The Making of a YouTube Radical

Yes I am. Are you serious? If so, accept my challenge, starting with an authoritative definition of white supremacy.

What you've done instead, you've skipped that and proceeded directly to cherry-picked, out of context and misleading sound bytes. For example, in "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!", he is referring to "crazy" people, not non-white people. Or, implying that the noting of a statistical fact is not only attribution to an underlying cause, but the assertion of a valid motive to proceed with sinister actions (in the form of a "dog whistle" I imagine, conveniently avoiding the complicated difficulty of having actual facts to back up a claim).

This is certainly an effective and persuasive approach, but it is also an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.

If you have the facts on your side, you should be able to mop the floor with me. (But, most likely I will be throttled for "posting too fast", which is also a very effective but intellectually dishonest (in that posting speed isn't all that the algorithm considers) behavior. But as I said earlier, all's fair in love and meme wars.)

edit: And, right on cue, no more commenting permissions for me.

Edit #2, reply to the below because I am no longer allowed to post....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how common (and apparently effective) characterizing legitimate disagreement as "game playing" has become. I suspect it's not that it's not going anywhere that bothers you, it's that you are unable to provide evidence for your claim.

> I gave you what you asked for.

This statement is false. I asked for an authoritative definition of your slur. You even explicitly admit that you didn't provide this.

> because you're not actually interested in that

You have no way of knowing what I am interested in. This is another commonly used evasive tactic to avoid substantiating claims, very common on both ends of the political spectrum.

> I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked.

This statement is false. I didn't just ask for "a" video, I asked for "an example of a video demonstrating these specific (not approximate) beliefs". You did not provide this. Are you able to?

> Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it.

Do I have to do the footwork to track down evidence that supports your claims? I suspect this is another untrue statement, but would be happy to have you prove me wrong.

> "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."

Is this the definition your are comfortable with? Seems acceptable to me, and I look forward to seeing evidence that he holds these specific (not approximate; "dog whistling" doesn't count) beliefs.

> You're being completely disingenuous.

By asking for actual evidence for your genuine (presumably) assertions?

> You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest.

None support your assertion. Change your claims to something more along the lines of "he's a complete dick" and I will no longer as for evidence, because I would not disagree.

> You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms.

This is an estimation, based on heuristics. It is also false. I want the terms stated explicitly because I enjoy dissecting non-fact-based memes. By pedantically and stubbornly demonstrating how some ideas and behavior (the manner and specific, slippery language people use in discussions) are non-factual (just as many racist assertions are not based on objective facts), I believe some progress might be made towards improving the quality of public discourse on these matters. This is my actual motive - are you interested in that?

> You can pretend that no one can imply anything

a) I have not done this (actually, it's what I'm complaining about)

b) I do not accept "dog whistling" as evidence

> and only if someone blatantly says "I am a white supremacist and I believe whites are the superior race and all other races are lesser" do they qualify as a white supremacist.

Well, that's the essence of your charge, isn't it? It's ok to accuse someone of that, but asking for substantive evidence is improper? I wonder if your beliefs oon this are consistent, say if we changed the subject to black people or Jews.

> I don't need a lecture from you about being intellectually dishonest.

It's not so much a lecture, as a disagreement and pointing out of objectively false statements. If you believe my words are misplaced or invalid, feel free to point out failures in my logic. I don't believe subscribe to the "I'm right until proven otherwise" mentality, I have no issues with being asked to defend my assertions.

> Post limits aren't intellectually dishonest also? Not sure what you're going with that.

My point is, by having ~4 downvotes (gross, not net) be enough to disable one's ability to post, it creates an echo chamber, which removes the opportunity for people to improve their arguments when they are objectively challenged, as I am doing here.

And taking for granted that of course progressives can't be bigots.

There weren't for example any massive pogroms against Jews under Stalin, or the destroying of thousands of years of historical treasures (not to mention millions of people) under Mao. Progressives never call whole swaths of people "white trash" or "deplorables". Leftist students never prevent people who doesn't share their views from speaking, and so on...

I've watched several of his own videos on his YouTube channel. Where are the conspiracy theories?