"The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307...

"If we had been allowed to talk about race and IQ, the invasion of Iraq would never have occurred, because no one would have been under the illusion that a Jeffersonian Republic was going to emerge from a population with an IQ in the 80s. Opposing science got >500k people killed." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321...

EDIT: added a second quote

Ugh. Those are awful.

Yup, he's bad folks

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

Yeah, they're both very racist, to the level of supposing that that white society is inherently superior. The first quote implies a the existence of a conspiracy to lower white birthrates. The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ". These are definitionally white supremacist talking points.

EDIT: spelling

Thank you for clarifying. However they don't prove your case, and I'll explain why.

Arguing that a conspiracy exists to harm a group is not evidence that this group is superior. It simply does not follow. Yes, I can see how this view might be shared by white supremacists but it simply does not follow from this statement alone. And for the record, I myself don't find his argument compelling.

The second statement goes deeper into Molyneux's thinking to an area where even I fear to tread. On this one I can concede that Molyneux establishes a link between IQ and what kind of gov't is possible in such a population. This _could_ be evidence of white supremacist thinking.

Now let me provide some counter evidence. Could a white supremacist accept/promote a claim that other races have higher IQ than whites? I don't believe so, because that would imply that whites are not superior in one area and throw the whole ideology into confusion. Yet he does so in this tweet: https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/116998248528916480...

The rush to judgment on someone is part of what's causing so much discord in the US right now. Molyneux is no white supremacist, but he doesn't shield himself from their arguments either.

"“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff."

Yeah he's a white supremacist. White supremacy (and associated Fascism), tend to believe in contradictory narratives about their opponents.

If white supremacists can believe contradictory ideas and still be white supremacists, then how are we to determine who is and isn't? By this logic there's no evidence you could give me to prove you're not a white supremacist since contradictions. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I hope you see how untenable such a line of thinking is.

Also, I do understand the possibility that someone could claim to believe one thing and not actually believe it. It simply requires a higher burden of proof.

If you're asking how people can hold contradictory ideas... then I'd invite you do some self reflection. You probably hold some. We all do. Striving towards clarity of thought takes a while.

As for white supremacists in specific, let's take David Duke and Richard Spencer for example. (As you agreed above they were white supremacists) Both of these people claim to believe in science and reason, yet also believe in the superiority of the white race.

If you (or any reader) are interested in substantive critiques of this book, here are two:

https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Her...

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...

Here's an unusually good video critiquing it too: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo

A book riddled with methodological errors, and not even peer reviewed, does not a good post make

A) going to disagree pretty hard there being a conspiracy to reduce white birthrates

B) Pretty sure the Iraqi people could figure out how to run a just government. I think the history of Iraq being a colonial holding by much more powerful governments for a while has more to do with it.

So yea, both claims are false.

EDIT: Getting some downvotes and not a single reply providing an argument for either claim.

You disagreeing with an idea does not mean is is false, likewise you agreeing would not make it true.

Edit / reply to opnitro due to rate limit: I am arguing that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether it causes offence. That should hopefully be very clear when reading the posts you're replying to.

You implied they were true (or at least questioned it).

I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court

Now rate limit is over:

My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true.

A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment.

B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation.

You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.

I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning.

Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class.

On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice.

[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

Parent simply asked for citations on the ideological leanings of Molyneux. I make no claims on how best to to regulate the massive multinational corporations who control what amounts to the digital commons, as I have no answer :)

Fair enough. One of their posts was flagged, so I wasn't able to read the full context.

And while I may have my preferences, I don't know how to best to regulate those digital platforms either.

I am not here to do any defending of anyone, but as some people are able to defend themselves as (often rightfully) with "it was taken out of context". Yet every time I have heard anything with molyneux it has seemed to me exactly the opposite. Very few things taken out of context seem very bad. As a whole, on the other hand, I always got the impression he is bat-shit insane. Does he mention white genocide? I doubt it. Does he paint a picture of the world where white genocide is reality ? Well, I would say yes.

I appreciate your point, but both of those tweets are bad even without context :)

Yup. I am firmly in the camp believing that he is a hatemonger. I haven't seen the "white genocide is partly feminism's fault" before, but that pretty much sums up most of what I have heard him say outside of his fanaticism about IQ.