Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

You said: "He’s a dispacable human being who doesn’t know basic history and twists facts to represent his agenda."

You linked to some videos.

What did Molyneux say in those videos that is not true or "twisted facts" ?
 
I also linked another video that is a response to Stefan’s “The Truth About the Native American Genocide”. I highly suggest you watch it because Shaun does a great job explaining why Stefan is wrong.

His general belief that mental illness cannot objectively exist because there is no “physical mechanism” is quite contradictory with his view on IQ. There is no physical mechanism for IQ either, but he is an avid supporter of it. I have trouble articulating these things, so here is an article that says what I can’t:
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011...s-unfortunate-spiraling-into-anti-psychiatry/

The way he presents race and IQ is flawed. YouTuber Shaun explains why racial comparisons are illogical.

There’s also these article:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ace-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science
 
Last edited:
This video is garbage. Do you know who Stefan Molyneux is? If not, please check out his YouTube channel. He’s a dispacable human being who doesn’t know basic history and twists facts to represent his agenda. He denies mental illness is real and called psychiatry “pseudoscience”. He denies the Native American genocide. To top it off, he’s an advocate for “race science”. There’s other things wrong with him, but I don’t feel like writing an essay. Candance is, imo, an idiot. Why anyone take her seriously is beyond me. Like I previously said, she’s an Uncle Tom and a token black person for the alt-right so they can say, “ A black person agrees with me!!! That means I’m right!” Which is more or less what Stefan is doing in the video.

Classic genetic fallacy. You don't like the guy, so anything and everything he has anything to do with must be rubbish. I could equally well have posted this video interview of Candace Owens by David Rubin:


-- and you'd probably be rubbishing him instead. Look, I know who Stephan Molyneux is and I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I don't thereby dismiss everything he says. You're a typical left-wing regressive who can't navigate nuance, and isn't able to evaluate arguments on merit, but instantly rejects any that happen to disagree with an ingrained, indoctrinated mindset.

Anyway, not satisfied with rubbishing any sympathetic interviewer of Candace Owens, you have to rubbish her, call her an "uncle Tom". Wow. I'm bowled over by your erudition -- if you say that's what she is, I guess it must be so. Guess I'll have to slink away with my tail between my legs. Not.
 
Classic genetic fallacy. You don't like the guy, so anything and everything he has anything to do with must be rubbish. I could equally well have posted this video interview of Candace Owens by David Rubin:


-- and you'd probably be rubbishing him instead. Look, I know who Stephan Molyneux is and I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I don't thereby dismiss everything he says. You're a typical left-wing regressive who can't navigate nuance, and isn't able to evaluate arguments on merit, but instantly rejects any that happen to disagree with an ingrained, indoctrinated mindset.

Anyway, not satisfied with rubbishing any sympathetic interviewer of Candace Owens, you have to rubbish her, call her an "uncle Tom". Wow. I'm bowled over by your erudition -- if you say that's what she is, I guess it must be so. Guess I'll have to slink away with my tail between my legs. Not.


Why the name calling? I didn’t call you anything, so I’m quite confused as to why you felt the need to call me a “typical left-wing regressive ”, whatever that means. I don’t have an “ingrained doctrined mindset” and am perfectly capable of evaluating arguments, so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop making assumptions about me.

I said the video was garbage, meaning I watched it and didn’t agree with it. I gave it a chance like I do all of his videos. I’m subscribed to him! I gave more information about him to those who aren’t aware of his extreme bias and tendency to twist facts to fit his agenda. However, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t give him a listen. I’ll write a thorough post about why I thought the video was garbage, but I’ll need a bit of time for it.

You don’t have to agree with what I call Candance or what I personally think of her. My opinion is not objective nor do I present it as such. Me calling her an “uncle Tom” is no different than proponents on this forum calling scientists and people they don’t like “pseudo-skeptics”. At the end of the day, they are both opinions. I’m sure you probably wouldn’t like the people I watch and listen to. That’s okay, we don’t need to agree.
 
Why the name calling? I didn’t call you anything, so I’m quite confused as to why you felt the need to call me a “typical left-wing regressive ”, whatever that means. I don’t have an “ingrained doctrined mindset” and am perfectly capable of evaluating arguments, so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop making assumptions about me.

I said the video was garbage, meaning I watched it and didn’t agree with it. I gave it a chance like I do all of his videos. I’m subscribed to him! I gave more information about him to those who aren’t aware of his extreme bias and tendency to twist facts to fit his agenda. However, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t give him a listen. I’ll write a thorough post about why I thought the video was garbage, but I’ll need a bit of time for it.

You don’t have to agree with what I call Candance or what I personally think of her. My opinion is not objective nor do I present it as such. Me calling her an “uncle Tom” is no different than proponents on this forum calling scientists and people they don’t like “pseudo-skeptics”. At the end of the day, they are both opinions. I’m sure you probably wouldn’t like the people I watch and listen to. That’s okay, we don’t need to agree.

Oh, do pull the other one. You called Molyneux and Owens names and to pretend "confusion" is sheer artifice. Excuse me while I puke. If you'd appreciate my not making assumptions about you, you'd first of all have to present evidence that you don't make assumptions about other people, like them being uncle Toms. You do realise the uncle Tom character was a slave, don't you? Candace Owens isn't a slave. She's free and intelligent and your behaviour in attempting to brand her in this way is utterly despicable.

When articulacy fails regressive leftists (pretty much all the time), they reach for disparaging epithets to avoid having to truly evaluate what the targets of their prejudice say. They can't discuss: they can only disparage, and they sure as heck don't like it when they get treated with their own medicine.

Suck it up. You asked for it and you got it.
 
Why the name calling? I didn’t call you anything, so I’m quite confused as to why you felt the need to call me a “typical left-wing regressive ”, whatever that means.

Yep, it wasn't necessary, but sometimes when his views on certain subjects are challenged (especially Global Warming), Michael responds like a bully.

his extreme bias and tendency to twist facts to fit his agenda

I've noticed this about Stefan too, and seen/read plenty of critiques of him along those lines too.

(This thread is not the place to discuss it, but I just want to flag that there are problems with psychiatry and the psychiatric paradigm - although I haven't watched Stefan's video so I don't know how well he discusses them. I did read the response article to which you linked).

I can’t see how you watched the Shaun video and came out thinking that Stefan didn’t twist facts in it.

Yep. Utterly baffling.
 
Oh, do pull the other one. You called Molyneux and Owens names and to pretend "confusion" is sheer artifice. Excuse me while I puke. If you'd appreciate my not making assumptions about you, you'd first of all have to present evidence that you don't make assumptions about other people, like them being uncle Toms. You do realise the uncle Tom character was a slave, don't you? Candace Owens isn't a slave. She's free and intelligent and your behaviour in attempting to brand her in this way is utterly despicable.

When articulacy fails regressive leftists (pretty much all the time), they reach for disparaging epithets to avoid having to truly evaluate what the targets of their prejudice say. They can't discuss: they can only disparage, and they sure as heck don't like it when they get treated with their own medicine.

Suck it up. You asked for it and you got it.


But I said I didn’t call YOU names. What I call other people shouldn’t have any effect on how you address me. That’s where the confusion came from. I didn’t call you, for example,a “typical dumb right-wing conservative who doesn’t use facts”. Me saying “ Molyneux is a despicable human being” is hardly calling him a name. How did I make assumptions about other people? I actively watch and listen to both Stefan and Candance. What I think of both of them comes from me watching them. I’m aware that Uncle Tom was a slave, I’ve read the book. I didn’t say Candace was a slave? Where did you come up with that? Do you know what an “Uncle Tom” means?

I’m just going to ignore your second paragraph which is just an opinionated rant not based on facts.

I didn’t ask for anything and honestly I’m not sure what I just got.
 
Yep, it wasn't necessary, but sometimes when his views on certain subjects are challenged (especially Global Warming), Michael responds like a bully.



I've noticed this about Stefan too, and seen/read plenty of critiques of him along those lines too.

(This thread is not the place to discuss it, but I just want to flag that there are problems with psychiatry and the psychiatric paradigm - although I haven't watched Stefan's video so I don't know how well he discusses them. I did read the response article to which you linked).



Yep. Utterly baffling.


I agree that psychiatry has problems, especially concerning the mind=brain paradigm within it. But it’s no good to “throw the baby out with the bath water” because there are problems within the field, which it seem Stefan wants to do. My family is full of mental illnesses and I know from personal experience that psychiatry does a lot of good for people dealing with them. I do agree with Stefan to a certain degree when he says that mental illnesses are caused by a “harmful/bad” society.
 
When articulacy fails regressive leftists (pretty much all the time), they reach for disparaging epithets to avoid having to truly evaluate what the targets of their prejudice say. They can't discuss: they can only disparage, and they sure as heck don't like it when they get treated with their own medicine.

Actually, I’ve got something to ask you about this paragraph. You bring up articulacy about “regressive leftists”. Is this because I said in a previous posts of mine that I have trouble articulating thoughts? If this is the case, I assure you that my trouble articulating thoughts has nothing to do with my political position or me being a “regressive leftist”. It’s because of my mental illness. If it isn’t why you said this, sorry for misinterpreting you.
 
You're a typical left-wing regressive

Yeah, I'm not a fan of delegitimising people with terms like 'Uncle Tom', but, to my mind, you're pulling the exact same manoeuvre here.... and to someone actually present (well, online).
they reach for disparaging epithets to avoid having to truly evaluate what the targets of their prejudice say.

Ahem.....

Anyway, would you mind expanding on what specifically a left-wing regressive is? So's I can check if I am one or not.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of delegitimising people with terms like 'Uncle Tom', but, to my mind, you're pulling the exact same manoeuvre here.... and to someone actually present (well, online).


Ahem.....

Anyway, would you mind expanding on what specifically a left-wing regressive is? So's I can check if I am one or not.

Peace.


Thinking back, I shouldn’t have called her an idiot. I think she purposely remains ignorant to race issues and is uneducated on them. I apologize if I offended anyone. I wasn’t trying to delegitimize Candance by calling her an “Uncle Tom”, that’s how I personally feel about her, but of course, it’s just an opinion. I encourage anyone to watch her videos(I’m subscribed to her, too) and come to your own conclusions.

A left-wing wing regressive, according to Wikipedia, is:

“Regressive left
" (also formulated as "regressive liberals" and "regressive leftists") is a political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies, particularly tolerance of Islamism, for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left




I know both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are a big fan of this word. I’m confused though, I didn’t mention Islamism?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of delegitimising people with terms like 'Uncle Tom', but, to my mind, you're pulling the exact same manoeuvre here.... and to someone actually present (well, online).

Yes, that's right. Like I said, it was asked for and returned in kind to make a point.
Anyway, would you mind expanding on what specifically a left-wing regressive is? So's I can check if I am one or not.

It's a phrase that David Rubin uses to contrast with the term "progressive" left, which latter to some extent he still considers himself to be. According to him, the regressive left is doing all it can to regress people into infantilism; it doesn't actually give a toss about people, having completely lost its sense of fair play. It won't even listen, and seeks to protect itself by refusing to discuss serious issues, instead resorting to name-calling and shouting -- even violence. It'll label anyone, even members of minority groups such as blacks, when it suits its agenda. The reason Trump was elected, even though people in general thought he wasn't qualified to be president, was because people wanted change; wanted to escape from the deadening hand of political correctness. The regressive left still hasn't accepted this and is doubling down on its message.

Watch Ken Wilber speak about this at around 2h 31m 10s here:


As for me, I'm neither left nor right. The nearest term I'd sort of accept is libertarian, which the progressive left used to be. Libertarians can be found both on the left (now quite rarely) and the right.
 
Yes, that's right. Like I said, it was asked for and returned in kind to make a point.


It's a phrase that David Rubin uses to contrast with the term "progressive" left, which latter to some extent he still considers himself to be. According to him, the regressive left is doing all it can to regress people into infantilism; it doesn't actually give a toss about people, having completely lost its sense of fair play. It won't even listen, and seeks to protect itself by refusing to discuss serious issues, instead resorting to name-calling and shouting -- even violence. It'll label anyone, even members of minority groups such as blacks, when it suits its agenda. The reason Trump was elected, even though people in general thought he wasn't qualified to be president, was because people wanted change; wanted to escape from the deadening hand of political correctness. The regressive left still hasn't accepted this and is doubling down on its message.

Watch Ken Wilber speak about this at around 2h 31m 10s here:


As for me, I'm neither left nor right. The nearest term I'd sort of accept is libertarian, which the progressive left used to be. Libertarians can be found both on the left (now quite rarely) and the right.


Again, it wasn’t asked for. I commented on the people in the video you posted and you called me a name. I didn’t personally attack you and I doubt you were trying to make a point. I realized I shouldn’t resort to calling Candance an idiot by my own merit, not by you throwing an insult at me.

I am trying to discuss an issue. In fact, I gave reasons as to why I don’t think Stefan is credible. I provided links to his videos, rebuttal videos, and a couple articles. I am open to discussing both of their beliefs/ideas. I’m working on my response to the video and I’ll hopefully be done with it by tomorrow. I have some sources and studies I need to dig around and find.

Trump won because he used scare tactics and appealed to the ignorant. Not to be THAT person, but aren’t you using political correctness on me for calling Candace an “Uncle Tom”? I have tried to like Trump, I really have. But he is so unqualified and not educated on most subjects he talks about. Not to mention his Vice President, Mike Pence, is a total bigot.I’m not opposed to a conservative President, just not Trump.
 
Back
Top