5 ms·

>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 talki

>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.

mistermann 7y ago
> Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? 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 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 where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it. Timestamp of this please. > 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") Obviously? Not just likely, but literally impossible that he could have intended another meaning? Literally no other historic meanings or noteworthy occurences of the word "superman/men"? https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche, particularly in Also sprach Zarathustra (1883–85), although it had been employed by J.W. von Goethe and others. This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth. Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal was a “Caesar with Christ’s soul.” George Bernard Shaw popularized the term “superman” in his play Man and Superman (1903). https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concept-theory.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concep... Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman How about David Bowie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen > Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence... Clearly. > a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. 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, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned. PS: I had a few questions in this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204) post as well - just a friendly reminder, don't mean to rush you.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  >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. >Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi No, but.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-iy-9m9SU&feature=youtu.be&t=43 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 phase in question anyway. >No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned. A cartoon frog now inevitably refers to a hated minority. So absolutely yes, he is indirectly referring to some hated ethnic group(s) without naming them. Yes, most likely non-whites. And "cleaning the gene pool" is far more established in it's meaning then some 4chan meme. > ...Not just likely, but literally impossible.. The most likely interpretation of an event is the one most reasonable to believe. Deprecating it in favor of something that is less likely is the very definition of bias. After all, it's possible I'm a brain in a vat. But it's unreasonable to seriously entertain the idea.

mistermann 7y ago

> Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? 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 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 where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it. Timestamp of this please. > 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") Obviously? Not just likely, but literally impossible that he could have intended another meaning? Literally no other historic meanings or noteworthy occurences of the word "superman/men"? https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche, particularly in Also sprach Zarathustra (1883–85), although it had been employed by J.W. von Goethe and others. This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth. Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal was a “Caesar with Christ’s soul.” George Bernard Shaw popularized the term “superman” in his play Man and Superman (1903). https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concept-theory.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concep... Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman How about David Bowie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen > Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence... Clearly. > a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. 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, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned. PS: I had a few questions in this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204) post as well - just a friendly reminder, don't mean to rush you.

TomMckenny 7y ago
>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. >Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi No, but.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-iy-9m9SU&feature=youtu.be&t=43 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 phase in question anyway. >No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned. A cartoon frog now inevitably refers to a hated minority. So absolutely yes, he is indirectly referring to some hated ethnic group(s) without naming them. Yes, most likely non-whites. And "cleaning the gene pool" is far more established in it's meaning then some 4chan meme. > ...Not just likely, but literally impossible.. The most likely interpretation of an event is the one most reasonable to believe. Deprecating it in favor of something that is less likely is the very definition of bias. After all, it's possible I'm a brain in a vat. But it's unreasonable to seriously entertain the idea.