This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Even if I generally agree on some of those judgments and believe that Stefan is practically a cult leader who scams young men it is a bad idea to label people. And this could even result in a slander lawsuit, if you accuse someone of being a white supremacist or far-right activist. How people or journalists describe someone is irrelevant. It is not valid proof. use more neutral language. Describe what he is preaching rather than putting arbitrary labels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.57.231.248 ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 78.57.231.248 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Back in 2014, there was this: RfC - Should Stefan Molyneux be described as a "philosopher" in the lede?. Consensus was "no". This has come up a few times since, as well. The David Gordon source has also been discussed several times. It's an opinion source which is on the weak side.
From this, his self description doesn't seem important enough for the lead. Rather than say "he call himself a Philosopher, but X says he isn't", I think we should cut this from the lead and provide necessary context in the body. I also don't think "anarcho-Capitalist" is treated by sources as a defining trait, but perhaps that's a separate issue. Grayfell ( talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM venting, TL:DR, etc. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A single actual quote was verified among these five articles, in paragraph 4 of "Career." To whit; if the rape culture as described by Molyneux is actual historical fact (is it?), then why is it racist to claim that the invaders sought to stop these practices? True, it's likely a mischaracterization of the invaders' goals, but consequential results cannot be discarded merely because they are notionally unpalatable. If the rape culture was not historically as described then the citation given is woefully inadequate to elucidate the reader on the historical context of the quotation. Note that I remain ambivalent about this quote specifically because I am completely in the dark about its factual accuracy and therefore cannot determine if its content is legitimately racist. Quote-dropping and then deriving otherwise unsubstantiated claims from that quote is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Cite 41 is particularly egregious: it isn't racist to state a fact about a correlation between brain size and intelligence. [1] It's only racist if that proven fact is then used to incite white supremacist claims such as supposed genetic superiority. In fact, the data suggests the opposite: blacks have larger brains than whites at the high end but also smaller brains at the low end. Reversion to the mean is not bigotry; it's math! Cite 7 makes similar claims of Molyneux but produces no actual quotes. It simultaneously casts Molyneux in a poor light by juxtaposing him with works like the Pinker paper. The Pinker paper is undeniably racist and, interestingly, does show a proper example of genetic supremacist claims. Ironically, Cite 7 when taken in its entirety discredits the white supremacist narrative levied against Stefan Molyneux. I then proceeded to cites 42, 43, and 44, and again was greeted with opinion pieces stating Stefan Molyneux's alleged white supremacist views as fact. Again, without any actual quotes or references to his supposed claims. I then backtracked to cites 22 and 40. These were once more opinion pieces, once again without quote or reference. Cite 45? Same. Cite 46 shows a criticism of white fragility. This is demonstrably the opposite of white supremacy in that it touts a declining culture rather than one viewed as superior. True, perhaps he could've relayed that other collapsing cultures face the same stereotypes, but how does that omission turn his criticism of white fragility into white supremacy? It doesn't. Cite 4 is very interesting because it repeatedly inserts bracketed words without which the plausible interpretation of the quote is quite different. An example: "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy." [2] The shown bracketing turns a quote about I.Q. and immigrants into a racist statement. Without the brackets there exist zero mention of race. One has to wonder if without the bracketed words - brackets inferring the word was either corrected or inserted into the original quote - whether the original quotation was even referring to race. Cite 4 also listed non-racist quotes and then used surrounding context to cast them as racist. For example, the quote "Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014" was undeniably misogynist but not at all related to white supremacy. It glanced over that particular quote with a one-word mention: anti-feminism. If the article is about white nationalism; what is that doing there? That is not white supremacy, it's another attempt to cast shade at Stefan Molyneux's character. This discrepancy lies alongside unsubstantiated claims of cultism, eugenicism, and the false proposition that non-rejection is equivalent to endorsement. Cite 27 is prima facie absurd; as shown at ( http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf) the page 66 in question is quite literally prefaced by the words "To take an absurd example..." Yes, this tripe is actually used as Cite 27. Who cited this nonsense and why was it allowed? Everyone involved should be banned or otherwise penalized. Cite 9 should be a valid cite for Stefan Molyneux's hosting of Jared Taylor, an unabashed white supremacist, however it too does not produce any quotes. It merely states that Stefan Molyneux said something negative about rap culture and the reader is expected to believe that he related this to a certain police shooting. Which police shooting? That isn't specified, either. Given the lack of veracity displayed by prior non-quote quotes, what am I supposed to think? That this one happens to be valid? There's no quote! Keep count with me: that's fourteen citations asserting views of white supremacy and one asserting his supposed intellectual inferiority. Fifteen citations without a single quote or transcript attributed to Stefan Molyneux that unequivocally demonstrate his purported views. Cite 27 wasn't just groundlessly accusatory; it was demonstrably false. Every single one of these cites unilaterally put forth third-party opinions and are scarcely grounded in reality. I've never pursued Stefan Molyneux's works prior to today nor do I care about his personal politics. This Wikipedia page is simply a travesty and I hope some administrator has half a mind to pursue integrity and purge the majority of this document for all of the hate and vitriol it contains. This is an utterly disgusting news aggregate hitpiece being presented as fact - and I am absolutely done reading it. 2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC ( talk) 09:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
" I can virtually guarantee Wikipedia will be hit with a civil suit over this page." Your "guarantee" of legal action is a legal threat to suppress undesirable speech. Legal threats are against Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell ( talk) 22:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
References
|
Southern Poverty Law Center is not reliable. It's been exposed numerous times. I was alerted to it by Maajid Nawaz. [1]
− They are a group of lawyers and that type of work is fine for a court. If we want to use SPLC as a source. Wiki should be citing the court case results not the accusers website. "This hate label shuts down debate. ... It creates enmity towards people that are just on the other side of an issue from you,” says ADF senior counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “That’s not something we need in our culture."
SPLC is about ideology not objective societal improvements. "...hate, like so much in American life, has become highly ideological. In this climate, seeking widespread credibility for a hate list — with its inherently blunt methodology — seems at once quaint, noble and, possibly, futile." [2]
Doing a cursor glance at other such disputes of SPLC you can easily find numerous other such mischaracterizations. [3] [4] [5]Rutter33 Rutter33 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The SPLC has also issued retractions and apologies, such as with the unrelated Nawaz incidentWeeeelll... Nawaz did complain for years, and then he sued them, and then they finally apologized when they had no other option left. This apology is not really a good justification for "a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Please do not use it as such. (Those people are lawyers. Lawyers have no concept of truthfulness, only of convincing judges and of winning and losing lawsuits. If I have to guess why they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it's probably because they employed a few non-lawyers for that.)
References
Why is his bibliography completely absent? He's written several books about his philosophy which aren't even mentioned in this article.
Several of his written works date from after his extremist conversion as alleged by the SPLC. Surely those books, their existence and contents, are relevant material to understand his views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Molyneux has, at a cursory glance, twelve books in current circulation. Considering that the topics addressed in the books are related to those which dominate the article, it seems odd a list of twelve titles is beyond the scope of wikipedia.
Is a book written by the subject of an article not a reliable source of information about the author's views? That hardly seems "indiscriminate", it's actually very discriminating, just as the sources currently in the article are very discriminating. The opening discriptor for instance, links an NBC article in which Stefan is described as a "white nationalist", without qualification. Now, you may be able to cite a better source to support that exact discription, but the exclusion of his entire published works, and the inclusion of regurgitation like that, certainly does agree with your description of wikipedia as discriminate.
I'm not arguing that wikipedia should be an indiscriminate directory, I'm arguing that the inclusion of a brief bibliography containing insight into Molyneux's views on philosophy, history, and politics, among other subjects, is worthy. A couple of the citations even mention that he's an author, but that information is excluded from the article, while other information from those same sources is included, much of it trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I took the trouble of reading your reference to wikipedia not being a directory, as I thought, it contains a sentence which explains in my view, the rather routine appearance of bibliographies on the pages of authors known for other things; "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."
Once again, I'm not asking for the contents of those primary sources to appear on the page (as it does on thousands of pages about a variety of topics, citing books/articles/studies/journals is not uncommon, your assertion that wikipedia doesn't directly reference primary sources is wrong), just that their existence appears on the page. I think I'm correct in my impression that this is fairly routine, I was actually surprised that Molyneux's status as an author wasn't even mentioned, despite it appearing in a number of the sources on which the article is based. I believe it even appeared in previous revision of this article. I'm fairly confident I came upon the knowledge of his books years ago on wikipedia. So certain information about this particular public figure has been totally excised from the article.
Aside: My point about the NBC article describing Molyneux as a "white nationalist" with no verification is still valid. I agree with the view that NBC are mainstream, but the fact remains that the source makes no attempt to support the claim. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for views which mainstream voices express, there's a verification requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"permitted, not required or even recommended" OK, so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember. "he's notable for spreading white nationalist views via books, YouTube, etc." Books? He is notable for spreading white nationalism with books? OK, please cite the books, that's all I'm asking, for the books to be cited or acknowledged. The resistance to this simple, routine request is astonishing. The clip you cited opens with "I have always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity", he then described that the "empiricist" in him noticed how freely he could have discussion in an all-white country. Further into the clip, he rejects the premise that Poles are white nationalists. So at no point does he extoll the virtues of Poland as a product of "white nationalism". The vimeo clip is unavailable.
I'm not asking to play some semantic game about white nationalism/supremacy, I'm asking for a bibliography, and (aside) for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are based. If you have a better citation to substitute, please do so. If any belief in, endorsement of white nationalism is demonstrated, put it in the citation next to the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember.Did you not read the rest of what I said?
I'm asking for a bibliographyAnd we've explained why it's not necessary and even undesirable. You just didn't listen.
for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are basedIf you can provide reliable sources that call into question the currently cited sources in the article, then by all means do so. Otherwise, the sources are adequate. You can stop trying to mainstream Molyneux. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian Thomson, your insinuation about my character is inapporpriate. I've listened to everything you've said, you however are apparently under the impression that either I believe Molyneux is mainstream, or that I'm some alt-right adherent trying to sanitise his views. Neither of these are true, almost every ideological position which Molyneux has advanced for the past 15 years has not been mainstream, so it's complete nonsense to try mainstreaming them. The only point of real contention is the mere mention of his status as an author (I couldn't help but notice you didn't attempt to defend your previous assertion that Molyneux's books contain white nationalism) meets with such resistance.
"Reliable sources absolutely, positively do not need to "prove" anything. If reliable sources say it was 85 degrees in Times Square yesterday, that is verifiable."
Seems I was wrong in a previous statement, Wikipedia is a sounding board for mainstream outlets and views. If newspapers say you're a white supremacist, and fail to mention your body of work, then you're a white supremacist with no body of work in the eyes of wikipedia. Reading this very site years ago I discovered Molyneux was an author, now I wouldn't. However this is rationalised, it's a failing in wikipedia's editorialising. The product of years of the subject's professional life are ignored so thoroughly that it doesn't even earn a sentence under the "Career" heading. It seems absurd to me that your can't learn, on Wikipedia, that Stefan Molyneux has authored books.
I'm going to drop the topic since I don't expect to make any headway. Thank you SummerPhDv2, it's been valuable to hear from an experienced Wikipedia contributor. I'll learn more about the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
with all those doubtful name calling, ideologically engaged sentences and judgements, significant effort to put described person in bad shade. The article contains very little informational value and very big judgmental side - there is very little information of actual views of the person, instead a lot of quotes from random ( actually not so random, because all picked opinions are strictly negative ) people how they evaluate those views ,and how they categorize described person (without presenting what he even said himself) - which is clearly a try to devaluate described person by appealing to authorities. This article is so far away from neutral POV policy it makes me speechless. It's a shame.
B.Informata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 ( talk) 04:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"proof"which is missing from this article. Missing are examples of things Molyneux might have said that suggest the validity of the label "racist". Bus stop ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
STEFAN MOLYNEUX vs. WHITE SUPREMACY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He, in this video, provides justification for not being a white supremacist, by referencing many of his past statements, putting them into context. -- LadyLirazel ( talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And so how do you deal with the case where "independent sources" are only voicing their opinions as opposed to something substantive? To use your analogy, at some point in the past, a rumor went around that Wendy's Burgers had worms in them, and so you can just imagine the hysteria of mutiple "independent sources" all claiming the same, not based on fact, but based on fear. It turned out that the rumor was false, but damage had been done to Wendy's reputation at the time.
Of course, they have long since recovered.
How many of these "independent sources" point to anything substantive? Have you even bothered watching the video yourself? Stefan basically points to his own past posts and statements, which any "independent source" would be expected to do the same!!!-- LadyLirazel ( talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"a car or cheeseburger"but that is far afield. Racism being a highly abstract concept, the reader should be afforded a glimpse of many facets pertaining to that underlying question. I think you are simplifying to a harmful degree. You seem to be endeavoring to put a person into a small, enclosed compartment, but abstract concepts don't lend themselves to succinct definitions. I am not saying the question is not legitimate. But we best address that question by providing the reader with a multitude of responses to the question of the alleged racism of Molyneux. One such response would be the response provided by Molyneux. This is an important question in this article that should not be given short shrift. Bus stop ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist"? Is that somehow not valid for inclusion? Bus stop ( talk) 05:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
"How -- objectively -- will we select what to include?"By topic, SummerPhDv2.0. We
"select"based on whether the comment or assertion is on topic. Does the comment reflect his reaction to being called a "white supremacist"? If so, that might be a good candidate for inclusion, because it is on topic. Once again, we have to get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about racism. We are talking about allegations of racism. You've been talking about everything but racism. At the WP:BLP/N#Stefan Molyneux you say
If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich."That may be funny but that also changes the subject, in that case to cheese sandwiches. It would be appropriate to include in this article the view(s) of Molyneux on his own alleged racism. Such inclusion has the potential to inform the reader about the subject of the article. We aren't trying to paint a one-dimensional portrait of Molyneux in which he is racist and racist only and irredeemably racist, racist, racist. You are claiming that
"EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist". Is Molyneux only a racist? I don't think our aim is to
"define"Molyneux. Racism could be a part of his personality. We should be aiming to introduce nuance concerning these charges of racism and white supremacism. Yet you are arguing that we can't even include his own view on whether or not he is a racist. Bus stop ( talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Its time to close this.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious that Molyneux buys into the ideas of English psychologist Richard Lynn about the high IQs of East Asians mixed in with a belief about the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews (which is a common belief). Thats why Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites. [7]. Whether or not he holds to the views of Charles Murray (Author of the book The Bell Curve) I don't know (Molyneux did interview Murray, but I did not watch the interview).
On the left end of the political end of the political spectrum, their is a knee jerk propensity to call all white people who claim there are racial differences in intelligence white supremacists, but we know that is not true because Richard Lynn indicates that East Asians are the most intelligent people on the earth and Lynn is a white man. You will notice that the Wikipedia Richard Lynn article does not call him a white supremacist.
Now the Vox Day Wikipedia article indicates, "he has been described as a white supremacist". But the Vox Day article also indicates "Concerning the notion of white supremacy, Day has said, "white supremacy simply isn't true. Whites are not superior, but whites are the only tribe willing and able to maintain Western civilization because they are the only tribe that truly values it. The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule." [8] This is a compromise that was made. That a compromise was made is not surprising since Day is a mixed race person (White and Native American). Day does have some racist ideas and calls black women who marry white men "mudsharks". [9]
I propose that a compromise version of the article be done for the Molyneux article and have the Wikipedia article for him indicate "he has been described as a white supremacist". And then later in the article quote what Molyneux says about himself. Knox490 ( talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule"is balancing against being described as a white supremacist (rather than being evidence of being a white supremacist), you don't need to be editing. Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
IanThompson, you mention a Vox Day quote. Are you referring to Wikipedia indicating that Day "has been described as a white supremacist". Or are you referring to the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article? Because the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article has Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not true.
I ask because I am proposing a compromise version of the Stefan Molyneux be done.
Right now, the Wikipedia article appears to be inacurrate. Given the reliable sources (and the actual evidence the sources bring forth) and the lack of quotes of Molyneux asserting white supremacy or embracing neo-nazism, it would appear as if Molyneux is a tribalist and someone who embraces the idea that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence (Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites). [14] And given that Molyneux interviewed Charles Murray, it would not suprise me if Molyneux embraces the notion that whites have higher intelligence than blacks as a race (But as I noted, I did not watch the interview).
By the way, for clarity sake, I will point out that the the science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct "races". Various articles and science journal articles been written about that matter (Scientific American, etc.). [15] [16] So although I use the word race above, I believe the term race is a misnomer (made up label) from a scientific point of view. Knox490 ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule"is advocacy for white nationalism, which is a code phrase for white supremacism under the pretense that being regionalized somehow makes it better. What is to be done with the non-white people living in majority white countries to establish a white homeland? For you to say that quote shows
Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not trueis to excuse white supremacism and nothing more, whether through gross ignorance or willing defense. That you keep bringing up the East Asian red herring that I've already explained the problem with doesn't help. In any case, stop editing this talk page, civilization doesn't need you. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"I know you don't like this". At the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux I have raised the question of including the words of Molyneux on his alleged racism. Bus stop ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
SummerPhD, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that mainstream press and their pundits are distrusted by a very large percentage of the public and they have made many embarrassing mistakes, pushed crazy conspiracy theories and are overly partisan (Trump/Russia collusion, Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, Brexit was not going to pass, etc.).
Furthermore, there have been notable causes of these so-called reliable mainstream news sources engaging in fraud. For example, consider this article "ABC News Apologizes for Airing Fake Syria Bombing Video". [24]
Business Insider published a news article entitled "Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study" which stated: "Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking. The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour." [25]
Today's journalists are not paragons of reliability/objectivity. It's very refreshing that Wikipedia has the "Ignore all rules" rule so that actual evidence can be used to determine matters instead of mainstream news journalists. Knox490 ( talk) 03:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Enough now, can we close this and certain users need to read wp:or wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
References
This conversation violates WP:NLT and the creator has since been blocked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Many "citations", but of all of those citations, how many of them can actually point to something Stefan specifically said or wrote? Of all those who made the libellous claims, how many has spent anytime at all actually watching Stefan Molyneux's videos and listening to his podcasts? You may disagree with Stefan Molyneux, but you still must be factual. If the claim is true, it will stand up in court. If not, well expect to answer to the judge. So my friendly advice to all the editors of this page is that you either provide SOLID citations (not the he said / she said ones here), or expect to be receiving interrogatories soon. Reference specific things that Stefan Molyneux have said or written in his many, many, many videos and the few books he's written to justify your claims, or be expected to be tied up in court for years. Your choice. And if you think you can avoid litigation via jurisdictional issues, think again. You should consult your attorneys now. Either fact-check your claims, or remove them.I Perhaps you are feeling lucky. If so, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordAlveric ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — LordAlveric ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
WP:NOTFORUM, venting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I looked at the above section, and I am a bit confused.
I tried clicking the link to the video, but it says it's unavailable. A dead link. Can you provide a working one? I am not sure what "white nationalism" is supposed to be. Seems to me that many cultures in the world are proud of themselves and their own accomplishments and their nations. Koreans, Russians, Japaneese, Germans, Italians, Jews, etc. Is this a bad thing? In America, I think that it is a real tragedy that many have lost touch with their "roots". In most of the world, cutlures define themselves by geography, tradition, and language. Even in Europe, where I currently live, you have the French, Polish, Lavians, Germans, etc., and cultures forged out of hundereds of years of struggle. But America is relatively young as a country and a nation, and the entire "melting pot" idea seems to have seperated everyone from their roots, their traditions, their cultures. All lost and gone. You have the 5 racial categories -- "Black", "White", "Asian", "Hispanic", and "Pacific Islander." I think the aborigional people in the US are also considerd a "race". Those classifications do not make sense to me. Would a Korean want to be lumped in the same class as, say, an Indian? Or a Chinese lumped in with the Laotians? Even in Africa, the Hutus don't want to be lumped in the Tutsis, as that bloody conflict demonstrated some time ago. So now that you have created new "cultures" as a result of the "melting pot" experiment. "Blacks" no longer have any connections to the various cultures and tribes their ancestors came from. "Whites" have lost touch with their specific European origins, etc. So if the "Blacks" want to be proud of themselves as "Blacks", the "Whites" want to be proud of themselves as "Whites", just like the Koreans want to be proud of themselves as Koreans, and the Japanese, etc., what is so wrong about this? Of course, jingoism is bad and should be avoided in any culture / ethnic group / race. And just because you are proud of your own culture does not make you a "supremacist". You never hear talk about the "Japanese supremacists", the "Korean supremacists", etc. Why not? And the truth of the matter is, many of them do consider themselves "supreme" to all the other cultures! It is a conceit. Just like the conceit of parents thinking that their own kids are "the best in the world", "superior" to all the other kids out there. Cannot we let the various cultures have their own conceits, as long as it does not lapse into jingoism?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel ( talk • contribs) 04:15, July 18, 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
This conversation violates WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM, and was created by a WP:SPA who is a living violation of WP:COI and WP:CIR. Accordingly, this conversation has been collapsed. Affirmed by two Admins. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
change "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist,[2] white supremacist,[3] former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.[4][5][6][7][8]" to Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian anarcho-capitalist, teacher of philosophy, former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his defense of western values and promotion of the Non-Agression Principle. Molyneux is not a white supremacist. You should be sued for libel. The "sources" are garbage. This page is a lie. It is edited by the "far-left woke" B.S. artist who does not and will not understand that their are other ways to view the world and not everything is "RACIST". You MUST ALLOW FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, or it will be taken. The tides are turning. You create more enemies with these obvious lies. You are part of the problem. You will see for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. 68.198.179.94 ( talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)— 68.198.179.94 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Even if I generally agree on some of those judgments and believe that Stefan is practically a cult leader who scams young men it is a bad idea to label people. And this could even result in a slander lawsuit, if you accuse someone of being a white supremacist or far-right activist. How people or journalists describe someone is irrelevant. It is not valid proof. use more neutral language. Describe what he is preaching rather than putting arbitrary labels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.57.231.248 ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 78.57.231.248 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Back in 2014, there was this: RfC - Should Stefan Molyneux be described as a "philosopher" in the lede?. Consensus was "no". This has come up a few times since, as well. The David Gordon source has also been discussed several times. It's an opinion source which is on the weak side.
From this, his self description doesn't seem important enough for the lead. Rather than say "he call himself a Philosopher, but X says he isn't", I think we should cut this from the lead and provide necessary context in the body. I also don't think "anarcho-Capitalist" is treated by sources as a defining trait, but perhaps that's a separate issue. Grayfell ( talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM venting, TL:DR, etc. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A single actual quote was verified among these five articles, in paragraph 4 of "Career." To whit; if the rape culture as described by Molyneux is actual historical fact (is it?), then why is it racist to claim that the invaders sought to stop these practices? True, it's likely a mischaracterization of the invaders' goals, but consequential results cannot be discarded merely because they are notionally unpalatable. If the rape culture was not historically as described then the citation given is woefully inadequate to elucidate the reader on the historical context of the quotation. Note that I remain ambivalent about this quote specifically because I am completely in the dark about its factual accuracy and therefore cannot determine if its content is legitimately racist. Quote-dropping and then deriving otherwise unsubstantiated claims from that quote is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Cite 41 is particularly egregious: it isn't racist to state a fact about a correlation between brain size and intelligence. [1] It's only racist if that proven fact is then used to incite white supremacist claims such as supposed genetic superiority. In fact, the data suggests the opposite: blacks have larger brains than whites at the high end but also smaller brains at the low end. Reversion to the mean is not bigotry; it's math! Cite 7 makes similar claims of Molyneux but produces no actual quotes. It simultaneously casts Molyneux in a poor light by juxtaposing him with works like the Pinker paper. The Pinker paper is undeniably racist and, interestingly, does show a proper example of genetic supremacist claims. Ironically, Cite 7 when taken in its entirety discredits the white supremacist narrative levied against Stefan Molyneux. I then proceeded to cites 42, 43, and 44, and again was greeted with opinion pieces stating Stefan Molyneux's alleged white supremacist views as fact. Again, without any actual quotes or references to his supposed claims. I then backtracked to cites 22 and 40. These were once more opinion pieces, once again without quote or reference. Cite 45? Same. Cite 46 shows a criticism of white fragility. This is demonstrably the opposite of white supremacy in that it touts a declining culture rather than one viewed as superior. True, perhaps he could've relayed that other collapsing cultures face the same stereotypes, but how does that omission turn his criticism of white fragility into white supremacy? It doesn't. Cite 4 is very interesting because it repeatedly inserts bracketed words without which the plausible interpretation of the quote is quite different. An example: "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy." [2] The shown bracketing turns a quote about I.Q. and immigrants into a racist statement. Without the brackets there exist zero mention of race. One has to wonder if without the bracketed words - brackets inferring the word was either corrected or inserted into the original quote - whether the original quotation was even referring to race. Cite 4 also listed non-racist quotes and then used surrounding context to cast them as racist. For example, the quote "Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014" was undeniably misogynist but not at all related to white supremacy. It glanced over that particular quote with a one-word mention: anti-feminism. If the article is about white nationalism; what is that doing there? That is not white supremacy, it's another attempt to cast shade at Stefan Molyneux's character. This discrepancy lies alongside unsubstantiated claims of cultism, eugenicism, and the false proposition that non-rejection is equivalent to endorsement. Cite 27 is prima facie absurd; as shown at ( http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf) the page 66 in question is quite literally prefaced by the words "To take an absurd example..." Yes, this tripe is actually used as Cite 27. Who cited this nonsense and why was it allowed? Everyone involved should be banned or otherwise penalized. Cite 9 should be a valid cite for Stefan Molyneux's hosting of Jared Taylor, an unabashed white supremacist, however it too does not produce any quotes. It merely states that Stefan Molyneux said something negative about rap culture and the reader is expected to believe that he related this to a certain police shooting. Which police shooting? That isn't specified, either. Given the lack of veracity displayed by prior non-quote quotes, what am I supposed to think? That this one happens to be valid? There's no quote! Keep count with me: that's fourteen citations asserting views of white supremacy and one asserting his supposed intellectual inferiority. Fifteen citations without a single quote or transcript attributed to Stefan Molyneux that unequivocally demonstrate his purported views. Cite 27 wasn't just groundlessly accusatory; it was demonstrably false. Every single one of these cites unilaterally put forth third-party opinions and are scarcely grounded in reality. I've never pursued Stefan Molyneux's works prior to today nor do I care about his personal politics. This Wikipedia page is simply a travesty and I hope some administrator has half a mind to pursue integrity and purge the majority of this document for all of the hate and vitriol it contains. This is an utterly disgusting news aggregate hitpiece being presented as fact - and I am absolutely done reading it. 2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC ( talk) 09:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
" I can virtually guarantee Wikipedia will be hit with a civil suit over this page." Your "guarantee" of legal action is a legal threat to suppress undesirable speech. Legal threats are against Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell ( talk) 22:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
References
|
Southern Poverty Law Center is not reliable. It's been exposed numerous times. I was alerted to it by Maajid Nawaz. [1]
− They are a group of lawyers and that type of work is fine for a court. If we want to use SPLC as a source. Wiki should be citing the court case results not the accusers website. "This hate label shuts down debate. ... It creates enmity towards people that are just on the other side of an issue from you,” says ADF senior counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “That’s not something we need in our culture."
SPLC is about ideology not objective societal improvements. "...hate, like so much in American life, has become highly ideological. In this climate, seeking widespread credibility for a hate list — with its inherently blunt methodology — seems at once quaint, noble and, possibly, futile." [2]
Doing a cursor glance at other such disputes of SPLC you can easily find numerous other such mischaracterizations. [3] [4] [5]Rutter33 Rutter33 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The SPLC has also issued retractions and apologies, such as with the unrelated Nawaz incidentWeeeelll... Nawaz did complain for years, and then he sued them, and then they finally apologized when they had no other option left. This apology is not really a good justification for "a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Please do not use it as such. (Those people are lawyers. Lawyers have no concept of truthfulness, only of convincing judges and of winning and losing lawsuits. If I have to guess why they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it's probably because they employed a few non-lawyers for that.)
References
Why is his bibliography completely absent? He's written several books about his philosophy which aren't even mentioned in this article.
Several of his written works date from after his extremist conversion as alleged by the SPLC. Surely those books, their existence and contents, are relevant material to understand his views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Molyneux has, at a cursory glance, twelve books in current circulation. Considering that the topics addressed in the books are related to those which dominate the article, it seems odd a list of twelve titles is beyond the scope of wikipedia.
Is a book written by the subject of an article not a reliable source of information about the author's views? That hardly seems "indiscriminate", it's actually very discriminating, just as the sources currently in the article are very discriminating. The opening discriptor for instance, links an NBC article in which Stefan is described as a "white nationalist", without qualification. Now, you may be able to cite a better source to support that exact discription, but the exclusion of his entire published works, and the inclusion of regurgitation like that, certainly does agree with your description of wikipedia as discriminate.
I'm not arguing that wikipedia should be an indiscriminate directory, I'm arguing that the inclusion of a brief bibliography containing insight into Molyneux's views on philosophy, history, and politics, among other subjects, is worthy. A couple of the citations even mention that he's an author, but that information is excluded from the article, while other information from those same sources is included, much of it trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I took the trouble of reading your reference to wikipedia not being a directory, as I thought, it contains a sentence which explains in my view, the rather routine appearance of bibliographies on the pages of authors known for other things; "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."
Once again, I'm not asking for the contents of those primary sources to appear on the page (as it does on thousands of pages about a variety of topics, citing books/articles/studies/journals is not uncommon, your assertion that wikipedia doesn't directly reference primary sources is wrong), just that their existence appears on the page. I think I'm correct in my impression that this is fairly routine, I was actually surprised that Molyneux's status as an author wasn't even mentioned, despite it appearing in a number of the sources on which the article is based. I believe it even appeared in previous revision of this article. I'm fairly confident I came upon the knowledge of his books years ago on wikipedia. So certain information about this particular public figure has been totally excised from the article.
Aside: My point about the NBC article describing Molyneux as a "white nationalist" with no verification is still valid. I agree with the view that NBC are mainstream, but the fact remains that the source makes no attempt to support the claim. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for views which mainstream voices express, there's a verification requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"permitted, not required or even recommended" OK, so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember. "he's notable for spreading white nationalist views via books, YouTube, etc." Books? He is notable for spreading white nationalism with books? OK, please cite the books, that's all I'm asking, for the books to be cited or acknowledged. The resistance to this simple, routine request is astonishing. The clip you cited opens with "I have always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity", he then described that the "empiricist" in him noticed how freely he could have discussion in an all-white country. Further into the clip, he rejects the premise that Poles are white nationalists. So at no point does he extoll the virtues of Poland as a product of "white nationalism". The vimeo clip is unavailable.
I'm not asking to play some semantic game about white nationalism/supremacy, I'm asking for a bibliography, and (aside) for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are based. If you have a better citation to substitute, please do so. If any belief in, endorsement of white nationalism is demonstrated, put it in the citation next to the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember.Did you not read the rest of what I said?
I'm asking for a bibliographyAnd we've explained why it's not necessary and even undesirable. You just didn't listen.
for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are basedIf you can provide reliable sources that call into question the currently cited sources in the article, then by all means do so. Otherwise, the sources are adequate. You can stop trying to mainstream Molyneux. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian Thomson, your insinuation about my character is inapporpriate. I've listened to everything you've said, you however are apparently under the impression that either I believe Molyneux is mainstream, or that I'm some alt-right adherent trying to sanitise his views. Neither of these are true, almost every ideological position which Molyneux has advanced for the past 15 years has not been mainstream, so it's complete nonsense to try mainstreaming them. The only point of real contention is the mere mention of his status as an author (I couldn't help but notice you didn't attempt to defend your previous assertion that Molyneux's books contain white nationalism) meets with such resistance.
"Reliable sources absolutely, positively do not need to "prove" anything. If reliable sources say it was 85 degrees in Times Square yesterday, that is verifiable."
Seems I was wrong in a previous statement, Wikipedia is a sounding board for mainstream outlets and views. If newspapers say you're a white supremacist, and fail to mention your body of work, then you're a white supremacist with no body of work in the eyes of wikipedia. Reading this very site years ago I discovered Molyneux was an author, now I wouldn't. However this is rationalised, it's a failing in wikipedia's editorialising. The product of years of the subject's professional life are ignored so thoroughly that it doesn't even earn a sentence under the "Career" heading. It seems absurd to me that your can't learn, on Wikipedia, that Stefan Molyneux has authored books.
I'm going to drop the topic since I don't expect to make any headway. Thank you SummerPhDv2, it's been valuable to hear from an experienced Wikipedia contributor. I'll learn more about the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
with all those doubtful name calling, ideologically engaged sentences and judgements, significant effort to put described person in bad shade. The article contains very little informational value and very big judgmental side - there is very little information of actual views of the person, instead a lot of quotes from random ( actually not so random, because all picked opinions are strictly negative ) people how they evaluate those views ,and how they categorize described person (without presenting what he even said himself) - which is clearly a try to devaluate described person by appealing to authorities. This article is so far away from neutral POV policy it makes me speechless. It's a shame.
B.Informata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 ( talk) 04:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"proof"which is missing from this article. Missing are examples of things Molyneux might have said that suggest the validity of the label "racist". Bus stop ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
STEFAN MOLYNEUX vs. WHITE SUPREMACY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He, in this video, provides justification for not being a white supremacist, by referencing many of his past statements, putting them into context. -- LadyLirazel ( talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And so how do you deal with the case where "independent sources" are only voicing their opinions as opposed to something substantive? To use your analogy, at some point in the past, a rumor went around that Wendy's Burgers had worms in them, and so you can just imagine the hysteria of mutiple "independent sources" all claiming the same, not based on fact, but based on fear. It turned out that the rumor was false, but damage had been done to Wendy's reputation at the time.
Of course, they have long since recovered.
How many of these "independent sources" point to anything substantive? Have you even bothered watching the video yourself? Stefan basically points to his own past posts and statements, which any "independent source" would be expected to do the same!!!-- LadyLirazel ( talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"a car or cheeseburger"but that is far afield. Racism being a highly abstract concept, the reader should be afforded a glimpse of many facets pertaining to that underlying question. I think you are simplifying to a harmful degree. You seem to be endeavoring to put a person into a small, enclosed compartment, but abstract concepts don't lend themselves to succinct definitions. I am not saying the question is not legitimate. But we best address that question by providing the reader with a multitude of responses to the question of the alleged racism of Molyneux. One such response would be the response provided by Molyneux. This is an important question in this article that should not be given short shrift. Bus stop ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist"? Is that somehow not valid for inclusion? Bus stop ( talk) 05:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
"How -- objectively -- will we select what to include?"By topic, SummerPhDv2.0. We
"select"based on whether the comment or assertion is on topic. Does the comment reflect his reaction to being called a "white supremacist"? If so, that might be a good candidate for inclusion, because it is on topic. Once again, we have to get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about racism. We are talking about allegations of racism. You've been talking about everything but racism. At the WP:BLP/N#Stefan Molyneux you say
If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich."That may be funny but that also changes the subject, in that case to cheese sandwiches. It would be appropriate to include in this article the view(s) of Molyneux on his own alleged racism. Such inclusion has the potential to inform the reader about the subject of the article. We aren't trying to paint a one-dimensional portrait of Molyneux in which he is racist and racist only and irredeemably racist, racist, racist. You are claiming that
"EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist". Is Molyneux only a racist? I don't think our aim is to
"define"Molyneux. Racism could be a part of his personality. We should be aiming to introduce nuance concerning these charges of racism and white supremacism. Yet you are arguing that we can't even include his own view on whether or not he is a racist. Bus stop ( talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Its time to close this.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious that Molyneux buys into the ideas of English psychologist Richard Lynn about the high IQs of East Asians mixed in with a belief about the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews (which is a common belief). Thats why Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites. [7]. Whether or not he holds to the views of Charles Murray (Author of the book The Bell Curve) I don't know (Molyneux did interview Murray, but I did not watch the interview).
On the left end of the political end of the political spectrum, their is a knee jerk propensity to call all white people who claim there are racial differences in intelligence white supremacists, but we know that is not true because Richard Lynn indicates that East Asians are the most intelligent people on the earth and Lynn is a white man. You will notice that the Wikipedia Richard Lynn article does not call him a white supremacist.
Now the Vox Day Wikipedia article indicates, "he has been described as a white supremacist". But the Vox Day article also indicates "Concerning the notion of white supremacy, Day has said, "white supremacy simply isn't true. Whites are not superior, but whites are the only tribe willing and able to maintain Western civilization because they are the only tribe that truly values it. The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule." [8] This is a compromise that was made. That a compromise was made is not surprising since Day is a mixed race person (White and Native American). Day does have some racist ideas and calls black women who marry white men "mudsharks". [9]
I propose that a compromise version of the article be done for the Molyneux article and have the Wikipedia article for him indicate "he has been described as a white supremacist". And then later in the article quote what Molyneux says about himself. Knox490 ( talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule"is balancing against being described as a white supremacist (rather than being evidence of being a white supremacist), you don't need to be editing. Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
IanThompson, you mention a Vox Day quote. Are you referring to Wikipedia indicating that Day "has been described as a white supremacist". Or are you referring to the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article? Because the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article has Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not true.
I ask because I am proposing a compromise version of the Stefan Molyneux be done.
Right now, the Wikipedia article appears to be inacurrate. Given the reliable sources (and the actual evidence the sources bring forth) and the lack of quotes of Molyneux asserting white supremacy or embracing neo-nazism, it would appear as if Molyneux is a tribalist and someone who embraces the idea that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence (Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites). [14] And given that Molyneux interviewed Charles Murray, it would not suprise me if Molyneux embraces the notion that whites have higher intelligence than blacks as a race (But as I noted, I did not watch the interview).
By the way, for clarity sake, I will point out that the the science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct "races". Various articles and science journal articles been written about that matter (Scientific American, etc.). [15] [16] So although I use the word race above, I believe the term race is a misnomer (made up label) from a scientific point of view. Knox490 ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule"is advocacy for white nationalism, which is a code phrase for white supremacism under the pretense that being regionalized somehow makes it better. What is to be done with the non-white people living in majority white countries to establish a white homeland? For you to say that quote shows
Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not trueis to excuse white supremacism and nothing more, whether through gross ignorance or willing defense. That you keep bringing up the East Asian red herring that I've already explained the problem with doesn't help. In any case, stop editing this talk page, civilization doesn't need you. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"I know you don't like this". At the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux I have raised the question of including the words of Molyneux on his alleged racism. Bus stop ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
SummerPhD, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that mainstream press and their pundits are distrusted by a very large percentage of the public and they have made many embarrassing mistakes, pushed crazy conspiracy theories and are overly partisan (Trump/Russia collusion, Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, Brexit was not going to pass, etc.).
Furthermore, there have been notable causes of these so-called reliable mainstream news sources engaging in fraud. For example, consider this article "ABC News Apologizes for Airing Fake Syria Bombing Video". [24]
Business Insider published a news article entitled "Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study" which stated: "Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking. The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour." [25]
Today's journalists are not paragons of reliability/objectivity. It's very refreshing that Wikipedia has the "Ignore all rules" rule so that actual evidence can be used to determine matters instead of mainstream news journalists. Knox490 ( talk) 03:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Enough now, can we close this and certain users need to read wp:or wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
References
This conversation violates WP:NLT and the creator has since been blocked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Many "citations", but of all of those citations, how many of them can actually point to something Stefan specifically said or wrote? Of all those who made the libellous claims, how many has spent anytime at all actually watching Stefan Molyneux's videos and listening to his podcasts? You may disagree with Stefan Molyneux, but you still must be factual. If the claim is true, it will stand up in court. If not, well expect to answer to the judge. So my friendly advice to all the editors of this page is that you either provide SOLID citations (not the he said / she said ones here), or expect to be receiving interrogatories soon. Reference specific things that Stefan Molyneux have said or written in his many, many, many videos and the few books he's written to justify your claims, or be expected to be tied up in court for years. Your choice. And if you think you can avoid litigation via jurisdictional issues, think again. You should consult your attorneys now. Either fact-check your claims, or remove them.I Perhaps you are feeling lucky. If so, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordAlveric ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — LordAlveric ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
WP:NOTFORUM, venting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I looked at the above section, and I am a bit confused.
I tried clicking the link to the video, but it says it's unavailable. A dead link. Can you provide a working one? I am not sure what "white nationalism" is supposed to be. Seems to me that many cultures in the world are proud of themselves and their own accomplishments and their nations. Koreans, Russians, Japaneese, Germans, Italians, Jews, etc. Is this a bad thing? In America, I think that it is a real tragedy that many have lost touch with their "roots". In most of the world, cutlures define themselves by geography, tradition, and language. Even in Europe, where I currently live, you have the French, Polish, Lavians, Germans, etc., and cultures forged out of hundereds of years of struggle. But America is relatively young as a country and a nation, and the entire "melting pot" idea seems to have seperated everyone from their roots, their traditions, their cultures. All lost and gone. You have the 5 racial categories -- "Black", "White", "Asian", "Hispanic", and "Pacific Islander." I think the aborigional people in the US are also considerd a "race". Those classifications do not make sense to me. Would a Korean want to be lumped in the same class as, say, an Indian? Or a Chinese lumped in with the Laotians? Even in Africa, the Hutus don't want to be lumped in the Tutsis, as that bloody conflict demonstrated some time ago. So now that you have created new "cultures" as a result of the "melting pot" experiment. "Blacks" no longer have any connections to the various cultures and tribes their ancestors came from. "Whites" have lost touch with their specific European origins, etc. So if the "Blacks" want to be proud of themselves as "Blacks", the "Whites" want to be proud of themselves as "Whites", just like the Koreans want to be proud of themselves as Koreans, and the Japanese, etc., what is so wrong about this? Of course, jingoism is bad and should be avoided in any culture / ethnic group / race. And just because you are proud of your own culture does not make you a "supremacist". You never hear talk about the "Japanese supremacists", the "Korean supremacists", etc. Why not? And the truth of the matter is, many of them do consider themselves "supreme" to all the other cultures! It is a conceit. Just like the conceit of parents thinking that their own kids are "the best in the world", "superior" to all the other kids out there. Cannot we let the various cultures have their own conceits, as long as it does not lapse into jingoism?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel ( talk • contribs) 04:15, July 18, 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
This conversation violates WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM, and was created by a WP:SPA who is a living violation of WP:COI and WP:CIR. Accordingly, this conversation has been collapsed. Affirmed by two Admins. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
change "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist,[2] white supremacist,[3] former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.[4][5][6][7][8]" to Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian anarcho-capitalist, teacher of philosophy, former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his defense of western values and promotion of the Non-Agression Principle. Molyneux is not a white supremacist. You should be sued for libel. The "sources" are garbage. This page is a lie. It is edited by the "far-left woke" B.S. artist who does not and will not understand that their are other ways to view the world and not everything is "RACIST". You MUST ALLOW FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, or it will be taken. The tides are turning. You create more enemies with these obvious lies. You are part of the problem. You will see for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. 68.198.179.94 ( talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)— 68.198.179.94 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References |