3 ms·
That'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
by gh02t 6y ago
That'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.