4 ms·
Molyneux, precisely, does not advocate specifically for a white ethnostate where Spencer does. However, Molyneux doesn't oppose one on principle, which for most
by pingpongchef 6y ago
Molyneux, precisely, does not advocate specifically for a white ethnostate where Spencer does. However, Molyneux doesn't oppose one on principle, which for most is too close for comfort so he gets branded as one.
I understand for many that is evidence of guilt but logically speaking that's not the same thing.
- gh02t 6y agoThat's missing the forest for the trees... advocating for a "white ethnostate" is not the only thing that makes you a white supremacist and that's the real crux of the comparison. Making the distinction doesn't change the fact that he is rightfully lumped in with them on the basis of being a white supremacist. There is more nuance to Molyneux than David Duke, but he's made his views on the subject pretty clear.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe comment tree was about "white nationalism", which is definitely commonly understood to mean "wants a white ethnostate".
- gh02t 6y agoFair, but is the distinction actually important in this case? It seems to me to be more of a means of obfuscating/derailing the discussion of Molyneux's views.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI think precision is important in this context, because people have a bad habit of using terms like "white supremacist" as generic insults against any right-wing figure. Being imprecise diminishes the force of the arguments against Molyneux, who really has made explicit claims that white people are better than everyone else.
- pingpongchef 6y agoIt is important, because it implies Molyneux would take steps to build such a state, when he wouldn't on principle. Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist: he desires there to be no state at all.
- gh02t 6y agoIt just happens to be a convenient feature of said anarcho-capitalist society that he would be free to oppress non-whites. You're cherry picking one particular argument he makes without considering his other espoused beliefs.
- appleflaxen 6y agoIs it possible that Stefan Molyneux wants one, even though he doesn't actively advocate for it? Because everything I've heard from him suggests he would love one... which meets your definition squarely.
- henriquez 6y agoI listened to some of Molyneux podcasts awhile back. He seemed very gray area, borderline white nationalist, almost consciously ambiguous with just enough plausible deniability. It was a little too close for comfort and I took him off my list. That said, I don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with folks like Spencer and Duke. I don’t agree with Moleyneux’s viewpoints but think he articulates them well enough that he should be refuted, not scrubbed from existence.
- jacquesm 6y agoThe clever ones are the more dangerous ones. Plenty of people that will strike Spencer and Duke will be lulled to sleep by Molyneux but in the end the agenda is the same.
- henriquez 6y agoYou might be right but trying to censor stuff on the Internet tends to make it bigger in the long run. For an intellectual threat like Molyneux it would better to confront head on with “logic and facts” than pretend it doesn’t exist. Or on the flip side, if something he says makes you uncomfortable but you can’t explain why it’s wrong, then you need to step up your rhetoric game. One of the most effective tropes used by folks like Molyneux is “liberals are emotional and argue with feelings, not facts” - by freaking out and banning a highly articulate speaker like Molyneux the “libs” are only proving his point.
- jacquesm 6y agoI don't think that is true. Giving the fringe a platform makes it easier for like minded people to find each other and that allows them to create a nice little echo chamber where they can pretend their ideas and concepts are legit and backed up because 'many others feel the same way'. Free speech advocates believe that somehow everything that can be said should be allowed to be said but this does not - in my opinion at least - extend to each and every medium. Handing every moron a megaphone is not a good idea.
- throwanem 6y ago
- user982 6y ago> Molyneux, precisely, does not advocate specifically for a white ethnostate where Spencer does. "The devolution of the US from an Enlightenment Republic to a semi-banana republic is also silenced, since that has a lot to do with racial IQ demographics esp permanent low Hispanic IQ" What is the implied solution to this alleged problem?
- pingpongchef 6y agoI don't know if one is proposed. As a philosopher he takes it upon himself to best articulate a problem as best he can.
- glitcher 6y agoI've been watching the "Hate Thy Neighbor" series recently, and some common threads I am noticing among the individuals involved in hate groups include: - They rarely admit to being racist, usually strongly arguing that they are specifically not racist - Most of them have very strong preferences about the correct terminology to use in referring to them, as if their niche hate label of choice helps them avoid the stigmatization of the more common hate labels most of society finds unacceptable. Many of them really sound like career politicians the way they try to spin their position as not condoning hate or violence, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and quibble over which hate labels they prefer. So yes, very often what a group is not willing to oppose can be very telling about their true position, which is often never admitted to in any kind of straightforward manner.