Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events, politics and economics.
Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:45 am

Stefan Molyneux, one of the most prominent conservative voices in the history of the internet, has been banned from YouTube, along with David Duke and Richard Spencer, for alleged hate speech:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/30/yout ... -molyneux/

Does Stefan deserve to be lumped in with these outright white supremacists?

It seems anyone who says that Democrats want unrestricted Latin American immigration to increase their voter base or that unrestricted immigration of Muslim refugees in European countries has led to an uptick in rapes will get banned by the big tech companies, regardless of whether their claims can be backed up by legitimate news sources and statistics.

Whether you like Stefan or not, this censorship of conservative voices is distressing. I didn't always agree with Stefan, but at least he was an independent thinker who cited sources in his videos. The left already dominates mainstream media and college campuses, and conservatives might not have a voice online for much longer either.

If big tech companies are going to curate content along ideological lines, then they need to be honest and call themselves editorial outlets. If YouTube and Facebook, which are effectively monopolies, were treated as public utilities like the phone company, they would need to be as politically neutral as possible when censoring content. If these big tech companies don't want to play fair, they might ultimately be subjected to antitrust lawsuits or similar legal action.

Stefan Molyneux has always been an advocate of nonviolence. I don't know of him ever saying or doing anything that posed a legitimate threat to anyone, though he was definitely not a fan of political correctness.
Last edited by Presto Kensho on Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jason
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 am

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:12 am

....

Um, I'd say that he's definitely a white supremacist in the vein of Jared Taylor. I mean, how else is one supposed to view his statements that black people are less intelligent that white people and implications that they're a separate species? And just because he's more articulate and coy about his views doesn't mean he's exempt from private platforms' rules and policies prohibiting certain kinds of content.

But even if you honestly think his race realism philosophy doesn't live within the realm of white supremacy, what I find more interesting here is how you seem to want to make private companies act the way you want and share the kind of content that you want, treating them like "public utilities." But isn't that what conservatives complain leftists want to do? Doesn't that infringe upon their private property rights and freedom to do what they want with that property? Personally, I think companies like FB and Amazon should be nationalized, and agree with them being treated more as public utilities than private entities as they've become things most of us depend on. But I suspect you'd disagree with this, and I can only assume you're upset that these kinds of people are finally experiencing the vipaka of their dosa-influenced kamma.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:45 am

Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:12 am
....

Um, I'd say that he's definitely a white supremacist in the vein of Jared Taylor. I mean, how else is one supposed to view his statements that black people are less intelligent that white people and implications that they're a separate species? And just because he's more articulate and coy about his views doesn't mean he's exempt from private platforms' rules and policies prohibiting certain kinds of content.

But even if you honestly think his race realism philosophy doesn't live within the realm of white supremacy, what I find more interesting here is how you seem to want to make private companies act the way you want and share the kind of content that you want, treating them like "public utilities." But isn't that what conservatives complain leftists want to do? Doesn't that infringe upon their private property rights and freedom to do what they want with that property? Personally, I think companies like FB and Amazon should be nationalized, and agree with them being treated more as public utilities than private entities as they've become things most of us depend on. But I suspect you'd disagree with this, and I can only assume you're upset that these kinds of people are finally experiencing the vipaka of their dosa-influenced kamma.
There's a law in the United States from the late 90s, which if applied to the big tech companies, would require them to identify themselves as editorial outlets for censoring content for ideological reasons. If they are not going to be honest about their political bias, they should be sued.

The law protects these companies from being legally responsible for the content posted by users, just like how phone companies aren't held liable if their phone lines are used in the commitment of a crime. These legal protections would no longer apply if YouTube and Facebook selectively enforce their terms of service along ideological lines.

I believe there's a world of difference between Stefan Molyneux saying that we shouldn't have affirmative action after reading the Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein
and Charles Murray, which analyzes IQ differences between races, and white supremacists who incite violence and deny the Holocaust.

Stefan wanted the least state intervention in society as possible, because he saw it as organized violence, and therefore questioned the rationale behind affirmative action policies, which can't be enforced except by the state. I don't know if he literally said that races are different species or if he's being misquoted.

Stefan also pointed out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests than whites, but I haven't heard anyone call him a Jewish or Asian supremacist.

Dan74
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Dan74 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:00 am

The problem with the IQ discussion is that it is most of the time just a fig leaf for white supremacist thinking. There may well be statistically significant differences between ethnic groups. The real question is what exactly does that imply? What purpose does this knowledge serve?

For individuals or small companies, absolutely none, I would say, because the variability implies that the information this conveys (if any?) is not applicable. For governments and large companies, maybe some, but given some very serious issues with IQ, say, as a measure of intelligence, again, very limited useful information, if any.

I guess some people make a living out of dog-whistling to the forces that lie beyond the pale while maintaining the pretence of respectability. YouTube decided to pull the plug on one such. Whether it's You Tube's call to do that, well.. yeah tech giants have an inordinate amount of power over our discourse, for sure, and that is a concern. I won't miss this particular contributor though..

Jason
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 am

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:17 pm

Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:45 am
Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:12 am
....

Um, I'd say that he's definitely a white supremacist in the vein of Jared Taylor. I mean, how else is one supposed to view his statements that black people are less intelligent that white people and implications that they're a separate species? And just because he's more articulate and coy about his views doesn't mean he's exempt from private platforms' rules and policies prohibiting certain kinds of content.

But even if you honestly think his race realism philosophy doesn't live within the realm of white supremacy, what I find more interesting here is how you seem to want to make private companies act the way you want and share the kind of content that you want, treating them like "public utilities." But isn't that what conservatives complain leftists want to do? Doesn't that infringe upon their private property rights and freedom to do what they want with that property? Personally, I think companies like FB and Amazon should be nationalized, and agree with them being treated more as public utilities than private entities as they've become things most of us depend on. But I suspect you'd disagree with this, and I can only assume you're upset that these kinds of people are finally experiencing the vipaka of their dosa-influenced kamma.
There's a law in the United States from the late 90s, which if applied to the big tech companies, would require them to identify themselves as editorial outlets for censoring content for ideological reasons. If they are not going to be honest about their political bias, they should be sued.

The law protects these companies from being legally responsible for the content posted by users, just like how phone companies aren't held liable if their phone lines are used in the commitment of a crime. These legal protections would no longer apply if YouTube and Facebook selectively enforce their terms of service along ideological lines.

I believe there's a world of difference between Stefan Molyneux saying that we shouldn't have affirmative action after reading the Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein
and Charles Murray, which analyzes IQ differences between races, and white supremacists who incite violence and deny the Holocaust.

Stefan wanted the least state intervention in society as possible, because he saw it as organized violence, and therefore questioned the rationale behind affirmative action policies, which can't be enforced except by the state. I don't know if he literally said that races are different species or if he's being misquoted.

Stefan also pointed out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests than whites, but I haven't heard anyone call him a Jewish or Asian supremacist.
While I too want less state intervention, preferring to decentralize a great deal of state power to states, communities, and workplace councils, that's very different from targeting certain races for their intelligence and culture. He's very careful about what he says so as to make it difficult to have a single statement with which one can say, "See, he's a white supremacist and sexist." But the evidence is there. I mention Jared Taylor, a long time white supremacist and godfather of the alt-right, because he's also a "philosopher" and similar in the way he discusses these things, even pointing out how North Asians have higher testing IQs than white ("See, I can't be racist because I say that North Asians score higher on IQ tests"), while promoting his ethno nationalism and white supremacy. (For anyone unfamiliar, look him up or watch the Netflix doc Alt-Right: Age of Rage). In fact, these two even had what they called "an honest discussion of race," which basically just tries to show how egalitarianism is bullshit by taking statistics out of context to support their conclusion that black people are naturally more violent and less intelligent than whites (i.e., that racism and poverty aren't real things and there's "something self-destructive in black culture" and that "there's something biologically different between the races"). They try to make it out that addressing things like racism in our society just makes them more infantile and doesn't help them and that we just need to open our eyes to our racial differences and ignore the last 400 years of history of black people and the things they've had to overcome each generation by another group of people and a government that stole them from their land, treated them like animals and used them as slaves, constructed a racist narrative about them to justify it that poisons people's minds to this day, criminalized and vilified their skin colour, and once they were finally freed, turned around to segregate them, lynch them, prevent them from getting loans or homes in certain areas, and constructed laws that disproportionately affected them, courts that disproportionately sentence them, and a police force that obviously targets them for attention and the use of violence to this very day. They are certainly both articulate and well-spoken and capable of making good arguments on what I'd say is bad evidence. If that's your thing and you are swayed by those kind of arguments, that's your right. Free speech means you can think and say what you what, just not on any private platform you choose. And it's clearly white supremacy they promote.
Last edited by Jason on Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jason
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 am

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:21 pm

They also talk a lot about the lower intelligence of latinx/hispanics and how they're invading our country and it's disgusting to me.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:12 pm

Dan74 wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:00 am
The problem with the IQ discussion is that it is most of the time just a fig leaf for white supremacist thinking. There may well be statistically significant differences between ethnic groups. The real question is what exactly does that imply? What purpose does this knowledge serve?

For individuals or small companies, absolutely none, I would say, because the variability implies that the information this conveys (if any?) is not applicable. For governments and large companies, maybe some, but given some very serious issues with IQ, say, as a measure of intelligence, again, very limited useful information, if any.

I guess some people make a living out of dog-whistling to the forces that lie beyond the pale while maintaining the pretence of respectability. YouTube decided to pull the plug on one such. Whether it's You Tube's call to do that, well.. yeah tech giants have an inordinate amount of power over our discourse, for sure, and that is a concern. I won't miss this particular contributor though..
I don't have a dog in this IQ difference fight, other than I believe Stefan's right to free speech, however objectionable to some, may have been violated.

How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?

Conservatives traditionally oppose affirmative action anyway, especially since it goes against the original intent of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. John Kennedy, for example, specifically said that civil rights legislation should not include racial quotas.

Based on how often Stefan had people of color on his show and how often he praised conservatives of color, I would rather not believe he's racist. On his show, he appeared to treat people of all races equally.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:24 pm

Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:21 pm
They also talk a lot about the lower intelligence of latinx/hispanics and how they're invading our country and it's disgusting to me.
I don't agree with everything Stefan ever said or did. At the same time, I believe the terms of service on social media sites are selectively enforced. When Muslim extremists and leftists post hate speech, I don't believe they are treated the same as when conservatives are accused of it.

Also, it's not inherently racist or hateful to point out that unrestricted immigration from Latin American countries might not be the best idea if, statistically, they have lower IQs than other races. Shouldn't policy decisions be at least somewhat based in science, regardless of how politically correct that might be?

Most conservatives want immigration from other countries of their most bright and productive people, regardless of their skin color, because that would enrich our society. It's unrestricted immigration that conservatives oppose.

Jason
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 am

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:25 pm

Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:12 pm
I don't have a dog in this IQ difference fight, other than I believe Stefan's right to free speech, however objectionable to some, may have been violated.

How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?
It seems to me that you have two main options. The first is to educate yourself on how/why the things that they say and promote are considered by many to be racist. The second is to continue to play the role of uninformed devil's advocate while continuing to bring up these divisive figures and their claims of genetic racial differences and natural superiority/inferiority.

I'd personally find it sad and upsetting if these are the kind of intellectual role models you want to adopt and promote, especially on a Buddhist website. But it is your right to do so. But I'm not going waste my time with them any further.

Jason
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 am

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:26 pm

Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:24 pm
Also, it's not inherently racist or hateful to point out that unrestricted immigration from Latin American countries might not be the best idea if, statistically, they have lower IQs than other races.
lol Are you just trolling, or do you honestly not see how this is like the textbook definition of racist?

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:31 pm

Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:25 pm
Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:12 pm
I don't have a dog in this IQ difference fight, other than I believe Stefan's right to free speech, however objectionable to some, may have been violated.

How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?
It seems to me that you have two main options. The first is to educate yourself on how/why the things that they say and promote are considered by many to be racist. The second is to continue to play the role of uninformed devil's advocate while continuing to bring up these divisive figures and their claims of genetic racial differences and natural superiority/inferiority.

I'd personally find it sad and upsetting if these are the kind of intellectual role models you want to adopt and promote, especially on a Buddhist website. But it is your right to do so. But I'm not going waste my time with them any further.
Stefan Molyneux is not my role model and I don't agree with everything he said or did.

I just believe that his free speech has been violated. I understand that social media sites are private companies, but conservatives have good reason to believe that their terms of service are selectively enforced.

What is wrong with, as a white person, acknowledging that, statistically, an Ashkenazi Jew or Asian person might have a higher IQ? Many Asian people today are protesting affirmative action policies for unfairly discriminating against Asian people.

Dan74
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Dan74 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:34 pm

Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:12 pm
Dan74 wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:00 am
The problem with the IQ discussion is that it is most of the time just a fig leaf for white supremacist thinking. There may well be statistically significant differences between ethnic groups. The real question is what exactly does that imply? What purpose does this knowledge serve?

For individuals or small companies, absolutely none, I would say, because the variability implies that the information this conveys (if any?) is not applicable. For governments and large companies, maybe some, but given some very serious issues with IQ, say, as a measure of intelligence, again, very limited useful information, if any.

I guess some people make a living out of dog-whistling to the forces that lie beyond the pale while maintaining the pretence of respectability. YouTube decided to pull the plug on one such. Whether it's You Tube's call to do that, well.. yeah tech giants have an inordinate amount of power over our discourse, for sure, and that is a concern. I won't miss this particular contributor though..
I don't have a dog in this IQ difference fight, other than I believe Stefan's right to free speech, however objectionable to some, may have been violated.
YouTube is a private firm and as such can choose who participates on it or doesn't. If I am denied an opportunity to speak at a Tea Party rally I wouldn't be accusing them of violating my right to free speech. The difference is of course that you tube has a huge steak in what people around the world see. Like I said, governments can break up these tech giants or do something else to end their stranglehold on the internet media. But it is not a freedom of speech issue.
How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?
There are two issues here

1. What exactly is the relevance of IQ to college admission?
2. Even if it is relevant, if we factor in socio-economic background, which is believed to be the major factor in the difference in scores, is it still relevant?

Conservatives traditionally oppose affirmative action anyway, especially since it goes against the original intent of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. John Kennedy, for example, specifically said that civil rights legislation should not include racial quotas.
Sorry if I am stating the obvious, but positive discrimination aims at redressing entrenched disadvantage and inequality. If you don't believe that centuries of oppression, discrimination and poverty make it less likely that one succeeds on even terms, then I guess we don't really have a basis for discussion there. But if you do, then it makes sense to make it a little easier for someone who's had to battle much tougher odds than everybody else.
Based on how often Stefan had people of color on his show and how often he praised conservatives of color, I would rather not believe he's racist. On his show, he appeared to treat people of all races equally.
That's sort of the oldest trick in the book and why he's occupied this semi-respectable niche of not really being an out-and-proud white supremacist but pushed the same agenda.

Bundokji
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Bundokji » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:43 pm

The banning of those individuals does not make YouTube only biased against western conservatives, but culturally biased as well.

For those who might not know, there are plenty of videos on YouTube that belongs to other cultures and languages of which if the content was to be translated, it would be considered racist using the same standards they used to ban those individuals. But as long as you are not a westerner, no one really cares.

This bias against western racism can be possibly driven by fear that it can be more persuasive than other forms of racism, a sort of love-hate relationship.
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:59 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:43 pm
The banning of those individuals does not make YouTube only biased against western conservatives, but culturally biased as well.

For those who might not know, there are plenty of videos on YouTube that belongs to other cultures and languages of which if the content was to be translated, it would be considered racist using the same standards they used to ban those individuals. But as long as you are not a westerner, no one really cares.

This bias against western racism can be possibly driven by fear that it can be more persuasive than other forms of racism, a sort of love-hate relationship.
I agree. If the terms of service of social media sites are selectively enforced against white conservatives, that itself is discrimination.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:20 pm
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:46 pm

Presto Kensho wrote: How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?
Do you think that IQ, and other such tests, should be the only, or the most important, factor in selecting people for admission to university programmes or various jobs? If you want to study for a PhD in Mathematics (hi Dan :tongue:) then probably, but for roles such as medicine it's not clear that IQ and academic skills is an overwhelming factor, and medical schools here (and presumably elsewhere) use a much broader range of criteria, including making sure there will be practitioners who can usefully interact with patients of varied backgrounds.

:heart:
Mike
Last edited by DNS on Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quotes

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:15 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:46 pm
Presto Kensho wrote: How is it racist for a white person to point out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score the highest in IQ tests, and that racial quotas (affirmative action) in college admissions and hiring ignore this reality?
Do you think that IQ, and other such tests, should be the only, or the most important, factor in selecting people for admission to university programmes or various jobs? If you want to study for a PhD in Mathematics (hi Dan :tongue:) then probably, but for roles such as medicine it's not clear that IQ and academic skills is an overwhelming factor, and medical schools here (and presumably elsewhere) use a much broader range of criteria, including making sure there will be practitioners who can usefully interact with patients of varied backgrounds.

:heart:
Mike
No, of course not, but I don't believe that racial quotas should be a consideration either. The purpose of looking at race and IQ is to discredit affirmative action and similar policies.

I don't want to get lost in the weeds of race and IQ. Let's allow the social scientists to do their jobs and form whatever conclusions are best supported by the available evidence.

What matters here is whether or not Stefan's free speech was violated, especially since he made no incitement or threat of violence, as far as I know.

I know that YouTube is a private company, but if its terms of service are selectively applied on ideological lines, that could subject the company to lawsuits. Equal protection under the law should apply to both liberals and conservatives.

It's just like how Evangelical Christian bakers are compelled under the law to bake cakes for gay weddings. If YouTube is going to provide a service to the general public, it needs to be provided equally regardless of religious or political bias.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:25 pm

Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:17 pm
Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:45 am
Jason wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:12 am
....

Um, I'd say that he's definitely a white supremacist in the vein of Jared Taylor. I mean, how else is one supposed to view his statements that black people are less intelligent that white people and implications that they're a separate species? And just because he's more articulate and coy about his views doesn't mean he's exempt from private platforms' rules and policies prohibiting certain kinds of content.

But even if you honestly think his race realism philosophy doesn't live within the realm of white supremacy, what I find more interesting here is how you seem to want to make private companies act the way you want and share the kind of content that you want, treating them like "public utilities." But isn't that what conservatives complain leftists want to do? Doesn't that infringe upon their private property rights and freedom to do what they want with that property? Personally, I think companies like FB and Amazon should be nationalized, and agree with them being treated more as public utilities than private entities as they've become things most of us depend on. But I suspect you'd disagree with this, and I can only assume you're upset that these kinds of people are finally experiencing the vipaka of their dosa-influenced kamma.
There's a law in the United States from the late 90s, which if applied to the big tech companies, would require them to identify themselves as editorial outlets for censoring content for ideological reasons. If they are not going to be honest about their political bias, they should be sued.

The law protects these companies from being legally responsible for the content posted by users, just like how phone companies aren't held liable if their phone lines are used in the commitment of a crime. These legal protections would no longer apply if YouTube and Facebook selectively enforce their terms of service along ideological lines.

I believe there's a world of difference between Stefan Molyneux saying that we shouldn't have affirmative action after reading the Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein
and Charles Murray, which analyzes IQ differences between races, and white supremacists who incite violence and deny the Holocaust.

Stefan wanted the least state intervention in society as possible, because he saw it as organized violence, and therefore questioned the rationale behind affirmative action policies, which can't be enforced except by the state. I don't know if he literally said that races are different species or if he's being misquoted.

Stefan also pointed out that, statistically, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests than whites, but I haven't heard anyone call him a Jewish or Asian supremacist.
While I too want less state intervention, preferring to decentralize a great deal of state power to states, communities, and workplace councils, that's very different from targeting certain races for their intelligence and culture. He's very careful about what he says so as to make it difficult to have a single statement with which one can say, "See, he's a white supremacist and sexist." But the evidence is there. I mention Jared Taylor, a long time white supremacist and godfather of the alt-right, because he's also a "philosopher" and similar in the way he discusses these things, even pointing out how North Asians have higher testing IQs than white ("See, I can't be racist because I say that North Asians score higher on IQ tests"), while promoting his ethno nationalism and white supremacy. (For anyone unfamiliar, look him up or watch the Netflix doc Alt-Right: Age of Rage). In fact, these two even had what they called "an honest discussion of race," which basically just tries to show how egalitarianism is bullshit by taking statistics out of context to support their conclusion that black people are naturally more violent and less intelligent than whites (i.e., that racism and poverty aren't real things and there's "something self-destructive in black culture" and that "there's something biologically different between the races"). They try to make it out that addressing things like racism in our society just makes them more infantile and doesn't help them and that we just need to open our eyes to our racial differences and ignore the last 400 years of history of black people and the things they've had to overcome each generation by another group of people and a government that stole them from their land, treated them like animals and used them as slaves, constructed a racist narrative about them to justify it that poisons people's minds to this day, criminalized and vilified their skin colour, and once they were finally freed, turned around to segregate them, lynch them, prevent them from getting loans or homes in certain areas, and constructed laws that disproportionately affected them, courts that disproportionately sentence them, and a police force that obviously targets them for attention and the use of violence to this very day. They are certainly both articulate and well-spoken and capable of making good arguments on what I'd say is bad evidence. If that's your thing and you are swayed by those kind of arguments, that's your right. Free speech means you can think and say what you what, just not on any private platform you choose. And it's clearly white supremacy they promote.
I don't like Jared Taylor and I wish he wasn't on Stefan's show. Charles Murray may have been a better choice of guest. Sam Harris recently interviewed Charles Murray to discuss race and IQ, and I don't know of Sam Harris getting banned from YouTube.

Nonetheless, what matters here is whether or not big tech companies are selectively applying their terms of service along ideological lines, which violates the principle of equal protection under the law.

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:08 am

If Stefan Molyneux gets banned from YouTube, after apparently never threatening anyone with harm, it would not surprise me if an Orthodox Jew like Ben Shapiro gets banned too, simply for having a conservative opinion on racial matters. At what point does the censorship cross the line?

By today's standards, Frederick Douglas may have been a conservative, because he believed that blacks and whites deserve equality under the law rather than equality of outcome. Leftists today, more often than not, don't understand the difference between the two.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 765
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:49 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by DNS » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:23 am

Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:25 pm
Nonetheless, what matters here is whether or not big tech companies are selectively applying their terms of service along ideological lines, which violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
That might be something for the Courts to sort out, it's complicated because youtube and other social media outlet are private companies and are allowed to have their own terms of service, just as discussion forums do. I don't think the equal protection clause protects hate groups, but then the issue becomes which person(s) or groups are labeled as hate groups?

I don't know much about Stefan Molyneux, but it appears he has been associated with white supremacist views and individuals and groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

Presto Kensho
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:52 pm

Re: Stefan Molyneux Banned on YouTube

Post by Presto Kensho » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:32 am

DNS wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:23 am
Presto Kensho wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:25 pm
Nonetheless, what matters here is whether or not big tech companies are selectively applying their terms of service along ideological lines, which violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
That might be something for the Courts to sort out, it's complicated because youtube and other social media outlet are private companies and are allowed to have their own terms of service, just as discussion forums do. I don't think the equal protection clause protects hate groups, but then the issue becomes which person(s) or groups are labeled as hate groups?

I don't know much about Stefan Molyneux, but it appears he has been associated with white supremacist views and individuals and groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
When accused of white supremacy, Stefan has pointed out that Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests than whites. I don't believe that prominent conservatives of color like Dinesh D'Souza would appear on his show if he were an outright white supremacist.

In that particular interview, by the way, Dinesh clearly laid out the racist history of the Democratic Party, which may have inflamed leftists in their hypocrisy. In today's woke left, only white conservatives can be racist.

If social media companies are going to ban users who never threaten or incite violence for hate speech, they need to clearly define what constitutes hate speech and apply that standard to all users equally, regardless of race, ideology, religion, etc.

Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia as a company is just as much of the left in its political bias as Facebook and YouTube. For example, just look up their article on whether unborn children can feel pain from an abortion, which ignores all the scientific studies that don't fit their narrative.

At what point does Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, get banned from YouTube for alleged hate speech? The woke left already attempts to shut down his speeches at any college campus he visits.

Please also keep in mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center is morally bankrupt for refusing to label Antifa a hate group, despite targeting anyone who expresses a right-of-center viewpoint.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests