4 ms·

He's always been pretty awful and white-supremacist-adjacent.

nailer 6y ago
This "adjacent" concept has no meaning. Paraphrasing a point I made on Twitter recently: - Richard Spencer: evil. Created 'alt right' movement. - Ben Shapiro: called 'alt right' because he's right wing - Joe Rogan: called 'alt right' because he talked to Ben - Bernie Sanders supporters: called 'alt right' because Joe endorsed Bernie. Ergo: by this logic Karl Marx could be considered 'alt right' Molyneaux might be awful, he might be fine. But the argument one way or the other must be made on his own merits, not those around him. ---- Edit: Replying to dralley due to rate limit:" I have included an example where there are four links. But 'adjacent' is a plainly silly idea if there is only one link. If 'adjacent' being silly isn't already obvious, you may be very left wing (since 'adjacent' seems to be a popular argument on the left). So consider: former KKK member Robert Byrd is in a photo being friendly with Hillary Clinton [1]. Is Hillary Clinton alt-right adjacent? Plainly Hillary Clinton is not alt-right adjacent. That argument would be absurd to make. Guilt by association is evil. To determine whether Stefan Molyneux's ideas are good or bad, we should consider Stefan Molyneux's ideas. Not anyone else's. You've included a video of Stefan Molyneux speaking. That's good - we can find out what he has to say for himself. What someone else has to say is irrelevant. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
- absurdturd 6y ago
  He didn't "talk" to Ben, he broadcast Ben's ideas to millions of listeners (the majority of which happen to be white).
  - toxik 6y ago
    Joe Rogan is now alt right? That is a quixotic ambition. Let the fools make fools of themselves. When there are stupid ideas proposed in the podcast, I just laugh at it or talk to somebody about it. As an example, I listened to one of those white supremacy former academics, can’t remember who, and he quips midway through the lecture that Western society developed faster because... we are unique in having a sense of shame. I kid you not. It doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to detect bullshit. Rogan talks to interesting guests all the time, if you label him adversarial, you will have rejected a lot of people.
    - absurdturd 6y ago
      Didn't say he was alt right, but he doesn't use his massive platform responsibly. There's a difference between interviewing a presidential candidate and interviewing a white supremacist.
      - nailer 6y ago
        Are you saying Joe interviewed a white supremacist? Who?
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
    What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.
    - absurdturd 6y ago
      I mean there's the problem right there — you're talking about Bernie Sanders and Ben Shapiro as if they're two people equally deserving of equal space on an enormous platform of listeners.
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
        Well yes.. I don't see why not. He brings a lot of different crowd, I'm not an American so I don't care about your childish bipartisan politics, but him talking to candidates gave me a better overview than watching 48h of your news channels.
      - logarhythmic 6y ago
        Why are they not? Ben Shapiro is literally a standard conservative talking head who only now is seen as controversial because American politics is insane. And I'm pretty sure it's Rogan's choice who he wants to talk to. Policing that ruins the entire appeal of the podcast and just turns it into exactly what people were trying to get away from, i.e. heavily produced and filtered content on mainstream television such as late night talk shows or whatever
- dralley 6y ago
  You act like the chain is like 6 links long - it is not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ6BZzQeCQ&t=14m01s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ6BZzQeCQ&t=14m01s Jarod Taylor is very clearly a white supremacist, or as he calls himself, a "racialist". That's one link. Also about 2 minutes after the timestamp in that clip, Stefan basically admits to being a white nationalist himself, anyway.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  Molyneaux: The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates.
- swivelmaster 6y ago
  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Extremes https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
  - nailer 6y ago
    No. All the examples except the Karl Marx one are ridiculous, yet you can find ample evidence of them all via Twitter. Is there a logical fallacy for 'adjacent?' It probably falls under straw man but it might have a specific name.

This "adjacent" concept has no meaning. Paraphrasing a point I made on Twitter recently: - Richard Spencer: evil. Created 'alt right' movement. - Ben Shapiro: called 'alt right' because he's right wing - Joe Rogan: called 'alt right' because he talked to Ben - Bernie Sanders supporters: called 'alt right' because Joe endorsed Bernie. Ergo: by this logic Karl Marx could be considered 'alt right' Molyneaux might be awful, he might be fine. But the argument one way or the other must be made on his own merits, not those around him. ---- Edit: Replying to dralley due to rate limit:" I have included an example where there are four links. But 'adjacent' is a plainly silly idea if there is only one link. If 'adjacent' being silly isn't already obvious, you may be very left wing (since 'adjacent' seems to be a popular argument on the left). So consider: former KKK member Robert Byrd is in a photo being friendly with Hillary Clinton [1]. Is Hillary Clinton alt-right adjacent? Plainly Hillary Clinton is not alt-right adjacent. That argument would be absurd to make. Guilt by association is evil. To determine whether Stefan Molyneux's ideas are good or bad, we should consider Stefan Molyneux's ideas. Not anyone else's. You've included a video of Stefan Molyneux speaking. That's good - we can find out what he has to say for himself. What someone else has to say is irrelevant. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

absurdturd 6y ago
He didn't "talk" to Ben, he broadcast Ben's ideas to millions of listeners (the majority of which happen to be white).
- toxik 6y ago
  Joe Rogan is now alt right? That is a quixotic ambition. Let the fools make fools of themselves. When there are stupid ideas proposed in the podcast, I just laugh at it or talk to somebody about it. As an example, I listened to one of those white supremacy former academics, can’t remember who, and he quips midway through the lecture that Western society developed faster because... we are unique in having a sense of shame. I kid you not. It doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to detect bullshit. Rogan talks to interesting guests all the time, if you label him adversarial, you will have rejected a lot of people.
  - absurdturd 6y ago
    Didn't say he was alt right, but he doesn't use his massive platform responsibly. There's a difference between interviewing a presidential candidate and interviewing a white supremacist.
    - nailer 6y ago
      Are you saying Joe interviewed a white supremacist? Who?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.
  - absurdturd 6y ago
    I mean there's the problem right there — you're talking about Bernie Sanders and Ben Shapiro as if they're two people equally deserving of equal space on an enormous platform of listeners.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
      Well yes.. I don't see why not. He brings a lot of different crowd, I'm not an American so I don't care about your childish bipartisan politics, but him talking to candidates gave me a better overview than watching 48h of your news channels.
    - logarhythmic 6y ago
      Why are they not? Ben Shapiro is literally a standard conservative talking head who only now is seen as controversial because American politics is insane. And I'm pretty sure it's Rogan's choice who he wants to talk to. Policing that ruins the entire appeal of the podcast and just turns it into exactly what people were trying to get away from, i.e. heavily produced and filtered content on mainstream television such as late night talk shows or whatever
dralley 6y ago
You act like the chain is like 6 links long - it is not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ6BZzQeCQ&t=14m01s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ6BZzQeCQ&t=14m01s Jarod Taylor is very clearly a white supremacist, or as he calls himself, a "racialist". That's one link. Also about 2 minutes after the timestamp in that clip, Stefan basically admits to being a white nationalist himself, anyway.
CJefferson 6y ago
Molyneaux: The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates.
swivelmaster 6y ago
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Extremes https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
- nailer 6y ago
  No. All the examples except the Karl Marx one are ridiculous, yet you can find ample evidence of them all via Twitter. Is there a logical fallacy for 'adjacent?' It probably falls under straw man but it might have a specific name.