up with anything. I wonder, does Molyneux maybe have an inside man at Google that wipes all these facts you know about him from their index?
> Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers)...
Or, you could just listen to the words he literally says, and be mindful of your subconscious injecting additional meaning.
> we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter
Once again, because you say so right? If there is any uncertainty, the default meaning is obviously genocide (because "that's how language works" maybe)? No need to provide a reasoned argument with specific supporting quotes from what he's actually said?
> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning wh...
>Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth
No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation.
>is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised
He is. The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter. And assuming Molyneux has a minimal scientific literacy, he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding.
>You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family
I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.
It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument. Or if we want to walk that back, I'd be happier with the correct understanding.
At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.
>And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter
He does indeed mean keeping away the girl's grandparents. But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing. So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.
>Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?
>>Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.
>Timestamp of this please.
The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice.
But is this indeed your claim?
>>with the goal of creating "supermen"
>A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning
That's why he chose the word. He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term. You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.
>[Superman is a term] used by Friedrich Nietzsche
>How about David Bowie? [who wrote a song named The Supermen]
The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.
And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.
That distinctly bizarre misinterpretation of Nietzsche comes from one place: the 1930's German eugenics program.
Molyneux wants to breed supermen so he is most definitely did not getting that from Nietzsche but from the eugenics program.
Clearly even the smartest people can be get draw into this. The hidden signals, charisma and especially the intentional ambiguity work well. Of course Shaw was intellectually honest enough to change. As did everyone who survived that period, which apparently did not leave a permanent impression.
>Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase.
No, he makes no mention of race when talking about the daughter. And that talk has no connection to the ph...
> No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation.
How do you know it is referring to the human population?
> The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter.
Can you provide a timestamp for the usage of this phrase?
> he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding
People are affected by the environment in which they are raised, which can be passed on.
You seem to have this habit of believing the world is constrained by the extent of your knowledge, and seem unable to consider that your assessment of a situation may not be correct.
> I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.
Technically, you claimed the phrase refers to ethnic cleansing. You believing something doesn't make it true.
> It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument.
It wasn't my suggestion, it is what he says. You cannot produce a quote that demonstrates otherwise, all you have are claims with no evidence.
> At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.
"breed cleaning" is not used. If you disagree, provide a timestamp.
> But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing.
Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "hereditary cleansing"?
> So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.
Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "eugenics"?
>> Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
> Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?
Perhaps sometimes, but not always. If you disagree, I am happy to consider any evidence or logical argument you provide.
>>> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.
>> Timestamp of this please.
> The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice. But is this indeed your claim?
Yes it is my claim, it is the most obvious meaning that requires a minimum usage of one's imagination.
Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your indoctrination claim?
Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your "controlling her partners" claim?
For the record, I would like to explicitly point out that you didn't reply to my question about your "cleaning the whole gene pool" claim.
> That's why he chose the word.
How do you know this? Are you speculating, or do you believe this to be a fact?
> He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term.
A lack of choosing words to your liking proves nothing.
> You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.
He's not wearing a swastika.
> The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.
I've already provided links demonstrating significant usage of the term in a way other than the meaning you say it must be.
> And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.
No, but he defined the noun, which many people subsequently used in various different contexts. Molyneux is one of many people who've used it. You can arg...
Based on voting, it seems like at least two people aren't very fond of my new "Can you provide a timestamp" approach (so easy to type, and so effective at illustrating the number of individual claims made supposedly based on the spoken words of Molyneux), one of them displeased enough to actually report the comment!
That is really quite astonishing: here we have someone leveling the accusation of someone being a ~Nazi/white supremacist/eugenicist, an accusation up there with child molester, and asking for evidence to back up the accusation is so offensive that someone reports it. It makes me wonder what the mentality of HN is going to be a year or two from now.
Please don't do ideological flamewar on HN. By the time people start hauling in wheelbarrows of pre-existing quotes like this, intellectual curiosity is long lost.
Please keep these wretched ideological flamewars off HN. Think of it as an experiment in not having literally every internet forum burn with the same rage.
I doubt you have the time or any remaining patience to care, and I can hardly blame you, but I would like to point out what I think is an important point: while this discussion may seem like just another ideological disagreement, if you look at my participation in it I hope you could see that I was approaching it from an epistemological perspective, not (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150162) an ideological perspective.
I have a theory that a large percentage of seemingly ideological disagreements (same set of facts, but difference of opinion) are in fact rooted in epistemological problems of perception. This is why my counterpart was unable to provide evidence for what he (genuinely, and with good intentions) believed were facts.
My intentions were not malicious (I think this is observably plausible based on my words and tone, or at least I hope so) in the conversation - I wasn't trying to score a "win" for "my side", I was genuinely trying to see if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs. "Defending" Stefan Molyneux was probably not the wisest place to do such a thing, but it is almost always topics related to "-isms" where these sorts of cognitive behaviors manifest themselves, so it is almost always going to look "obviously stupid" to have chosen the specific subject when taking such experimental stands.
Personally, I wish more people would try (if no one ever does anything, how will the problem stop getting worse) to figure out what is going on with the increasing polarization of opinions between people and try to figure out a way to fix it. But at the end of the day, even if I am completely correct in this theory, perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it (although, among all the downvotes and flags, one person maintained objectivity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20148991), and expecting HN mods to tolerate the messiness is a bit much to ask.
So, my sincere apologies, I will try to refrain/minimize such behavior going forward. But at the same time, I think it is fair to point out that in such disagreements, it takes two to tango, and perhaps the person holding the popular but technically not-objectively-correct position might be deserving of a warning as well. To me, dishonesty is a much more toxic and harmful behavior than disagreement.
> if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs.
That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet, and you can do a lot of damage in the process—especially if the way you go about it isn't obviously distinguishable from simply arguing the opposite side.
> That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet
True, and perhaps "common sense", but I think questioning common sense now and then isn't a bad idea.
My theory was, when you find yourself in a situation like this, if you remain cordial and repetitively bring the conversation back to the same question over and over, eventually it will be ~impossible for them to not realize what is happening. I now realize I executed poorly on this until the very end, where it may have suddenly become easily distinguishable that I wasn't just arguing and what was actually going on, but by then it was too late.
As always, I will work on improving my behavior, but my sense is that this general problem continues to grow, here and elsewhere. Censorship has an upper bound of effectiveness, something lower average quality communities are grappling with now. I worry that kicking the can down the road might ultimately not be a good idea.
So long as advertising revenue rules everything around me, I don't see this problem going away. Whether it's addictive right-wing videos or addictive left-wing videos, websites like YouTube will always prioritize "engagement" and adviews over safe and neutral and boring and reliable. Good times...
The author of this article and the YouTube creators he maligns, are both engaged in what Naval Ravikant describes as a “negative-sum prestige game”. The wealth benefits are nearly zero, and the fame is all negative. Stay in the positive-sum wealth game, fellow hackers; build, create, form meaningful life-long relationships.
This article just included Milton Friedman in a collage that seems to imply he was a conspiratorial, racist, misogynist? For those who might not know who he was, here is is Wiki entry. [1] He's a nobel prize winning economist and more or less critical reading to understand the logic behind much of our current economic processes, without casting judgement on the rightness or wrongness of said systems. He died 13 years ago. I am, for once, at a loss for words. That is just so unbelievably idiotic.
That along with them including Philip DeFranco (even though he's not mentioned in the article) made me lose interest in whatever they were trying to say through the article. I don't want to get on a political debate here on HN but Phil is more left leaning or at least that's the impression almost entirety of his audience gets from watching his videos.
I honestly think that this article is more about trying to take down independent but huge following journalists/creators than it's about shining light on radicalization. This could be because of these independent creators are taking away too much of these huge media company/newspaper's profits.
168 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 215 ms ] thread"IN 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Cain had begun watching right-wing YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations.
These videos were made by left-wing creators, but they mimicked the aesthetics of right-wing YouTube, down to the combative titles and the mocking use of words like “triggered” and “snowflake.”
famous right wing youtubers are people like Prisonplanet (white genocide propaganda, Brexit)
there's no comparison between the two outside of rise in popularity
I was comparing hard to hard. "Hard left" youtube seem to be great people, whereas "hard right" youtube is utter trash.
One has to stretch "both sides are bad" to great extremes to pretend that the problem is intractable.
Or you know, that's a version of "everyone I agree with is good, everyone I disagree with is Hitler".
site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol
Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?
That said, for people on the left I follow, I'd mention Slavoj Zizek, Chomsky, Michea, and others (including authors on Counterpunch, NLR, Mother Jones, etc).
I like my leftists old school, regarding class, colonization, imperialism, and such, and don't care about the US obsession with identity politics (in fact I dislike it). I don't think the US has had many real leftists since like the 60s, and surely none in the mainstream.
>site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol
You should be able to reply, I think it just takes a minute for the link to appear or so. Can always click on the parent comment's date though to go to a reply page iirc.
That said, I didn't say "Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul". I said those are some on the left I personally follow. I'm not sure what "equivalent" means here. Equivalent in what?
If it's about having polarizing opinions or away-of-centre opinions on things, well, all those mentioned have those.
>Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?
I wasn't sure who Hbomb is, so I paid a visit. Seems like someone making dumb jokes from what (in the US) passes for a leftist view. I haven't seen much Crowder (only heard about him through the recent fuss) but this Hbomb is not in my eyes any better than Prisonpaul. If anything, he's more grating.
(Also, better in what? Better person? Better opinions? More agreeable? More hipster-likable views?)
Peterson and Chomsky I would say are in a completely different league, as they tend to deal in a high-dimensional representation of reality, versus the comically low-dimensional representation that is typically a common denominator of all cultural meme war arguments.
1.) the authoritarian left, which prioritizes racial and gendered identity, collectivism, equity, all facilitated by the state.
2.) the anti-authoritarian liberal, which prioritizes individual liberty, universality under the law, accountability and self-determination.
3.) the authoritarian right, which prioritizes tradition and national identity.
An extreme person in any of these camps would not result in "great people." I do not think that the left's collectivization of society along racial and gendered lines is "great." I do not think the left's conviction in its moral superiority and subsequent willingness to censor and deplatform is "great." I do not think that the left's disassociation of merit and value in pursuit of arbitrary equity is "great." These are very dangerous things. Radical leftism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
- AOC/Sanders
- Obama/Clinton
- Bush/Trump
? I'm not american but it's no contest I'm "authoritarian left", I guess. If "universal health care" is authoritarian, sign me up.
Any "national socialist" that tried to couple free healthcare with racist ideas about who gets it would be making a mockery of "universal", for example.
There's probably a good reason why health care/women's rights/pacifism/environmentalism all go hand in hand, something to do with compassion and one's idea of where hierarchies come from.
> Hey, writer here. This collage is just a sample from his viewing history. Some far-right, some not.
https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1137392725081219073
> Caleb Cain was a college dropout looking for direction. He turned to YouTube.
> Soon, he was pulled into a far-right universe, watching thousands of videos filled with conspiracy theories, misogyny and racism.
> I was brainwashed
If some, in the admission of the writer, are not far right / [insert some other libelous term here], is it fair to label them all as such?
Doesn't change the fact that NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting." I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. Also, "white supremacist" is a great slam against someone you don't like regardless as to if it is true.
Yes, but the YT recommendation algorithm doesn't know that, and even if it could know it wouldn't care. It's enough to watch a few IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) videos, the system will assume that you want racist, far-right, etc. content and that's what will pop up in your recommendations and "Up Next" video plays. That's an entirely programmatically-generated "pathway" into the alt-right rabbit hole; it has nothing to do with who the IDW themselves would want to associate with.
And he was totally blasted by his own fanbase for it. Everyone might say something, once in a while, too far. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make him completely wrong on everything.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is a sort of risky situation. I'm willing to help anyone who sincerely wants to use HN as intended. But it can be a considerable effort. It's draining, because these discussions are so repetitive and often adversarial. One spends a lot of effort on the boring task of weatherproofing whatever one says.
Such questions can amount to a DoS attack on moderators, because of the time it takes to patiently answer them, which then we can't spend making the site better. If you want us to invest those resources into helping you understand the intended use of HN, you need to clearly establish that that is your good-faith intention.
I'm probably going to bleed karma for this, but whatever - I think Trump's campaign had the same problem. I don't believe he's explicitly a white supremacist or that he wanted the support of neo-nazis, if for no other reason than that would be a stupid move politically, but for whatever reason neo-nazis seem to consider him their champion.
Likely in part it's a combination of his antagonistic (politically incorrect) demeanor and his populist rhetoric, but also (just to put it out there) the Republicans and Tea Party have been sort of low-key courting favor with racists for years, so there were already plenty in the base to begin with, they just needed to find their anti-establishment dark horse.
Even if they're less "white supremacist supporting" as "white supremacist supported," that's still a problem. They still feed on and profit from that element.
> they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons
> NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting."
These are not in conflict; your actions can still support fascists unintentionally. When people point out your beliefs are supporting white supremacists, it might be a good idea to correct the problem. Continuing to defend the problematic behavior is when what might have been unintentional support begins to look more like intentional participation.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnmRYRRDbuw
Sounds like "better not let anybody be right-wingers or they may someday turn to fascism!"
(for a more nuanced answer, see [1])
https://twitter.com/morrison/status/1137401059419217921?s=11
- questioning climate alarmism as a means to take more of your money;
- questioning feminism as a force of havoc on the nuclear family;
- questioning vaccine safety, a class of drugs that suspiciously never undergo double blind placebo safety testing;
- questioning the expanding welfare state as possibly not a social good but a crutch;
Etc.
All radical ideas to even think about. Shhhhh!
> The new A.I., known as Reinforce, was a kind of long-term addiction machine. It was designed to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one more video but many more.
It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.
Aside from the B.S. political Left Bias. The algos affect everyone. I disregarded the Failing NYTimes mentally ill reporter #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder
There is this pessimist view that Google is evil.
In my life, Google is the single best entity I'm aware of. Incredible amounts of free stuff that makes my life better.
Any addiction to their platform has been due to bliss.
Second, it always adds an algorithmic/editorial spin on the suggestion, so it's worse than them picking things up for themselves...
I think there is a difference here compared to other platforms: they slowly nudge you down paths of interest and you willingly oblige in watching it. And if you have lost interest in a subject, don't worry, it will pop up on your home page sooner or later, dangling it above your head "still interested? come over here, click on me!".
Sure I paint a sinister picture, perhaps it is exaggerated, but I truly believe that google knows more about me than everyone that I know personally, and maybe even myself. That is scary. If they combines all this information across their platforms, they are in possession of an incredibly accurate profile of myself. If they use this profile to suggest videos, I suppose it may not be as harmful as I have stated, but what if they were to use it for other purposes in the future? This is my greatest fear.
Does it sadden you if it's instead worded as
"The entertainment platform worked on improving their promoted content selection to prevent users from getting bored".
Really, we can have a discussion about ML algorithms running wild and achieving far different results than intended, but trying to exploit every angle for the sake of the "evil, greedy people" narrative feels very dishonest.
This summary crucially omits that the platform's goal was not to prevent users from getting bored, it was to make more money. They were optimizing for time spent watching ads, not user experience.
I'll refrain here from passing judgment either way, but it's an important clarification to make.
That's not to say that damage won't be done in the meantime. What's driving society crazy isn't some single percentage slice of economically disadvantaged under-educated fringers with theories just about everybody knows are crap. What's driving society crazy is the meddling in the free market of ideas. It's the breakdown of discourse itself. It's all of the perverse incentives to communication and other manipulation perpetrated by big tech firms that may or may not be monopolies. It's the meddling with people's speech by entities that aren't governments, but have more power and more tech savvy than most of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
These big media/technology companies have been amplifying outrage, amplifying outrageous behavior, bubbling people into echo chambers to further amplify the outrage, and aiding and abetting the toxic mislabeling of ordinary views and formerly protected forms of discourse -- which just adds even more amplification in the form of outrage.
The problem is not the single-percentage fringers without access to economic power, the halls of power, and the ear of those who control the newest forms of media technology. They are merely a symptom. Look instead to the politically skewed access. Remember: power corrupts!
Look at the magnitude of how crazy society's gotten in the past several years. Who has the wealth, algorithmic/technological power, and reach to do all of that? The answer's simple. Look for the tickers with the multi-billion dollar valuations!
All society needs to fix things, is to actually have Free Speech and a level, non-manipulated free marketplace of ideas.
An example of this is abortion. No matter how you feel about it, saying that abortion is murder and should be banned is now, in the NYT's opinion, "alt-right" and "extremist" even though about half of America believes so and this has always been a Right-wing value.
Not only this, but this type of article is why the Right calls NYT "fake news." Not necessarily "fake," but the bias is boldly visible. It doesn't help with media credibility - and then the Left wonders why the Right doesn't take newspapers seriously. For the record, I think "Fake news" is overused - but I do understand, reading this, why the Right loves bashing NYT.
No it hasn't:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-ri...
>But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.
Still, it was brewing, as the March for Life did occur right after Roe.
For Example: Plenty of Americans wanted to legalize gay marriages in every state, but proposition 8 lost.
My point: People could very well think that abortion ia the equivalent to killing an already born human, but getting a law to pass takes a majority and I think it's fair to say that America is pretty divided on the issue. To get anything to pass, there will be compromises.
Maybe conservatives feel stronger than the language of the laws that are being passed. Maybe not, but it's anything but clear.
It's easier to say that small extreme groups are exaggerating and then act stunned when trump wins the election. My entire social circle was stunned when he won, because they assumed they knew where conservatives stood.
If conservatives control the government, and they all believe abortion is murder and should be punished as such - then they can pass a law declaring that.
If conservatives control the government, and they still can't get an abortion=murder law passed, and need to form a coalition with other conservatives who simply hate abortion but don't think it is murder, then I think that goes to my point that not all conservatives believe abortion is murder.
How many Tumblr radicals are out there? Both sides are doing it.
Is his characterization accurate?
[0]: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/ideology
If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?
Or violence against different thinking individuals.
Think third wave feminists. Antifa. BLM. Berkeley Riots.
Right now, the extreme left is much more dangerous than the extreme right (not to mention the similarly lumped not-so-extreme right), because people like you think they will do no “real” wrongs.
That’s a huge mistake to make.
A. Millions murdered based on class: independent farmers [0], intellectuals, defined as anyone wearing glasses [1], entrepreneurs, professionals. Generally anyone perceived as better off than their neighbor was at risk of being labeled 'enemy of the people' by said neighbour and deported overnight into the Gulag [2]. Or executed on the spot.
B. Millions deported based on ethnicity. Entire populations were moved around USSR in the '30s, including Balts, Poles, Romanians, Tatars or Koreans, based simply on their ethnicity, partly as an attempt to forcefully disassociate them from their cultural legacy.
C. Millions murdered due to breakdown of basic economic structures. The great famine of Ukraine in '32/'33, and Mao's great famine of the '59/'63 stand out as marvels of far left ideology implemented by force in the economic sphere.
All in all, an estimated 100 million people lost their lives in the name of far left ideology [6]. It is repugnant to gloss over recent history and pretend there are no hideous monsters to be found.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Democrati...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Uni...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
I could go hat for hat and mention all the murders and genocieds far right regimes have conducted, regimes like Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, etc.
But I could also go through all the disasters caused by capitalism like the Bhopal disaster in 1984, or—the elephant in the room—global warming.
My third option would be to list all the social issues caused by unhindered capitalism, issues like the housing crisis, or the worker conditions in the late 19th to early 20th century.
But all this is conflating the fact that I would be blaming bad policies enacted by ignorant, greedy, or even malicious people in the name of a political or economical ideology, which is to say (at least in the case of Franco and Pinochet) I’m confusing capitalism with fascism, something I see quite a lot in the above comment. My point is that none of these (with the notable exception of global warming) are the necessary consequences of far left or far right policies.
Sure you could take me on this and claim that both far right and far left people are capable of performing horrible things, and you would not be wrong. And then again, I must point out that this is off topic, we are specifically talking about youtube creators, of which you can find numerous example of far right creators spreading hate towards a large generalized public while on the far left you at worst find this hate spread towards public figures that represent far-right ideologies.
There is no cosmic balance between left-wing and right-wing. What are the consequences of the left-wing rabbit hole vs the right-wing rabbit hole? Not all viewpoints are equal or even valid.
Really? Why? Because conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good?
Also, don't flamebait like this.
I've asked a question, and you even went ahead and answered "yes". You could have gone for nuance and made some differentiation, but you seem to consider everyone in the right as bad.
(I'm not even right, I'm old-school leftist and pro-common folk vs elites. I just can't stand hypocrisy and rigged fights).
"a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content"
Isn't it ironic to accuse me of the lack of nuance that you've shown, and I've called?
Yeah, white supremacists are scum. Why mention them though?
We were talking about right/conservative youtubers here (in fact my question asks exactly about right/conservative). Where does the "deep right" come in?
Are the ones shown in the screenshots "white supremacists"? E.g. Shapiro, Watson, Peterson, for a few I recognize. Have they shown any such tendencies?
Or does being concervative/right automatically means one can be labelled "deep-right" and thus "white supremacists"?
Would you consider New York to be left wing? I would.
Good to know apparently none of the right-wing videos used research or citations - only 'talking points'. Or at least it wasn't mentioned.
Looks like their main crime is being conservative.
I've watched a few Paul Joseph Watson videos. I've also watched Shapiro, Milo, and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree with the positions they take (e.g. Milo plays the extravagant provocateur for laughs and money), but where are those "conspiracy theories"?
Of course in these days, everything is labeled a "conspiracy theory" too. I keep the term for things involving the illuminati and aliens.
Regular corporatist interests and politicians conspire all the time -- the more open version is called lobbying.
Heck, politics is all about conspiring (including very covertly spy-shit, Nixon-Watergate like) against other parties and ideologies...
I can see how Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson make people very uncomfortable (heck, they often make me feel uncomfortable, particularly Molyneux), they are certainly "extreme", for current mainstream definitions of the word.
But then again, FTA:
> “When I found this stuff, I felt like I was chasing uncomfortable truths,” he told me. “I felt like it was giving me power and respect and authority.”
I've watched some of these guys videos, and I believe anyone claiming that they do not have at least some valid perspectives worth discussion is being intellectually dishonest.
> Unlike most progressives Mr. Cain had seen take on the right, Mr. Bonnell and Ms. Wynn were funny and engaging. They spoke the native language of YouTube, and they didn’t get outraged by far-right ideas. Instead, they rolled their eyes at them, and made them seem shallow and unsophisticated. “I noticed that right-wing people were taking these old-fashioned, knee-jerk, reactionary politics and packing them as edgy punk rock,” Ms. Wynn told me. “One of my goals was to take the excitement out of it.” When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms. Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed. “I just kept watching more and more of that content, sympathizing and empathizing with her and also seeing that, wow, she really knows what she’s talking about,” Mr. Cain said.
"persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed" - the right-wing talking points that also used research and citations. That's the thing about propaganda and statistics - it's a double edged sword.
> I've also watched Shapiro, Milo, and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree with the positions they take, but where are those "conspiracy theories"?
I too noticed the subtle guilt by association. I wonder if the commonality of this tactic ever adds fuel to the fire of conspiratorial thinking.
I continue to believe that one of the biggest reasons that "right wing extremism" is so effective at recruiting is because there are so many holes in official/proper version of reality we're sold.
I've watched several of his own videos on his YouTube channel. Where are the conspiracy theories?
A lot of the prison planet blog was deleted it seems, I guess due to his and alex jones' fallout, but here are your links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIAlft47bM
https://www.infowars.com/obama-birth-certificate-raises-as-m...
https://web.archive.org/web/20180123234120/https://www.priso...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170702085649/https://www.priso...
https://web.archive.org/web/20171226050840/https://www.priso...
The second is merely reporting, on a well known topic of public discussion. A document was requested, it appeared, and there were people raising questions about certain aspects. Should they not be reported? Where's the conspiracy part?
The others I'll give you are conspiracy theory material (though several of those kind of conspiracies (government conspiring, ordering executions, and so on), that a naive US person thinks "can never happen", have been found -- by courts and later evidence -- true in Europe time and again, just ask in Italy, Spain, France, Greece, etc. E.g:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#Officia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis
That said, those are from like 10 years ago or more? I'm familiar with his YouTube stuff and I don't see much conspiracy stuff there.
That would merely be response to the current leftist narrative.
Doesn’t that sound like just the debate/discussion you just asked for, in the very same post? Make up your mind.
I saw exactly zero news articles which covered the budget. Not a single one. Almost every single topic that bubbled up on national news, in debates, and on social media involved identity politics. Immigration, gender, religion, and then some climate on the side. The only political party in Sweden that still talk a bit about taxes is the one furthest on the left, and that mostly because capital tax has been their consistent talking point for about as long as the party has existed.
And taking for granted that of course progressives can't be bigots.
There weren't for example any massive pogroms against Jews under Stalin, or the destroying of thousands of years of historical treasures (not to mention millions of people) under Mao. Progressives never call whole swaths of people "white trash" or "deplorables". Leftist students never prevent people who doesn't share their views from speaking, and so on...
A convincing case would be:
1. a specific, authoritative definition of white supremacy
2. an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs
Is downvoting a request for evidence for an extraordinary claim (to be clear: this is not an assertion, so you "downvoting to express disagreement" is not valid) consistent with the HN guidelines?
Here's a video from him where he says he can't "argue with the facts" about white nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWYFU7OMw58&feature=youtu.be...
Here are choice quotes with sources:
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“You cannot run a high IQ society with low IQ people…these immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.” —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.” —YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015
“...skills and abilities have not been distributed evenly by mother nature between various ethnicities and what that means is that when the shit hits the wall it hits some ethnicities a lot harder than others and then you get endless screams of “racism”...this is one fundamental reason why America is having trouble solving these problems is that everybody knows that if you cut spending which community is it going to be hit the hardest? Hint: it’s not Korean…if you cut social spending in America it’s going to hit the black community the hardest ...the black and Hispanic communities don’t end up acting the same as the white population or the Asian population...the media are compliant and willing to scream “racist” at anyone who points out basic fact-based differences between ethnicities…[and] you can’t deal with the situation until Obama’s out or until people understand that ethnicities in America and all around the world tend to act differently [collectively]...collectively ethnicities tend to act differently, they tend to have different incomes, they tend to have different rates of marital stability, they tend to have different rates of criminality...” —YouTube video, The Impending Collapse of Western Civilization, November 15, 2015
“One of the biggest questions in America is ethnic crime rates...and y’know the [Asians] are the model minority…[while] the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality and the general explanation is y’know slavery plus racism plus poverty, whatever it is which creates this unholy brew...but as far as I understand it there are significant contributions that your field can make to help people untangle [why] there are such differences in ethnic positive and negative behaviours in society...American blacks have roughly a standard IQ below whites... ” —YouTube video, Genetics and Crime: Interview with Kevin M. Beaver, May 28, 2016
“If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases. Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women.” —Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014
Even his wikipedia article has links to most of this stuff: [dead] mistermann ↗ > Are you serious? lwelyk ↗ I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere. I gave you what you asked for. I'm not defining words you can look up within a few seconds yourself because you're not actually interested in that. I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked. [deleted] ↗ (comment deleted) dondawest ↗ As a third party observer of this exchange who did not hold opinions on molyneux before encountering it: mistermann ↗ Nice to see at least some people getting some enjoyment out of this exhibition! [dead] lwelyk ↗ > This statement is false. I asked for an authoritative definition of your slur. You even explicitly admit that you didn't provide this. [dead] mistermann ↗ > White supremacist isn't a slur. TomMckenny ↗ > "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!", he is referring to "crazy" people mistermann ↗ I'm trying to figure out if I agree with your or not, but once again we have an unfortunate lack of clarity when it comes to terms. TomMckenny ↗ Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. mistermann ↗ > Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. TomMckenny ↗ > Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant... mistermann ↗ I'm going to reply to this a bit later today, would like to hear your thoughts on it....just putting this here in case this flows off your screen due to other discussion. [dead] mistermann ↗ Ok, now how to go about this.....let's start with some logical evaluation of what you've said, see if there are any incorrect assertions, logical inconsistencies, that sort of thing. TomMckenny ↗ The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utterances have no exact meaning had to be so convinced using language. mistermann ↗ > The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. TomMckenny ↗ >The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion mistermann ↗ > You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy. mistermann ↗ Friendly reminder #2: please address these questions. TomMckenny ↗ Pardon the double post but I think I see what you're looking for. The full diatribe is mostly advocating for a new lebensborn program. The direct talk of breeding up ubermensch/supermen with that exact word supports this. mistermann ↗ > Pardon the double post but I think I see what you're looking for. The full diatribe is mostly advocating for a new lebensborn program. The direct talk of breeding up ubermensch/supermen with that exact word supports this. TomMckenny ↗ >Please excerpt the literal words he's used so I know you're not using your imagination. mistermann ↗ > Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? TomMckenny ↗ >Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth [dead] mistermann ↗ > No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation. mistermann ↗ Based on voting, it seems like at least two people aren't very fond of my new "Can you provide a timestamp" approach (so easy to type, and so effective at illustrating the number of individual claims made supposedly based on the spoken words of Molyneux), one of them displeased enough to actually report the comment! [deleted] ↗ (comment deleted) dang ↗ Please don't do ideological flamewar on HN. By the time people start hauling in wheelbarrows of pre-existing quotes like this, intellectual curiosity is long lost.
Yes I am. Are you serious? If so, accept my challenge, starting with an authoritative definition of white supremacy.
What you've done instead, you've skipped that and proceeded directly to cherry-picked, out of context and misleading sound bytes. For example, in "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!", he is referring to "crazy" people, not non-white people. Or, implying that the noting of a statistical fact is not only attribution to an underlying cause, but the assertion of a valid motive to proceed with sinister actions (in the form of a "dog whistle" I imagine, conveniently avoiding the complicated difficulty of having actual facts to back up a claim).
This is certainly an effective and persuasive approach, but it is also an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.
If you have the facts on your side, you should be able to mop the floor with me. (But, most likely I will be throttled for "posting too fast", which is also a very effective but intellectually dishonest (in that posting speed isn't all that the algorithm considers) behavior. But as I said earlier, all's fair in love and meme wars.)
edit: And, right on cue, no more commenting permissions for me.
Edit #2, reply to the below because I am no longer allowed to post....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere.
It never ceases to amaze me how common (and apparently effective) characterizing legitimate disagreement as "game playing" has become. I suspect it's not that it's not going anywhere that bothers you, it's that you are unable to provide evidence for your claim.
> I gave you what you asked for.
This statement is false. I asked for an authoritative definition of your slur. You even explicitly admit that you didn't provide this.
> because you're not actually interested in that
You have no way of knowing what I am interested in. This is another commonly used evasive tactic to avoid substantiating claims, very common on both ends of the political spectrum.
> I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked.
This statement is false. I didn't just ask for "a" video, I asked for "an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs". You did not provide this. Are you able to?
> Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it.
Do I have to do the footwork to track down evidence that supports your claims? I suspect this is another untrue statement, but would be happy to have you prove me wrong.
> "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."
Is this the definition your are comfortable with? Seems acceptable to me, and I look forward to seeing evidence that he holds these specific (not approximate; "dog whistling" doesn't count) beliefs.
> You're being completely disingenuous.
By asking for actual evidence for your genuine (presumably) assertions?
> You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest.
None support your assertion. Change your claims to something more along the lines of "he's a complete dick" and I will no longer as for evidence, because I would not disagree.
> You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms.
This is an estimation, based on heuristics. It is also false. I want the terms stated explicitly because I enjoy dissecting non-fact-based memes. By pedantically and stubbornly demonstrating how some ideas and behavior (the manner and ...
Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it. Clicking on the words "white supremacist" there brings you to a wikipedia article that also gives you the definition that you are begging for for some reason:
"White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."
You're being completely disingenuous. Facts don't let you mop the floor with people as you put it. You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest. You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms. You can pretend that no one can imply anything and only if someone blatantly says "I am a white supremacist and I believe whites are the superior race and all other races are lesser" do they qualify as a white supremacist.
I don't need a lecture from you about being intellectually dishonest.
Post limits aren't intellectually dishonest also? Not sure what you're going with that.
* honestly you’ve completely convinced me that molyneux is a racist piece of shit, fuck this guy!!
* but you haven’t convinced me he’s a literal white supremacist because he just doesn’t seem to be quoted anywhere asserting the supremacy of white people.
I think you did an incredibly good job proving that he is for sure “white supremacy-adjacent,” and also a fuckin weirdo d-bag. But compared to explicitly self-identifying white supremacists like Richard Spencer, Molyneux does not seem like a white supremacist.
All that said, fuck him. Those quotes you posted are insane.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out I don't disagree with sentiments like "molyneux is a racist piece of shit, fuck this guy!!", I think that seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion that could be backed up with plenty of evidence. I honestly have trouble watching the guy, he creeps me out.
The point of my participation in these types of discussion, at least in part, is to illustrate how prone people on the extreme poles of both sides of political spectrum are to non-evidence-based thinking. Making fun of idiot Trump supporters is like shooting fish in a barrel, but look how easy it is for genuinely intelligent people to hold beliefs that are based on memes confused for facts, and how increasingly anti-intellectual and epistemically dishonest they can become when mistakes are pointed out in the basis of their beliefs.
And to anyone who thinks "well who cares, at the end of the day we're far more correct", which is certainly true, I would urge them to pay attention to whether extremist half-truths used on the left are ever used as ammunition in the ongoing culture wars, both by people like Molyneux as well as plain old enthusiasts online. If I think hard enough, I might even be able to come up with two or three instances where it was used in a recent political campaign.
Two possibly relevant sayings:
"Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It."
"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table."
Annnd it always comes out in the end. White supremacist isn't a slur.
The terms isn't a slur, it is the baseless (so far) accusation which is a slur.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur
Using pedantically concise, accurate, objectively correct language certainly isn't very popular nowadays, but I argue that it is very important. Otherwise, if neither side has a proper understanding of what the other is saying, how shall we have productive discussions and come to mutually acceptable compromises in an increasingly complex society?
It's remarkable that extremism has gone so far that advocating eugenics is defended as mainstream.
There are a variety of formal definitions (not to mention casual, conversational interpretations / "dog whistle" characterizations) for the word "eugenics" - if you don't mind, could you provide clarity on which one your comment specifically refers to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Meanings_and_types
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/
As I pointed out, there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them.
Would you minding explaining the relevance of that link to my question? Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant when he used the word "crazy" in the the video linked above, and also that he is advocating sterilizing and murdering the people he is referring to? If so, for the former, could you explain the similarities you see, and for the latter, explain how that conclusion follows? I see no strong connection for either.
And if you aren't suggesting this is meaningfully similar, then perhaps you could describe the relevance of that document to the discussion of whether Stefan Molyneux is literally a white supremacist.
> Use whatever word you want for it.
I'm making no assertion, so my choice of words or meanings isn't terribly important, I am only trying to ensure that I am understanding your meaning and avoiding putting words in your mouth, because doing such a thing is intellectually dishonest and often counter-productive.
> English speakers call it eugenics.
There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to?
It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.
>There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to?
>there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them.
I only know one definition and, as you say, you now have it. If you have other definitions in mind, my guessing them is irrelevant: I am obviously not using them. Beyond that I can not help except with this link[1].
But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening.
[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics
> It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.
"It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally.
"...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing.
"...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death."
So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death".
There are a number of problems with this:
> "that is the one and only thing that phrase means"
For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true:
a) all phrases must have only one meaning
b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning
The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true.
I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point.
Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part.
> But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it.
Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound.
Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said:
> Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/
Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no...
So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic.
It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right.
What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted.
>Here you have completely manufactured reality
This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked.
>What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it.
I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit.
Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man.
Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it.
At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not t...
The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it.
> So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable.
> It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic...
There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created.
> ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect
Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> ...and just obfuscates the more important topic
I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning.
> Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck.
Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming.
> What's remarkable is that people still fall for it.
Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them.
> When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
> It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam
Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence.
> ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any
That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him.
>> Here you have completely manufactured reality
> This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else.
You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here.
> It does not.
Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion.
> And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article.
Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either?
> I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people.
Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to ...
You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.
Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
>You are restating your claim in a different way
Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
>There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too. But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
>Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
> I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic
On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener. The sole ambiguity is when. I won't be questioned for having that understanding. I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means. Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"
>without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said
On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics. Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)
>As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.
Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.
>Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.
Of course they agree. That is why I offered the partial explanation you are referring to. If he didn't have followers we would not have a problem. But 1946 is 73 years ago so what would have been zero followers has grown to a mob.
And "Nazism" is comically over used. The new batch of right wing autocrats implement similar but weaker policies with less violence and a smile rather than a scowl. Franco or Mussolini are a better but flawed comparisons. Especially the latter since his exact words and gestures are conscientiously imitated.
>...has a theory...youtube...
A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.
And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning, the opposite of promulgating them. And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences. Also he is speaking on the BBC which is telling.
>Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters
Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no do...
That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails.
> Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning.
No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning"
> If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
Whether the phrase has an actual accepted meaning of what you say is not irrelevant, but I can see how you'd like that to be considered irrelevant.
> Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
Yet, you can present no evidence demonstrating this, and it is clearly contrary to the meaning he used in the context of its usage. Have you even listened to the clip in question?
>> There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
> Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too.
And therefore you can make up any meaning you like an expect it to be accepted?
> But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
a) There may be one dictionary meaning, but as already discussed, reality is independent of the words we use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics has significant discussion about a variety of different meanings.
b) "so too does the phrase in question" - a claim for which you provide no evidence.
>> Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
You can claim any phrase with no pre-existing accepted meaning means whatever you want, because "that's how language works generally"?
>> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
> Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
The environment in which he is raising his daughter.
You actually listening to what he actually said would have also saved a lot of typing.
> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+whole...
> I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means.
You also seem to believe you need no evidence, or to even listen to the actual context of how it was used.
> Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"
Are you suggesting "grammatical similarity" is some sort of a proof? Is this another one of those "how language works generally" situations?
>> without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said
On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics.
This is not contrary to what I said, which was that you apparently haven't listene...
If making any assertions based on supposed actions or words spoken by Molyneux, at a minimum include the timestamp of when he speaks the words you claim he speaks.
Of course, the same standard of proof should be expected of me, so if I slip up please bring it to my attention (as you did above, and I explicitly acknowledged - this is often referred to as intellectual honesty, by the way).
Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
He also refers to _cleaning_ the gene pool ie removing "bad" genes. A breeding program alone won't clean any genes.
So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
As an aside, the absurd use of language and the poor guy who hopes to become one of the select few with the right genes is an archetype of the cult leader/follower relation with its nonsensical parallel reality.
Actually, what I'm looking for is some evidence or reasoning that supports your claims of Molyneux advocating white supremacy or eugenics.
> Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Unless you can demonstrate an ability to read minds, your perception of what Molyneux thinks doesn't count as evidence.
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena.
Does it? Please excerpt the literal words he's used so I know you're not using your imagination.
> So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
We shall see when you provide the evidence (actual spoken words) supporting your new claim.
> "absurd use of language", "nonsensical parallel reality"
Indeed.
EDIT: I'm not seeing the other post that goes with the "double" warning?
Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? The one we've been talking about for two days and which you just said was about his daughter?
It is "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up". In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners ending with the goal of creating "supermen".
>> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
> Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning
There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words. Yet both are easily understood.
But if I noticed my bug statement was too shocking for the guys listening (maybe insulting a team by being so blunt about their code) I might walk it back by saying "I don't let my daughter write crazy code". Which is not particularly coherent and certainly does not make the sentence about my daughter. Nor change what it means nor its referent nor the impact it has.
Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers), we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter. Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it.
The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen"). Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence, a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. And even this still leaves him and his followers looking for the "good" in nazism.
Ah, I've made a mistake, thanks for noticing.
So, let's backtrack to your prior comment then:
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth? No other meaning could possibly be derived or intended? For example, when he says "Most of them will need to be bred, and they need to be bred in an environment uncontaminated by the endless bullshit of the old world", is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised?
How about when he says: "I can subject myself to my crazy (say, there's that word again) family of origin. I cannot subject my child, and I really don't have much of a right to subject my wife to it either. It wasn't her god damn fault"? You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family, which is what he literally says, but rather that he is referring to....non-white people? And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter (which is what he did), but rather the only possible intended meaning is to advocate eugenics?
If so, would it be too much to ask you to include the relevant portions of the transcript (or, a link to the video you're working from, with timestamps....I'm looking at https://youtu.be/sgBUGpXz9-8) that substantiates this interpretation?
> In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology
I don't see any problem with this. I certainly try to teach my children an ideology (knowing the difference between right and wrong, fairness, inclusiveness, sharing, kindness, love, understanding, responsibility, rationality, honesty, humility, etc) and I very much hope they marry someone similarly minded, have children, raise them according to a similar (or improved) ideology, and spread it to as many people in their lives as possible.
> ...and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners
Timestamp of that please.
> with the goal of creating "supermen"
A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning is possible?
> There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words.
Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
> Yet both are easily understood.
Cleaning up the gene pool has a generally accepted meaning. But did he say we need to clean up the gene pool? Google isn't coming up with anything. I wonder, does Molyneux maybe have an inside man at Google that wipes all these facts you know about him from their index?
> Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers)...
Or, you could just listen to the words he literally says, and be mindful of your subconscious injecting additional meaning.
> we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter
Once again, because you say so right? If there is any uncertainty, the default meaning is obviously genocide (because "that's how language works" maybe)? No need to provide a reasoned argument with specific supporting quotes from what he's actually said?
> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning wh...
No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation.
>is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised
He is. The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter. And assuming Molyneux has a minimal scientific literacy, he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding.
>You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family
I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.
It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument. Or if we want to walk that back, I'd be happier with the correct understanding.
At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.
>And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter
He does indeed mean keeping away the girl's grandparents. But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing. So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.
>Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?
>>Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.
>Timestamp of this please.
The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice.
But is this indeed your claim?
>>with the goal of creating "supermen"
>A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning
That's why he chose the word. He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term. You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.
>[Superman is a term] used by Friedrich Nietzsche
>How about David Bowie? [who wrote a song named The Supermen]
The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.
And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.
That distinctly bizarre misinterpretation of Nietzsche comes from one place: the 1930's German eugenics program. Molyneux wants to breed supermen so he is most definitely did not getting that from Nietzsche but from the eugenics program.
>Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi
No, but....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-iy-9m9SU&feature=youtu.be...
Clearly even the smartest people can be get draw into this. The hidden signals, charisma and especially the intentional ambiguity work well. Of course Shaw was intellectually honest enough to change. As did everyone who survived that period, which apparently did not leave a permanent impression.
>Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase.
No, he makes no mention of race when talking about the daughter. And that talk has no connection to the ph...
How do you know it is referring to the human population?
> The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter.
Can you provide a timestamp for the usage of this phrase?
> he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding
People are affected by the environment in which they are raised, which can be passed on.
You seem to have this habit of believing the world is constrained by the extent of your knowledge, and seem unable to consider that your assessment of a situation may not be correct.
> I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.
Technically, you claimed the phrase refers to ethnic cleansing. You believing something doesn't make it true.
> It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument.
It wasn't my suggestion, it is what he says. You cannot produce a quote that demonstrates otherwise, all you have are claims with no evidence.
> At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.
"breed cleaning" is not used. If you disagree, provide a timestamp.
> But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing.
Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "hereditary cleansing"?
> So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.
Can you provide a timestamp of the usage of "eugenics"?
>> Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
> Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?
Perhaps sometimes, but not always. If you disagree, I am happy to consider any evidence or logical argument you provide.
>>> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.
>> Timestamp of this please.
> The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice. But is this indeed your claim?
Yes it is my claim, it is the most obvious meaning that requires a minimum usage of one's imagination.
Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your indoctrination claim?
Can you substantiate, with evidence (direct quotes, with timestamps), your "controlling her partners" claim?
For the record, I would like to explicitly point out that you didn't reply to my question about your "cleaning the whole gene pool" claim.
> That's why he chose the word.
How do you know this? Are you speculating, or do you believe this to be a fact?
> He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term.
A lack of choosing words to your liking proves nothing.
> You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.
He's not wearing a swastika.
> The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.
I've already provided links demonstrating significant usage of the term in a way other than the meaning you say it must be.
> And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.
No, but he defined the noun, which many people subsequently used in various different contexts. Molyneux is one of many people who've used it. You can arg...
That is really quite astonishing: here we have someone leveling the accusation of someone being a ~Nazi/white supremacist/eugenicist, an accusation up there with child molester, and asking for evidence to back up the accusation is so offensive that someone reports it. It makes me wonder what the mentality of HN is going to be a year or two from now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I doubt you have the time or any remaining patience to care, and I can hardly blame you, but I would like to point out what I think is an important point: while this discussion may seem like just another ideological disagreement, if you look at my participation in it I hope you could see that I was approaching it from an epistemological perspective, not (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150162) an ideological perspective.
I have a theory that a large percentage of seemingly ideological disagreements (same set of facts, but difference of opinion) are in fact rooted in epistemological problems of perception. This is why my counterpart was unable to provide evidence for what he (genuinely, and with good intentions) believed were facts.
My intentions were not malicious (I think this is observably plausible based on my words and tone, or at least I hope so) in the conversation - I wasn't trying to score a "win" for "my side", I was genuinely trying to see if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs. "Defending" Stefan Molyneux was probably not the wisest place to do such a thing, but it is almost always topics related to "-isms" where these sorts of cognitive behaviors manifest themselves, so it is almost always going to look "obviously stupid" to have chosen the specific subject when taking such experimental stands.
Personally, I wish more people would try (if no one ever does anything, how will the problem stop getting worse) to figure out what is going on with the increasing polarization of opinions between people and try to figure out a way to fix it. But at the end of the day, even if I am completely correct in this theory, perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it (although, among all the downvotes and flags, one person maintained objectivity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20148991), and expecting HN mods to tolerate the messiness is a bit much to ask.
So, my sincere apologies, I will try to refrain/minimize such behavior going forward. But at the same time, I think it is fair to point out that in such disagreements, it takes two to tango, and perhaps the person holding the popular but technically not-objectively-correct position might be deserving of a warning as well. To me, dishonesty is a much more toxic and harmful behavior than disagreement.
> if it is possible to get someone who believes something not-absolutely-factual to examine the foundation of those beliefs.
That's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on the internet, and you can do a lot of damage in the process—especially if the way you go about it isn't obviously distinguishable from simply arguing the opposite side.
True, and perhaps "common sense", but I think questioning common sense now and then isn't a bad idea.
My theory was, when you find yourself in a situation like this, if you remain cordial and repetitively bring the conversation back to the same question over and over, eventually it will be ~impossible for them to not realize what is happening. I now realize I executed poorly on this until the very end, where it may have suddenly become easily distinguishable that I wasn't just arguing and what was actually going on, but by then it was too late.
As always, I will work on improving my behavior, but my sense is that this general problem continues to grow, here and elsewhere. Censorship has an upper bound of effectiveness, something lower average quality communities are grappling with now. I worry that kicking the can down the road might ultimately not be a good idea.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
I honestly think that this article is more about trying to take down independent but huge following journalists/creators than it's about shining light on radicalization. This could be because of these independent creators are taking away too much of these huge media company/newspaper's profits.
Molyneux's response to the article.