Where?
Because everything I've heard from him suggests he would love one... which meets your definition squarely.
That said, I don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with folks like Spencer and Duke. I don’t agree with Moleyneux’s viewpoints but think he articulates them well enough that he should be refuted, not scrubbed from existence.
Or on the flip side, if something he says makes you uncomfortable but you can’t explain why it’s wrong, then you need to step up your rhetoric game.
One of the most effective tropes used by folks like Molyneux is “liberals are emotional and argue with feelings, not facts” - by freaking out and banning a highly articulate speaker like Molyneux the “libs” are only proving his point.
https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307...
I just took the tweets from the other comments here.
- They rarely admit to being racist, usually strongly arguing that they are specifically not racist
- Most of them have very strong preferences about the correct terminology to use in referring to them, as if their niche hate label of choice helps them avoid the stigmatization of the more common hate labels most of society finds unacceptable.
Many of them really sound like career politicians the way they try to spin their position as not condoning hate or violence, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and quibble over which hate labels they prefer. So yes, very often what a group is not willing to oppose can be very telling about their true position, which is often never admitted to in any kind of straightforward manner.
"The devolution of the US from an Enlightenment Republic to a semi-banana republic is also silenced, since that has a lot to do with racial IQ demographics esp permanent low Hispanic IQ"
What is the implied solution to this alleged problem?
I understand for many that is evidence of guilt but logically speaking that's not the same thing.