The Making of a YouTube Radical

* honestly you’ve completely convinced me that molyneux is a racist piece of shit, fuck this guy!!

* but you haven’t convinced me he’s a literal white supremacist because he just doesn’t seem to be quoted anywhere asserting the supremacy of white people.

I think you did an incredibly good job proving that he is for sure “white supremacy-adjacent,” and also a fuckin weirdo d-bag. But compared to explicitly self-identifying white supremacists like Richard Spencer, Molyneux does not seem like a white supremacist.

All that said, fuck him. Those quotes you posted are insane.

This is a sort of risky situation. I'm willing to help anyone who sincerely wants to use HN as intended. But it can be a considerable effort. It's draining, because these discussions are so repetitive and often adversarial. One spends a lot on the boring task of weatherproofing whatever one says.

Such questions can amount to a DoS attack on moderators, because of the time it takes to patiently answer them, which then we can't spend making the site better*. If you want us to invest those resources into helping you understand the intended use of HN, you need to clearly establish that that is your good-faith intention.

* Edit: it's for similar reasons that we don't publish a complete moderation log.

Ah, I've made a mistake, thanks for noticing.

So, let's backtrack to your prior comment then:

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

Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth? No other meaning could possibly be derived or intended? For example, when he says "Most of them will need to be bred, and they need to be bred in an environment uncontaminated by the endless bullshit of the old world", is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised?

How about when he says: "I can subject myself to my crazy (say, there's that word again) family of origin. I cannot subject my child, and I really don't have much of a right to subject my wife to it either. It wasn't her god damn fault"? You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family, which is what he literally says, but rather that he is referring to....non-white people? And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter (which is what he did), but rather the only possible intended meaning is to advocate eugenics?

If so, would it be too much to ask you to include the relevant portions of the transcript (or, a link to the video you're working from, with timestamps....I'm looking at https://youtu.be/sgBUGpXz9-8) that substantiates this interpretation?

> In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology

I don't see any problem with this. I certainly try to teach my children an ideology (knowing the difference between right and wrong, fairness, inclusiveness, sharing, kindness, love, understanding, responsibility, rationality, honesty, humility, etc) and I very much hope they marry someone similarly minded, have children, raise them according to a similar (or improved) ideology, and spread it to as many people in their lives as possible.

> ...and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners

Timestamp of that please.

> with the goal of creating "supermen"

A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning is possible?

> There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words.

Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.

> Yet both are easily understood.

Cleaning up the gene pool has a generally accepted meaning. But did he say we need to clean up the gene pool? Google isn't coming up with anything. I wonder, does Molyneux maybe have an inside man at Google that wipes all these facts you know about him from their index?

> Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers)...

Or, you could just listen to the words he literally says, and be mindful of your subconscious injecting additional meaning.

> we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter

Once again, because you say so right? If there is any uncertainty, the default meaning is obviously genocide (because "that's how language works" maybe)? No need to provide a reasoned argument with specific supporting quotes from what he's actually said?

> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it.

Timestamp of this please.

> The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen")

Obviously? Not just likely, but literally impossible that he could have intended another meaning?

Literally no other historic meanings or noteworthy occurences of the word "superman/men"?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy

Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche, particularly in Also sprach Zarathustra (1883–85), although it had been employed by J.W. von Goethe and others. This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth. Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal was a “Caesar with Christ’s soul.” George Bernard Shaw popularized the term “superman” in his play Man and Superman (1903).

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concep...

Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman

How about David Bowie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen

> Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence...

Clearly.

> a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter.

Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase. No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned.

PS: I had a few questions in this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204) post as well - just a friendly reminder, don't mean to rush you.

If making any assertions based on supposed actions or words spoken by Molyneux, at a minimum include the timestamp of when he speaks the words you claim he speaks.

Of course, the same standard of proof should be expected of me, so if I slip up please bring it to my attention (as you did above, and I explicitly acknowledged - this is often referred to as intellectual honesty, by the way).