Forestluv

The white race as having superior IQ / intelligence is not a prevalent view in science and there is not an area of scientific research. Yet I’m sure white supremacists would say that this is a bias of politically correct liberal academia - similar to climate change deniers. I haven’t listened specifically to Stefan’s arguments, yet I’ve heard others. I think it’s likely that Stefan is an intelligent person with an ideology and agenda he thinks is correct. From what I’ve seen of similar people, I speculate that a lot of what Stefan says is true. He would not be able to be convincing and have millions of followers if his ideology was devoid of truth. The problem is half-truths, twisting truths out of context, manipulations of statistical significance, error bars, confidence levels and leaving out information. Sometimes it’s helpful to simplify, such that it’s not technically correct, yet it gets a more basic point across. Yet people can use all of this to be misleading and to support an agenda. As well, when you start digging deep into the genetics and social constructs, things like race starts to unravel and becomes subjective and arbitrary. For example, what aspects of the human genome is relevant to consider as “race”? All regions of the genome? Non-coding regions? Gene coding regions? And who gets to decide the significance that should be given to specific regions? . . Once you get into the weeds and see how someone is prioritizing certain aspects of the genome and allelic frequencies in populations it’s often obvious of “Oh, you keep prioritizing in a way that favors a construct of a superior white race”. It’s not a coincidence. They have a conclusion and want to use data and modeling toward that conclusion. This also happens with scientists and it’s really bad science. As well, there are questions of what IQ tests actually test for, if they are the best methods to test for that, test bias, genetic and environmental factors and what counts as intelligence. I could cherry pick data, define what is relevant, twist some facts, leave out some points and create a very compelling model of a white race that is superior for intelligence. Intellectual white supremacists can create very convoluted models that take a lot of time to deconstruct and correct. Over and over it’s “Yes, that’s sorta correct. Yet the way you are representing it, it isn’t entirely correct and it’s misleading”. However, their goal is not to have an exploration about genetics, the various models we can create and creating the most accurate models. Their agenda is to force pieces through holes to end up with a model of white supremacy. I’ve tried to converse with them a bit, yet found it incredibly frustrating and pointless. Just as a simple example: suppose there was a study that showed tribe A was statistically taller than tribe B. We then use the conclusion that Tribe A is taller, to support a model in which Tribe A is has better fitness and is the superior tribe. After an hour of deconstruction, it becomes obvious that the data showing tribe A is statistically taller than tribe B is a foundational study and this pice of evidence is critical to the model. We find the original research article and find out that there was a statistical difference, yet that difference was only 1mm. It was statistically significant, yet a 1mm difference is trivial. It is highly misleading to say that Tribe A is taller. The person used a trivial difference that was statistically significant, to suggest there was a meaningful difference relevant to their hypothesis that tribe A is superior. A regular lay person is not going to pick this up. It’s true in one context, yet not true in the context they are using it. Their arguments are filled with this type of thing. It gets so frustrating untangling it. And all the misleading distortions are oriented toward their ideology. They don’t care about building the most accurate model. The only way they are ok with the path toward the most accurate model is if that path kept leading to their desired conclusion. Otherwise, things get distorted and misrepresented toward their conclusion. Yet not everything is misrepresented, only the parts they need to be misrepresented.

Do you really think roughly half the country agrees with Molyneux? From what I’m reading he seems alt-right with a heavy emphasis on white supremacy, conspiracy theories like white genocide, Star Wars movies persecuting white people, an obsession with white superiority of IQ etc. . . Yet perhaps I’m underestimating white supremacy popularity.

@Akemrelax I don’t find racism to be Alex Jone’s main Schtick. He is more into conspiracy theories. Yet he can cause harm. His conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged caused a lot of harm. He has also disseminated conspiracy theories that have eroded public trust in government.

@Epikur Superheroes are manifestations of our values. The superhero protects us from evil doers that want to harm us. Good and evil are relative constructs and who/what a “superhero” is is also relative. The article makes a good point about how we perceive superheroes and who gets to decide what has value and should be protected. Who is the superhero? It depends on the era in history, the culture and perspective. Let’s say the early 1800s. Who would be a superhero? In the early 1800s, the vast majority of white people owned and supported slavery. Yet there were some murmurings arising of abolitionists arising. As well, western cultures were very misogynist and patriarchal. From the perspective of a white person, the “superhero” at this time would be a white man that destroyed the evil abolitionists and protected women and children from runaway violent slaves. . . . To a black slave, the superhero would be an abolitionist that saved them from the torment of slavery. In the modern era of the U.S. a “superhero” to a conservative may be a white male super cop that saves capitalism and “our way of life” from the evil socialists and communists invading the country. That’s fine, yet this is a bias. Who would the superhero be for an inner city black people that have to endure stop and frisk, police biases and an unjust justice and economic system? From their perspective, who is the superhero? It ain’t gonna be a white supercop saving wealthy white capitalists from evil socialists that want to give them medical care and basic income. I haven’t read the article, yet my impression from the first few minutes of the video, the article is raising this issue. That is: who decides how to portray as “superhero” and who decides which people and values the superhero defends? In a lot of literature and movies, the superhero is portrayed through the lens of white people. It was only two years ago that the first major movie with a black super hero came out “Black Panther” in which the superhero had the interests and values of black people in mind.

I would also say regardless of the delivery. Red is overtly violent. Orange often cloaks itself as being “non-violent”. And it’s not just white supremacy. There are many cases of scientists using intellect, rationality and credibility to cloak themselves as “non-violent” researchers for good. For example, scientists involved in human experimentation. They can use their intellect and create convoluted arguments such as technicalities as what is “consent” or dance around inter-national laws. It is a dastardly feature of Orange intellect, especially in some philosophers and scientists. Most philosophers and scientists are decent people not causing harm, yet not all.

This is a stress test. Zuck is orange-centered as his a lot of his employees. Yet many of his employees are green. Will Zuck and FB rise up to green? The pressure is coming from Blue and some Orange. If Zuck and FB stay at Orange, they will cave to the pressure of losing profits. Yet if they rise up to Green, they will place Green values higher than Orange profits.

Blue and Orange forms of “non-violence” can be extremely violent. As violent as physical Red violence and even more so. Of course violent Orange will portray themselves as “committed to non-violence”. — The 2007 housing crisis was orchestrated by a few dozen high level Orange bankers. They used Orange intellect to create toxic loans that sent millions of vulnerable people into poverty and homelessness as well as a national recession. Those bankers made billions off of people’s suffering. That is extremely violent, yet the Bankers could dress up in their nice suits and speak intellectually about economics and appeared “non-violent”. They hired the best lawyers. They got off with a slap on the wrist and no one went to jail. Those few bankers caused much more violence than a few dozen red level gang members robbing people. — The opioid crisis from 2010-2018 was orchestrated by a few dozen Orange Pharmaceutical CEOs able to manipulate doctors and pharmacists. This caused millions of vulnerable people to become addicted to opioids, lose their jobs, enter poverty and suffer tremendously. About 500,000 people died pre-maturely. And there was a tremendous cost to communities. I live in the Midwest that was hardest hit. This Orange level violence was extremely violent. Those pharmaceutical executives dressed up nicely and spoke intelligently in courts and appeared “non-violent”. They hired the best lawyers and got off with a slap on the wrist. No one went to prison. Those few dozen pharmaceutical CEOs caused much more violence than a few dozen red level opioid drug dealers could. I’m not that familiar with Stefan and can’t speak specifically about him. Yet it’s the same dynamic with white supremacists using Orange level ideology. A few dozen white supremacists can have millions of followers and plant seeds of hate and meme’s of white supremacy. They can use Orange level rationality and manipulate weak minds. They can claim they are “non-violent”, yet the impact of a few dozen white supremacists using Orange level thought to manipulate weak minds into becoming white supremacists is much more violent than a few dozen red level white supremacists with guns. The Orange level white supremacist meme’s is contributing to the formation of red level white supremacists and all sorts of widespread justifications for racial injustice and suffering. And the Orange level white supremacists can dress nicely and speak intelligently about censorship, freedom of speech and how they are nonviolent and just want to have a philosophical discussion. And like the bankers and pharmaceutical executives they get off with a slap on the wrist and no one goes to jail. If a white supremacist is spreading meme’s into millions minds like a virus - contributing to white supremacy, racial strife, injustice, violence and suffering - and the only consequence is losing their YT channel, I’d say that is just a slap on the wrist.

LOL. It reminds me of someone trying to rationalize their absurd drunken behavior as they portray themself as the victim. . . “Swinging from the chandelier in my underwear as I urinated on myself was a reasonable thing to do at the time because I was protecting myself from an ABBA cover band playing the terrorist theme song ‘The Dancing Queen’. My boxer shorts are made of special fabric that when exposed to my own urine create an impenetrable barrier protecting my family jewels“ The lawyer is a nice touch. The guy might be concerned about legal jeopardy and want to get out ahead and frame the narrative. If it were me, I’d just lay low and let it die. I wouldn’t bring more attention to myself.

Depends on the fringe philosophy. I don’t have time to learn about, contemplate and integrate every fringe philosophy - just like I don’t have time to fact-check every fringe conspiracy theory. Anyone can make up absurd theories, there are thousands of them. I’m not going to dedicate my life to studying, contemplating and integrating thousands of absurd theories made up by bafoons, simply because it is a theory. For example, I don’t spend time studying, learning and integrating Alex Jones’ theories. That is a fool’s errand. I’ve got better things to do.

Along these lines, Stefan can come across as very intelligent, rational and philosophical. He can reasonably be perceived as a credible authority on the topic by those that are not educated in this area. For example, his use of genetics is often partial truths and misleading. Yet to someone that hasn’t thoroughly studied genetics, he can come across as an expert / authority. This greatly increases his persuasiveness. Stefan is not like Alex Jones who is obviously batshit crazy. As well, another effective way to mislead people toward ones agenda is to have a mixture of truths and falsehoods. If there are too many falsehoods, you will start to lose people. This is commonly seen in conspiracy theories. Those theories have to have a considerable amount of truth mixed in to keep the story credible and the other person engaged.

It’s not just about being offensive. It’s also about harm reduction. Stefan strongly stressed nonviolence. He prided himself in getting his points across in rational, nonviolent means. He sees himself as a great philosopher. I think this shielded him somewhat from getting banned. He can use the frame of “I’m not advocating violence. If you ban me, you are censoring me for intellectual philosophy you find offensive”. From one perspective, I can see that and I think it’s an important point. We need to be able to have discussions about social issues. Yet from another perspective, “harm” is not limited to physical violence. Harm is a nuanced, relative concept that has many forms. I can also see the perspective that he was causing harm. Yet it gets tricky, imo.

I watched Stefan’s video of talking to his viewers. It was clear he was deeply stung. He talked about how this was 14 years worth of his work that has been destroyed and erased. From his perspective, he is doing work that can help and advance humanity - just like how I may perceive my own work. I can empathize with having 14 years of work my erased. In a way, it reminds me of your video about reproduction. That having children isn’t the only way to reproduce ourselves. That we can reproduce ourselves through works of art and creativity. In a way, this is a more powerful mode of self reproduction. One’s genes gets diluted with each generation, yet one’s creative works don’t get diluted. The Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci is more Leonardo Da Vinci than his great-great-great-great-great-great grandson would be. From this perspective, losing one’s creations is losing a reproduction of themself.

Molyneux is saying YT has erased all of his thousands of videos and billions of user comments. Yet that would seem like a stupid move for YT. If YT erased it all, they would be letting go of some of their power. Suppose they had to go court proceedings. Those videos and user comments could come in handy.

Of course. From an ethical perspective, this collapses. It would be like telling abolitionists “If you can’t decide who ends slavery, then don’t end slavery”. Just because something is challenging to do and there is uncertainty on the details of how to do it, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be pursued. With this mindset, no great achievements are possible. It preserves the status quo. Of course there are concerns. With any progress, there are concerns. With the abolition of slavery, there were concerns. What would happen to the freed slaves? There were many concerns about their welfare. In terms of the concern you raise, yes of course mega corporate power is major concern. It’s is all inter-related. I’m a proponent of breaking up mega corporations, removing the influence that corporate lobbyists have on politicians and raising taxes on the mega wealthy to address the problem of unbalanced power structures due to wealth inequality. That is true in one context, yet there are other contexts. If an online group forms to promote child pornography and molestation, that is not an example of a “success” of not censoring anyone. From another perspective, that is a failure. As well, those “bits of information” showing child pornography and instructions on how to molest children are not “good or bad” from one perspective. Yet that is just one perspective. From the perspective of child molesters, those bits of information are “good”. From the perspective of parents that don’t want their kids molested, those bits are “bad”. From the perspective of children that would undergo the trauma of child molestation, those bits are “bad”. This would be like saying “A coin is neither heads nor tails. And the heads side is neither heads nor tails”. The partial truth the coin as neither heads nor tails does not nullify the partial truth of the heads side. “Every bit is equal to every bit” is just one perspective. It is one construct. That statement is true from within that construct. Yet that construct is not externally, universally, objectively True because that construct has contrasting constructs which are also Truth.

This gets sooo tiring. . . These discussions have been ongoing for many years. You just have noticed until recent weeks. The tide of the debate turned after Charlottesville and some Confederate monuments came down. The tide has again turned after George Floyd and more Confederate monuments have come down. As people wake up, more and more statues are coming down. Of course, that is how the vast majority of statues of been coming down over the years. Only a few have been torn down by communities. As I wrote, there are grey areas. Just because there are grey areas doesn’t mean that the statues honoring slavery shouldn’t come down. A common tactic of diversion is to direct focus to the grey areas. This takes attention away from the clear margins. The confederate statues honor men for brutal, cruel slave-trading and fighting to continue slavery. These should come down. Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson is a totally different dynamic. That is the distinction you are not seeing. Are you really not seeing this distinction? Martin Luther King Jr. statues are honoring him for his work and achievements in Civil Rights, not for his comments about homosexuality. The confederate statues are honoring men for white supremacy and fighting to continue slavery. Consider Nathan Bedford Forrest. His life achievements were 1) Founder of a highly profitable slave trading business, 2) Confederate general to preserve slavery, 3) Founding father of the KKK and 4) The first grand wizard of the KKK. Those are his life achievements he is being honored for with monuments. That is a completely different situation than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, MLK etc. LOL. You keep trying to conflate, yet that won’t work with me because I can see the distinction. The Spirit of Detroit statue represents human unity, that we are all in this together. Can you really not see the difference between the Spirit of Detroit statue and a Nathan Bedford Forrest statue? The debate about taking down confederate statues have been going on for years. . . A more accurate question would be: How would you fell about taking down a stature honoring Jeffrey Dahmer? There had been 5 years of debate about the statue and it still stood and then the community got so fed up looking at this disgusting statue, they said “enough is enough” and tore it down. I would understand this frustration. If my community had been trying to remove a Jeffrey Dahmer statue for 5 years and our city council refused to act, and it got torn down? I’d probably smile and sleep a bit better that night. It should never have been erected in the first place. Also consider why these statues were erected. They were erected during DECADES after the civil war ended, during periods in which black people were gaining rights: The Reconstruction era, the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights era. They are statues of white supremacy to honor white supremacists that fought to preserve slavery.

An article with a few quotes from YT and Molyneux: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech

Yep, along with David Duke and Richard Spencer. A YT spokesperson said that Stefan Molyneux’s channel had repeatedly violated the platform's 2019 policy prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Oh my. . . 1:45 - 2:00. . . “Do you know how much a slave cost back then?”. . . Look at his expression. . . There is an awkward gap of silence in which his buddy starts singing a confederate song to get things back into the racist happy zone. There is a 7 second period in which the man with the brown beard is sooo close to having an awakening. That is what being on the edge of an awakening looks like. Yet, after 7 seconds of being groundless, he regains his grounding by singing the confederate song. Yet also notice how his heart isn’t in it. There is no pep in his voice, no animation in his body. He walks away dejected as his buddy finishes the song by himself. During those 7 seconds, imagine everything that man would have had to surrender to have the awakening. He wold have needed to surrender his identity, his ideology and his life purpose. . . I’m curious if a seed was planted in him that moment. Did he ever reflect on that moment? Did he ever watch the video again? Did his views begin to evolve or was he still able to maintain his previous ideology?

Indeed. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s life achievements were 1) Founder of a highly profitable slave trading business, 2) Confederate general to preserve slavery, 3) Founding father of the KKK and 4) The first grand wizard of the KKK. Those are his life achievements he is being honored for with monuments. Not only does the state of Tennessee have statues honoring this man, they also have a Nathan Bedford Forrest Holiday every July in which the governor is required to honor.

Yes, it’s challenging to determine who draws the line and where the line should be drawn. On the margins, these are fairly straight-forward, yet in grey areas it gets much more complicated. I would first start drawing lines at the margins. At the margins, I think it’s more important that the lines get drawn for harm reduction than who draws them. Using the statues example: I think the most important thing is to remove statues at the margin: confederate statues that honor men for their white supremacy and fighting to continue slavery. Yes, there is some relativity here yet there is a majority consensus of what counts as a confederate slave trader / general that was a white supremacist fighting to promote slavery. I don’t care so much wether the decision to remove them comes from the mayor, state senators or the governor. The important thing is they come down. Then we get into gray areas of men like Thomas Jefferson. Similarly, I would go after online groups at the margin. The ones promoting white supremacy, hate and violence. At the margins, there is likely to be a majority consensus of what is over the line, such as groups promoting white supremacy and hate. I’m not that concerned about who brings it down, to me it’s more important to bring it down and reduce the harm. If there is an online group working to make bombs to blow up buildings, we can all agree that is over the line. It doesn’t really matter who takes it down since we all agree. Then, we enter grey areas. You bring up the question of mega corporate power. Yes, they can over-reach into these grey areas and become arbiters of what counts as “hate speech”. One thing I would do is break up large corporations so they don’t have this mega power and I would prevent lobbying and remove their power over politicians. If it is someone’s private forum, I think they should have the right to decide what counts as hate speech within the grey areas. Yet there still needs to be some public oversight. Even if it’s a private forum if that forum is about making bombs to blow up buildings, they cannot hide behind a shield of “free speech”. . . In terms of the public sphere of what counts as hate speech and who decides, I think it’s important that these decisions have a variety of input. For example, what counts as over-the-line “racism” should not be determined by a panel of white people. What counts as over-the-line “misogyny” should not be decided by a panel of men. An example of this was in the 1980s in the U.S. Congress was nearly all men and they were the ones who decided what counted as sexual harassment and sexual assault. That is absurd. . . So I would try to create diverse groups making these public decisions with input from the public.

Ahhh, the slippery slope argument once again. . . The confederate statues were erected decades after the Civil War ended, during periods in which black people were gaining rights: the Reconstruction era, Jim Crow era and Civil Rights era. These monuments honor confederate men for their efforts in fighting to preserve slavery. Slavery is not “non-pc”. As well, these statues do not bother “a few people”. They bother entire ethnic races of people. Over 100 million people. Now, the majority of people want them to come down. Also notice whose “bothering” matters. In equality, the feelings of white people are not placed higher than the feelings of black people. It is a white privilege to say “Us white people want to erect statues of slave traders that fought for slavery and we don’t care how people of color feel about it” And it’s important to consider what the person is being honored for. Erecting a statue of Thomas Jefferson to honor him for the Bill of Rights is very different than erecting a stature of a confederate general to honor him for fighting to continue slavery. If a statue was erected to honor a man for his homophobia, of course it should come down. That is very different than honoring a man for a great achievement, like discovering a cure cancer, and then finding out he had homophobic views. Those two situations are very different and conflating the two muddies the water. And of course there will be excesses. If a statue was erected to honor someone who discovered a cure for cancer, of course it would be silly to tare it down for one ignorant comment he made about homosexuality. Lol. Read up on confederates like Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Sir Francis Drake. These were brutal, cruel men. They are not men who made worthy contributions with a few “missteps”. They brutalized, traded and fought to oppress black people as slaves. That is what their life mission and they shouldn’t be honored for it. It would be like erecting a statue of Jeffrey Dahmer and saying he made a few “missteps”.

It depends on what the purges are over. To me, these purges seem to be for things like white supremacy, racism, hate speech and advocating violence. Advocating for white supremacy, racism and violence was once for fringe groups, yet they have gotten more access in recent years. Especially after Charlottesville. It looks like they are getting pruned back toward the fringe. I’m not seeing purges over regular disagreements. These purges are disempowering white supremacists that have been empowered over the last few years. Toward the marginalized fringe. They will be much less toxic and harmful there. Imagine a KKK group. If they had full access to media such as YT, FB, cable TV they would be empowered. If they were allowed to create documentaries glorifying white supremacy, they would be empowered. If they had wide access online, they could more easily recruit members. However, if they were marginalized to their basements without social media, they would be disempowered. The idea is to make it harder for white supremacists to spread their toxic ideology and recruit new members - not easier. In doing so, one thing to keep an eye out for is white supremacist / hate code phrases like “preserving our heritage” or violence codes like “we will express our 2nd amendment rights to achieve our goals”.

People are a mixture of stages. It’s difficult to find a pure blue example. I would look for enlightened people that are blue-centered. For example, there is a lot of blue in Zen Buddhism.

I agree with you that there were misdeeds before Trump came along. From my POV, a fair characterization in this situation is that there was cruelty at the border under Obama, yet the cruelty became more severe under Trump. Humans love to create heroes and idolize them. It’s hard to look at the flaws in our heroes. Comparing one’s hero to a villain can trigger defense mechanisms. Yet, contrasting a hero with a higher hero can be disarming because it offers a new option. For example, Bernie Sanders wants to end Trump’s family separation policy AND Obama’s / Trump’s practice of caging people at the border. This is disarming to Obama apologists because it offers a better option. Bernie wants to end all human caging at the border. This is a step up, yet the tendency would be to idolize the new and improved hero as being flawless.

Don’t mischaracterize the situation and blur lines. Obama and Trump were VERY different in regards to separating children from their parents. Under Obama, in rare cases, children were separated from their parents because the parent posed a threat to the child or the parent was ill. As well, some children arrived to the border already separated from their parents. This is a VERY different dynamic than Trump intentionally separating as many children as possible through policy. Context matters. Yes, Obama deserves some criticism. Yet, if you want to criticize Obama, do so from above with a well-informed, accurate view. Don’t criticize from below with a poorly-informed distorted view. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/falsehoods-about-family-separations-linger-online/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/