YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

I vaguely remember seeing that he’d endorsed Trump in 2016, which surprised me because it hadn’t been long at the time since I recalled him advocating completely abstaining from the political system.

I’ve not kept up with him, but it seemed like he was moving in a direction that was incompatible with the extreme libertarianism that brought him into the circles I frequented at the time.

This is what I wish was more studied. I feel like social media are intentionally designed to cause people to share violent and toxic speech. I hangout on discord in few big servers and I rarely encounter anything outright racist. Might just be because they are all tech related or maybe a no politics rule change the atmosphere if enforced ruthlessly.

There could also be something about speaking in public vs speaking something in semi-private real time chat app. You have time to clarify what you mean or be more empathetic. On platforms like twitter, when I check engagement metrics for replies to the tweet. I see a decrease of 10x often which is to say a lot of people never see past the first tweet a person makes and since tweets are limited by length, they encourage people to respond from their own biases rather than looking at things optimistically.

I do wonder if there is a reasonable path to punishing a platform that is responsible for encouraging content that causes toxic behavior or higher "engagement".

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook serve a global audience - but the “conservative”/“liberal” dichotomy you describe is unique to the USA.

If social media companies will be bifurcated as you say, it’ll be a tiny fraction of their American audiences - leaving the rest of the world sticking with the mainstream. Those smaller Ameri-centric sites will fail to reach critical-mass needed to sustain themselves in the long-term and hopefully those movements will fade into the background.

Your comparisons to the *chan imageboard splintering is apt, but look at how the more extreme chan sites have been having in finding a web-host (with enough capacity) to host them.

> I'll take your second branch, and I'll take the contrapositive:

What I originally said was;

"it does exist, it doesn't necessarily imply that the racial phenotype in question must be "superior" or "inferior"?"

So the contrapositive to that would be that it does imply that racial phenotype differences must also necessarily imply superior or inferior.

To give you credit though, that does not seem to actually be what you're saying at all though. Breaking down what you do actually say;

> Because there is such overwhelming evidence that all humans belong to a single genetic legacy

Has nothing to do with what I said at all. I never claimed that racial phenotypes imply a separation in species.

> one single race

Appears to deny the existence of racial phenotypes by interpreting the term "race" to mean "species". That doesn't mean that racial phenotypes don't actually exist.

> we therefore must reject the entire premise that started the statistical inquiry.

Putting aside the question that this assumes that the entire premise that started the statistical inquiry in question is well known and completely accepted already, and regardless of what we do to the premise that started the statistical inquiry in question, we still have the results of the statistical inquiry in question to contend with.

This doesn't actually answer any questions.

> Instead, we are obligated to realize that IQ is not correlated with some mythic "g" number

I should hope we are not obligated to realise that at all, because as a simple question of correlation, g factor and IQ is indeed highly correlated, so any such obligation would make us willfully ignorant. In fact the way some IQ tests have their efficiency measured is to observe that correlation. To say that again for emphasis; it is the very way in which many of the tests in question are given validity.

> instead correlated with socioeconomic status and quality of education.

There's no "instead" here. IQ scores correlate statistically on all three measures (amongst many others).

Frankly, the way people address this entire issue desperately trying to make it something other than what it clearly is, when what it clearly is doesn't necessarily imply that it is thus somehow acceptable to persecute racial minorities, or view a specific racial phenotype as "inferior" or "superior" actually does favours to the racial tribalist perspective.

If there's an observable undeniable widespread campaign resulting in the continuous deplatforming and vigorous persecution of all the people in the world who dare to point out that the sky is blue because some of the people who claim that the sky is blue also claim that therefore all people that aren't blue should be killed, and that there's a conspiracy to suppress the fact that the sky is blue, that puts them at definitely correct regarding two of three points, and silencing everybody who claims simply that the sky is blue and nobody should be killed as a consequence of it removes the visibility of the most compelling argument for why the narrative that all non blue people should be killed is ridiculous.

Instead all that remains for the neutral disinterested observer is a massive chorus of people claiming that all blue people / non blue people should be killed and that the sky is any colour other than blue. All under a blue sky. Is it any wonder they throw their hands up and go crazy?

Once upon a time I would've said I don't understand this seeming stupidity, but being older and more cynical now I can't help but suspect it's simply a desperate attempt to throw more fuel on the divide and conquer bonfire by entrenched political elites so the underclass can be kept at each other's throats over table scraps while the aforementioned political overclass gleefully continues looting the vast majority of global wealth.

But hey, I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, now continuously rate limited for my evil wrongthink, so whatever.

I'm disgusted with, and tired of this place.

I've been here eleven years now and I've watched the quality, slowly at first, and with increasing rapidity in more recent years, decline and the minds that gather here spew thought terminating cliches in progressively more shrill chorus as time has gone on, and writing this now I realise that I just get nothing whatsoever out of engagement here anymore, so this will be my final post.

Best of luck to anyone who intends to stick around and see if it pulls out of its decade long nosedive, but I'm done.

This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate.

> Nor is it ethically palpable.

Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supremacists a platform. In fact, it is the most ethical choice. Those who refuse to interact with our society in good faith do not deserve the stage.