191–200 of 983 posts
There's a problem here that is too rarely discussed: When we do finally achieve substantial decentralized agency for ideas and media, which cannot be censored, it will be tainted in its roots by the fact that these jackasses are the people who will flock to it first. How can we build a censorship-resistant society where the most creative, peaceful, unifying ideas are the basis of our dialogue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.
“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...
Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?
Keep in mind that YT had been funneling viewers towards extreme, bizarre, fringe videos for a long time - including quite a bit of hateful content. This is something of their own doing.
Here's a study that shows it pushes people towards more moderate videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not familiar with Richard Spencer or David Duke's content, but I have heard plenty of Stefan Molyneux's, and > by alleging that members of protected groups were inferior. From the article is an outright lie, that simply flat out never happened. If this is what "the people" are demanding, this should be taken as evidence that "the people" are to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. But that is no great surprise by th…
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." “You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importin…
Is it 'racist' to scream at people because whites have a lower distribution of fast twitch muscle fibers than blacks and thus the results and distributions of champions in sports where this is essential heavily favour blacks? Is this a comment on the "inferiority" of a specific race, or an observation of material reality? Why are you "inferior" if you have less fast twitch muscle fibers, or a specific genetic distribution that results in some demographic group of which you are a member (not even you, individually, necessarily) having a lower IQ?
Saying that traits differ between racial phenotypes is not the same thing as saying that racial phenotypes are "inferior" or "superior".
> You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people
Which is to say you're bracketing things in there that weren't actually said, but I was listening at the time and I recall the context specifically referred to racial groups that have an observed higher IQ distribution than "whites", so once again, it's not a case of "inferiority" vs "superiority". It's a case of "Here are these observed distributions in actual demographic data from all over the world". To equate the two and pretend they're the same thing is frankly dishonest.
> There are many more: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi
You know, although a lot of the quotes in this link are purposely taken out of context and even directly bracketed to imply something that was not actually said, reading this actually the worst one I could find and the one that I think comes closest to being a legitimate charge of the "inferior" vs "superior" dichotomy is potentially "I don’t view humanity as a single species...” which is outright scientifically false, so I'm listening now to the particular piece where this is spoken to figure out if it's more of the above distortions or actually as bad as it sounds, and will check back in afterwards with either an apology for claiming that the original statement was false or a correction on this particular quote, too.
EDIT; Just wow, turns out this was the most deceptive quote of all. He was not referring to racial phenotypes in this discussion at all, the context was in the discussion of individuals who have engaged in the violent rape of a child, it had nothing at all to do with race. I'm disgusted with the audacity of the outright lying of the SPLC to this magnitude. It seems to me a significant reason they might be trying to censor people like this as well is so they can make these claims that turn out to be outright lies, and it is then impossible to actually go back and check what was said, and you're left with having to take their word for it, just as is presently the case with all their citations that point to youtube.
Full quote for context on just how ridiculous this characterisation actually is;
Caller; I also heard a sex therapist talk, some guy who's been working with specifically men for the past thirty-five years who said the hardest thing to cure, is the man who's already crossed the line into the sexual abuse of children or violence towards children..
Molyneux; Look I've made this argument for many years, that the conscience short circuits and is no longer available for recovery, when you have done an evil for which there is no restitution. And there is no restitution possible for the rape of a child. Or the murder of a child. There's no parent who would say give me ten million dollars, you can murder my child. If somebody said listen, Stef, if I steal your bike, I'll give you ten million dollars, well basically you're just buying my bike for an absurd amount of money.
Molyneux; But for certain ills, there is no restitution that is possible. And where restitution is impossible, forgiveness is impossible, and where forgiveness is impossible, it seems to me that incarceration, isolation of the human virus from the community is the right thing to do. I don't view humanity as a single species.
Timestamp 24:30 for anyone that wants to verify this for themselves https://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2768_Wednesday_Show_9_Au...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it as an anti-racism initiative" Frame it? It is an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well but that is the main driver.
They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.
I think there's a good reason for doing that, given that such a sub can almost trivially become a hate sub for mocking people on Twitter, much like fatpeoplehate. "We want our community to be largely black" seems like a reasonable founding principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Molyneux, precisely, does not advocate specifically for a white ethnostate where Spencer does. However, Molyneux doesn't oppose one on principle, which for most is too close for comfort so he gets branded as one. I understand for many that is evidence of guilt but logically speaking that's not the same thing.
> Molyneux, precisely, does not advocate specifically for a white ethnostate where Spencer does. "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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them…
non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
"empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy.
"social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions.
The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your other opinions mean shit.
A free market is implied by the non-aggression principle, because the only way you can stop people trading freely if they don't agree with you is to use violence.
Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.
As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. Me and my immediate family come first. My extended family come second. My community comes third. The rest are dead last. It doesn't matter what sex, color, orientation or other perceived victimization they have - if they attempt or advocate for violence to be used against those I care about, they are the problem.
I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and will interact with anybody on good terms unless they are in violation of it.
Also, regarding trust in free markets: What is a democratic vote? Why does this free market opinion have a free pass but other free market opinions are not allowed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...
> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).