The Making of a YouTube Radical

> It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.

"It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally.

"...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing.

"...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death."

So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death".

There are a number of problems with this:

> "that is the one and only thing that phrase means"

For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true:

a) all phrases must have only one meaning

b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning

The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true.

I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point.

Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part.

> But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it.

Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound.

Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said:

> Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/

Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no association between that phrase and that article existed in reality, prior to our conversation. The only association that exists in reality is in your personal mental model, and now (after the fact) on this web page now that you've personally written it down. So, despite knowing that objective reality is not changed by the way we describe it, you've unknowingly (I presume) done just that. (Interestingly, now that the imaginary association you've defined here is in Google's cache, at some point in the future it may be used as in a future internet argument by someone who believes it is a fact, when in reality it is only a meme, with a factual rating of 0 or NULL, depending on how you think about such things....which would be kinda cool if you think about it.)

> Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening.

This is true, it sometimes does happen. I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here.

I'd really like to know what you think my "thesis" is. I have a feeling you would describe it as something that cannot be proven by the words I've written on the page, just as you believe you know the very specific intended meaning of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people", even though that phrase has no specific meaning, and the one you have inferred is clearly incorrect, first based on the actual words used in the 5 minute clip (he is clearly referring to the environment he is raising his daughter in), and secondly based on your non-logically sound reasoning.

To me, Stefan Molyneux' opinion on the relative merits of eugenics isn't the interesting thing in this and similar conversations. What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it.

I'd really like to understand what is going on here at a psychological level, I think it would be interesting if we could talk about it to try to figure out how this particular misunderstanding came to be. An interesting start to that would be knowing what you think my specific beliefs are on this topic, what you think my goal is in this conversation, and what you think I believe is accomplished/proven by demonstrating that your argument/assertion is incorrect (or perhaps more importantly, what conclusions others reading this may come to after reading that). I have a feeling these things have an effect on the discussion, because it changes the dynamics quite a bit.

The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it.

> So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.

You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable.

> It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic...

There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created.

> ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect

Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?

> ...and just obfuscates the more important topic

I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning.

> Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck.

Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming.

> What's remarkable is that people still fall for it.

Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them.

> When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.

As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.

> It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam

Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence.

> ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any

That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him.

>> Here you have completely manufactured reality

> This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else.

You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here.

> It does not.

Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion.

> And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article.

Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either?

> I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people.

Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to shed any light on the matter. It's not too late though!

> Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken.

Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.

Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters, but it's people who are otherwise intelligent who will readily believe even more extraordinary (and specific) things, like accusations of Nazism or eugenics advocacy, despite no evidence that is so intriguing to me.

> Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.

I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU

> The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable.

As is the process leading to a belief that there are people doing as you describe.

> It's not really relevant....

How individuals behave varies on their conscious and subconscious perceptions of other people, and typically there is no self-awareness of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

> ...only what is written matters.

And simultaneously, the actual words someone speaks don't matter, but the contradictory (to the actual spoken words) interpretation of the listener does, and can even be used as a proof?

You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.

Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.

>You are restating your claim in a different way

Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.

>There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase

Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too. But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.

>Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?

Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.

> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming

Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.

> I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic

On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener. The sole ambiguity is when. I won't be questioned for having that understanding. I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means. Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"

>without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said

On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics. Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)

>As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.

A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.

Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.

>Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.

Of course they agree. That is why I offered the partial explanation you are referring to. If he didn't have followers we would not have a problem. But 1946 is 73 years ago so what would have been zero followers has grown to a mob.

And "Nazism" is comically over used. The new batch of right wing autocrats implement similar but weaker policies with less violence and a smile rather than a scowl. Franco or Mussolini are a better but flawed comparisons. Especially the latter since his exact words and gestures are conscientiously imitated.

>...has a theory...youtube...

A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.

And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning, the opposite of promulgating them. And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences. Also he is speaking on the BBC which is telling.

>Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters

Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no doubt was revealed in prayer or heard from uncle Jeb. They also are never going to believe anything written by reality based media or found in a science paper because their demagogue, like all others, seeks to crush the press via his followers.

On a related note, it is possible that if a group of people known to be rational, bright and well informed have developed a consensus, it might not actually be an emotional response but just possibly be correct.

Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.

Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.

He also refers to _cleaning_ the gene pool ie removing "bad" genes. A breeding program alone won't clean any genes.

So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.

As an aside, the absurd use of language and the poor guy who hopes to become one of the select few with the right genes is an archetype of the cult leader/follower relation with its nonsensical parallel reality.