They should just get together, slap and scratch each other fiercely, and get it over with. That being said, Molyneux has some strange views about things. Proof that nowadays it doesn't take much to become a social media celebrity.
He has a lot of sensible and interest views. The only thing that loses me is the extremism of believing freemarkets solve everything. They obviously do not, but neither does excessive government. You need to keep it trim, but also accept that some of it needs to exist. I would only axe half of all civil servants.
Also, would I guess that Molyneux has the potential to spin and twist? Well, isn't that what every outlet is doing these days? He has his agenda. It is one reason why trust in the media is at record lows. Journalists today seem to lack integrity and they will write anything to keep their jobs and pay off the mortgage. On the whole you have to consider the merits and limitations of anyone you listen to. In saying that though, I do like Molyneux some of what Molyneux says and he doesn't advertise pills like CNN to make his revenue so that is cool. He lives and dies by his content and people choosing to support it.
Do you actively search for videos to try and validate your own cynicism, Beanz? You posting a video to make a point and then adding no commentary is no different to the kind of thing Brock was getting warned about with the Mark Dice videos. you should say something. Everyone to you is a snake oil salesman or a shill, but it is very easy to say that. You can take something anyone says and crucify them, but it isn't a full reflection of who they are.
Miles it is a brilliant response to the kind of shallow narcissistic rubbish that passes for insight nowadays. Like Peterson he is the Emperor with no clothes, only in this case with added pathological bitterness. He is still shaming people into paying him because he can't get a real job. Like him you have become incredibly lazy intellectually when it comes to posting here. Why bring up CNN? You know I don't watch it but it makes your non argument seem worthy. No mention of Infowars and their utterly con job supplements because you have no consistency. Comparing it to Brockton spamming when again it is a false analogy. I didn't comment last night because it was 1:30 am and I had just finished working before going to bed. Not because I am spamming the forum with screaming hate fuelled click bait.
I guess this was on your mind at 1:30am?
Who is he shaming into paying him? Don't all media and information outlets need revenue to produce their work? It certainly beats having BBC world tell us we have to fly with Emirates. Or have CNN tell us to pop pills. This is where I find it strange how bitter you are about Infowars. I don't see you haranguing the 'mainstream' outlets for their agendas or how they make their money. Alex Jones sells vitamins for crying out loud. Vitamins! Molyneux relies on donations. Donations!
I am not being intellectually lazy as I am not trying to be intellectual. These are simple observations. You have posted a number of threads without comment lately and fair enough if you want to do that, but don't pretend it isn't Brock esque to post videos with very little comment. Maybe Brock posts his videos at 1:30am. I have no idea!
You can accuse Molyneux and Peterson of being naked all you like, but I don't think you have even read An Antidote to Chaos. Asides from not liking post modernism, I really haven't worked out your objection to Peterson. And Molyneux has clearly worked and done very well for himself whence being able to take the time and develop his hobby horse. To sustain it he needs to be paid and I think most of us expect to be paid when we do some work or provide some kind of service.
I really do not see the problem. He is not forcing anybody to do anything. I mean, you could download an album for free, but you as someone who respects artists would like the band to be paid, right? If you don't want to listen to Molyneux you can just change the channel and if you don't like what he says you don't have to pay anything. What am I missing here? I am not sure I get it.
Molyneux really is a bit of a charlatan. I remember him on a show (Dave Rubin) claiming something like "White kids adopted by poor black families tend to display a high IQ, while black kids adopted into white middle-class families still score low on IQ tests".
Ok. One possibility is that there was actually a study made on hundreds of kids that produced these startling results —don't ask me how or why or where all this kid-switching happened on a national level (USA? Canada? Kazakhstan? French Riviera?).
And a second possibility is that he pulled it out of his arse.
A Charlatan and a sociopath. Sam Harris once mentioned he would notice a special gleam in Molyneux' eye whenever he got talking about all these racial issues.
The problem with Molyneux and many like him is that in this age of YouTube and social media, he has an easy platform from which to launch his bigotry and general ignorance, dressed up in some sort of pseudo-intelligence. Far too many people hang on the words of these opportunistic, opinionated people.... like sheep being led to the brain-washing machine. Not picking on Molyneux exclusively, or branding everything he has to say as wrong. Just raising the flag that too many people out there use these YouTube sermons as gospel, displacing their own thoughts on many matters. Before YouTube and social media, people were forced to come to their own conclusions, based on their own experiences, their own upbringing. People today, in general, like to spew multi-syllable words, in a comical effort to impress. They'll utter lots of words, but when that is condensed into meaning, it shrinks to 1% its original content. Which is why some of these extensive YouTube soliloquies are far too tedious and mind-numbing to listen to for more than a couple of minutes. Society is changing... though not necessarily for the better.
What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.
Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.
It is good to see that you know how to have a conversation and we can agree on some things and disagree on others and that's all fair enough.
Absolutely. It's the only way to argue.
But IMO, single motherhood, and claims about IQ's by race or ethnicity are two completely different things. On single motherhood I agree. Still.... I'll bet we've all known shining exceptions to the rule, where a single mother has done her damnest and has raised wonderful, well-adjusted kids. It's not the norm, mind you... but there are exceptions. Still, I believe a single mother is starting off with two strikes, if you will (sorry for the baseball analogy). It's a problem that by all means should be addressed, as it's the root cause of a lot of ills in society. On IQ, it gets stickier. To me, IQ is simply genetics. The same reason why some kids are adept at sports and some aren't. Why some have a musical talent since birth. Why still others are born with a paint brush in their hands. Genetics. More than one U.S. celebrity has gotten in trouble trying to explain why blacks aren't good swimmers..... or why women aren't good golfers. They may have good intentions... but they invariably get in trouble for their generalizations. No country, race, or ethnic group has a monopoly on IQ. Life circumstances force people into different cubbyholes in life.... but it isn't because they're black, Asian, white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)