4 ms·

"The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1181003746983043074 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyne

"The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1181003746983043074 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307... "If we had been allowed to talk about race and IQ, the invasion of Iraq would never have occurred, because no one would have been under the illusion that a Jeffersonian Republic was going to emerge from a population with an IQ in the 80s. Opposing science got >500k people killed." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1082489068741513217 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... EDIT: added a second quote

neonate 6y ago
Ugh. Those are awful.
- opnitro 6y ago
  Yup, he's bad folks
pingpongchef 6y ago
Your argument is incomplete. I don't dispute that he said those things but what do you claim is the similarity to Spencer or Duke?
- opnitro 6y ago
  Yeah, they're both very racist, to the level of supposing that that white society is inherently superior. The first quote implies a the existence of a conspiracy to lower white birthrates. The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ". These are definitionally white supremacist talking points. EDIT: spelling
  - nailer 6y ago
    Are they true or false though? > The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ" Most people who've investigated IQ between different populations find east asians to have the highest IQs, which would contravene the concept of white supremacy entirely. Maybe the science is bad - there's certainly some historical basis to that. On the other hands it seems strange that differences between populations somehow don't extend to the brain. But if it's true, then that reality is not good nor bad. It just /is/.
    - opnitro 6y ago
      A) going to disagree pretty hard there being a conspiracy to reduce white birthrates B) Pretty sure the Iraqi people could figure out how to run a just government. I think the history of Iraq being a colonial holding by much more powerful governments for a while has more to do with it. So yea, both claims are false. EDIT: Getting some downvotes and not a single reply providing an argument for either claim.
      - nailer 6y ago
        You disagreeing with an idea does not mean is is false, likewise you agreeing would not make it true. Edit / reply to opnitro due to rate limit: I am arguing that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether it causes offence. That should hopefully be very clear when reading the posts you're replying to.
        opnitro 6y ago
        You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court
        lliamander 6y ago
        I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning. Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class. On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
  - pingpongchef 6y ago
    Thank you for clarifying. However they don't prove your case, and I'll explain why. Arguing that a conspiracy exists to harm a group is not evidence that this group is superior. It simply does not follow. Yes, I can see how this view might be shared by white supremacists but it simply does not follow from this statement alone. And for the record, I myself don't find his argument compelling. The second statement goes deeper into Molyneux's thinking to an area where even I fear to tread. On this one I can concede that Molyneux establishes a link between IQ and what kind of gov't is possible in such a population. This _could_ be evidence of white supremacist thinking. Now let me provide some counter evidence. Could a white supremacist accept/promote a claim that other races have higher IQ than whites? I don't believe so, because that would imply that whites are not superior in one area and throw the whole ideology into confusion. Yet he does so in this tweet: https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/1169982485289164800?lang=en https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/116998248528916480... The rush to judgment on someone is part of what's causing so much discord in the US right now. Molyneux is no white supremacist, but he doesn't shield himself from their arguments either.
    - opnitro 6y ago
      "“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff." Yeah he's a white supremacist. White supremacy (and associated Fascism), tend to believe in contradictory narratives about their opponents.
      - pingpongchef 6y ago
        If white supremacists can believe contradictory ideas and still be white supremacists, then how are we to determine who is and isn't? By this logic there's no evidence you could give me to prove you're not a white supremacist since contradictions. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I hope you see how untenable such a line of thinking is. Also, I do understand the possibility that someone could claim to believe one thing and not actually believe it. It simply requires a higher burden of proof.
- bjoli 6y ago
  I am not here to do any defending of anyone, but as some people are able to defend themselves as (often rightfully) with "it was taken out of context". Yet every time I have heard anything with molyneux it has seemed to me exactly the opposite. Very few things taken out of context seem very bad. As a whole, on the other hand, I always got the impression he is bat-shit insane. Does he mention white genocide? I doubt it. Does he paint a picture of the world where white genocide is reality ? Well, I would say yes.
  - opnitro 6y ago
    I appreciate your point, but both of those tweets are bad even without context :)
    - bjoli 6y ago
      Yup. I am firmly in the camp believing that he is a hatemonger. I haven't seen the "white genocide is partly feminism's fault" before, but that pretty much sums up most of what I have heard him say outside of his fanaticism about IQ.

neonate 6y ago

Ugh. Those are awful.

opnitro 6y ago
Yup, he's bad folks

pingpongchef 6y ago

Your argument is incomplete. I don't dispute that he said those things but what do you claim is the similarity to Spencer or Duke?

opnitro 6y ago
Yeah, they're both very racist, to the level of supposing that that white society is inherently superior. The first quote implies a the existence of a conspiracy to lower white birthrates. The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ". These are definitionally white supremacist talking points. EDIT: spelling
- nailer 6y ago
  Are they true or false though? > The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ" Most people who've investigated IQ between different populations find east asians to have the highest IQs, which would contravene the concept of white supremacy entirely. Maybe the science is bad - there's certainly some historical basis to that. On the other hands it seems strange that differences between populations somehow don't extend to the brain. But if it's true, then that reality is not good nor bad. It just /is/.
  - opnitro 6y ago
    A) going to disagree pretty hard there being a conspiracy to reduce white birthrates B) Pretty sure the Iraqi people could figure out how to run a just government. I think the history of Iraq being a colonial holding by much more powerful governments for a while has more to do with it. So yea, both claims are false. EDIT: Getting some downvotes and not a single reply providing an argument for either claim.
    - nailer 6y ago
      You disagreeing with an idea does not mean is is false, likewise you agreeing would not make it true. Edit / reply to opnitro due to rate limit: I am arguing that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether it causes offence. That should hopefully be very clear when reading the posts you're replying to.
      - opnitro 6y ago
        You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court
        lliamander 6y ago
        I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning. Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class. On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
- pingpongchef 6y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. However they don't prove your case, and I'll explain why. Arguing that a conspiracy exists to harm a group is not evidence that this group is superior. It simply does not follow. Yes, I can see how this view might be shared by white supremacists but it simply does not follow from this statement alone. And for the record, I myself don't find his argument compelling. The second statement goes deeper into Molyneux's thinking to an area where even I fear to tread. On this one I can concede that Molyneux establishes a link between IQ and what kind of gov't is possible in such a population. This _could_ be evidence of white supremacist thinking. Now let me provide some counter evidence. Could a white supremacist accept/promote a claim that other races have higher IQ than whites? I don't believe so, because that would imply that whites are not superior in one area and throw the whole ideology into confusion. Yet he does so in this tweet: https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/1169982485289164800?lang=en https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/116998248528916480... The rush to judgment on someone is part of what's causing so much discord in the US right now. Molyneux is no white supremacist, but he doesn't shield himself from their arguments either.
  - opnitro 6y ago
    "“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff." Yeah he's a white supremacist. White supremacy (and associated Fascism), tend to believe in contradictory narratives about their opponents.
    - pingpongchef 6y ago
      If white supremacists can believe contradictory ideas and still be white supremacists, then how are we to determine who is and isn't? By this logic there's no evidence you could give me to prove you're not a white supremacist since contradictions. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I hope you see how untenable such a line of thinking is. Also, I do understand the possibility that someone could claim to believe one thing and not actually believe it. It simply requires a higher burden of proof.
bjoli 6y ago
I am not here to do any defending of anyone, but as some people are able to defend themselves as (often rightfully) with "it was taken out of context". Yet every time I have heard anything with molyneux it has seemed to me exactly the opposite. Very few things taken out of context seem very bad. As a whole, on the other hand, I always got the impression he is bat-shit insane. Does he mention white genocide? I doubt it. Does he paint a picture of the world where white genocide is reality ? Well, I would say yes.
- opnitro 6y ago
  I appreciate your point, but both of those tweets are bad even without context :)
  - bjoli 6y ago
    Yup. I am firmly in the camp believing that he is a hatemonger. I haven't seen the "white genocide is partly feminism's fault" before, but that pretty much sums up most of what I have heard him say outside of his fanaticism about IQ.