Comment by Quanttek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Quanttek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

God, no. He is a far-right YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views. His website is basically a cult with active use of cult indoctrination methods on Molyneux's side.

Let's not pretend that the above poster doesn't know about that. He tries to bait you into watching Molyneux because he is "good on philosophy and parenting", who can slowly indoctrinate you into his far right views[1] (he doesn't try to be to open about them)

For instance, this is his take on the Holocaust:

> ...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.

If anyone wants to take a look at this track record, in his own words, check out the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi.... (Also the source for the above quote)

Otherwise, you can also take a look at the less trustable but far more comprehensive RationalWiki overview: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux.

And if anyone wants to learn about denial tactics when faced with an alt-right, misogynistic mass shooter, using the example of Molyneux, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMfKihy33w

[1] An explanation of "the onion" can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

I don't have to agree with someone (on every point) to find a conversation with that person intellectually stimulating.

Do you find the ramblings of Alex Johnes or Goebbels also "intellectually stimulating"? Don't get me wrong: I'm an avid listener if Intelligence Squared and find engaging with diverse opinions lovely but Molyneux doesn't fall into the camp of "intellectual thinkers" and his ideology is far outside of what any reasonable person could find intellectually enticing. He is also just plain stupid and fails to offer any good arguments, which might provide value.

He basically just rants on for hours without end, committing logical errors, providing disingenuous arguments, and ranting without sources on the way. For instance, he styles himself to be a philosopher but does not engage with the scholarly literature at all while copying arguments by famous philosophers (like Locke) without any credit.

Now I am interested in Molyneux even more. Whenever I see someone dumping personal attacks copypasta I am sure the person they’re attacking is interesting. Subscribed. Cheers!

We both know how disingenuous your argument is: No one actually thinks "I was actually a liberal until you made fun of Trump's physical fitness; now, I must vote for him" or "I am totally not a right-winger but now that you critized a major alt-right figure, I must become a follower of his".

The above is not a "copypasta". A person doesn't become suddenly interesting & someone to follow because they are subject to valid critcisim.

It is more likely you find him interesting, because you agree that "blacks are less intelligent" and women are to be blamed for being abused single mothers (or you are willing to overlook that, which is equally abhorrent).

Most normal people would probably take a look at SPLC's report and not blindly subscribe. But we both know you were already an avid fan long before your comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com