There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
The overall critics to Molyneux are good, but it is quite annoying that there are several "objections" moved only by dislike for the person instead of reason and evidences. I have tried to clean the page from these "sins", since I think that RW should be about well-argued skepticism.
- He is allegedly a grown man but spent 42 minutes complaining about Beauty and the Beast. Really.
Many philosophers (and I am not saying that Molynuex is a philosopher...) have spent their time analyzing fairy tale, movies, and other products of pop culture, there is nothing childish in that. It is also dishonest saying that the was "complaining". He made his analysis of the movie, and said he disliked it.
- In one video, he sees being nice to a woman as "a white knight" reaction to "PROTECT THE EGGS." That's not hyperbole, he really shouts PROTECT THE EGGS.
Well, from an evolutionary point of view, helping women is a way to preserve the species... explaining that by shouting "PROTECT THE EGGS" might be too much theatrical, but it is not inherently wrong.
- These days he moans about Islam and oversimplifies the Crusades.
That is not an embrace of the State.
- On a related subject, why are there so few black libertarians?
Did Molyneux ask this question? I have no idea what the objection is.
- At the movies
I have already explained there is nothing childish in analyzing movies and pop culture.
- Molyneux has claimed that Freedomain Radio is the most popular online philosophy conversation in the world, despite there being much evidence to the contrary.
I can not open the video, I have also tried from other countries with some proxies. I guess it does not exist anymore.
- Molyneux has amassed a small fortune in Bitcoin...
Good for him... what does that have to do with "DMCA and IP law"?
- Molyneux decided that Leonard Nimoy's passing... Similarly, he posted a video on Robin Williams' suicide
Everybody was talking and saying his opinion about Robin Williams' death when he died, he was a very public and beloved person. Molyneux, as nobody else, can not be criticized for that.
Honor your father and your mother!
In the section "Families" it is written that "Molyneux believes that adults who deem their parents to be physically or psychologically aggressive should cease all connections with them, if previous attempts to mend any faulty relationships have failed, or resulted in begging for 'unearned forgiveness'", and that this is a "controversial" point of view of non-aggression principle.
I do not think that this has a lot to do with the non-aggression principle... Anyway, my point is that there is nothing controversial with this Molyneux's statement and that, indeed, according to a secular and skeptic point of view, Molyneux is right on this issue.
Why should sons keep contact with their abusive parents who did not redeem themselves? I do not see any logical reason and I think that RW should recognize that Molyneux is OK on this topic, even if he is wrong on many other things. McLaghing (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Since @James Earl Cash keeps removing (without any motivation except for "stop removing snark") my (on the other hand motivated) edits; I collect my reasons here.
I make it clear: Molyneux is full of shit, but this page has a lot of problems. One thing are founded criticisms of Molyneux, which are welcome, another thing are gratuitous attacks against libertarians (which, by the way, are not such supporters of Molyneux), blind criticisms of everything Molyneux has said/done JUST because he is Molyneux, "jokes" nobody understands...
Steve Stefan Molyneux (born 1966) is an British Irish-Canadian political activist
Steve and British? What is the joke? I know he get "angry" for mispelling his name like "Stephan", "Stephen"... but "Steve" ?
In one video, he sees being nice to a woman as "a white knight" reaction to "PROTECT THE EGGS." That's not hyperbole, he really shouts "PROTECT THE EGGS."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwThhlhBZqk "The TRUTH About ''Star Wars: The Force Awakens''!"]</ref>
And what is questionable about that? From an evolutionary perspective, it's completely reasonable that "white knights" are a strategy to protect the species reproduction.
And on an entirely unrelated note, why are there so few female libertarians?Feminism is SOCIALISM IN PANTIES?? (Women know they're inherently weak, unlike big burly anarcho-capitalist males, and thus they are biologically driven to the warm embrace of the state.)
What does such question mean? It is not a rhetoric question and the reader of course cannot answer. Also, if anything, the footnote should report what Molyneux actually said, not something else.
These days he moans about Islam and oversimplifies the Crusades.
This is listed under "Instances of State support" but it is not such an instance.
On a related subject, why are there so few black libertarians?
Again, if Molyneux asked and/or answered such a question, then a reference should be reported. Also, that is not an instance of State support.
Molyneux decided that Leonard Nimoy's passing was the appropriate time to talk about how Spock's collectivism ... Similarly, he posted a video on Robin Williams' suicide, leaping at the chance to psychoanalyze the actor ...
Nimoy and Williams were both very public actors and everybody, including all media, spoken about their death. I have no idea how this is wrong when it is Molyneux doing it. --McLaghing (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can't believe I'm actually doing this but here goes.
- Those questions, it's a rhetorical question to snark at Molyneux's obvious racism and sexism, which isn't that uncommon in the libertarian movement as a whole. Protect the eggs is funny, it's not something a normal person would say. Especially a red piller like Molyneux. re: Nimoy and Williams and all of pop culture, he analyzes it from the perspective of libertarianism and frames it from his own warped perspective while omitting info. Look at his piss poor analysis on Maya Angelou. So it's not surprising either when he actually looks at Frozen as feminist propaganda, and even had to apparently "deprogram" his daughter because she watched Maleficent. The guy is not right in the head. I'd say bashing him is appropriate. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes, you're a bit of a hothead aren't you? Gonna ignore my replies, well you didn't need much time to decide that at all.
- But sure man, supporting the Confederate south and altogether shitting on black people for thinking slavery is bad isn't state support. Same with pissing and moaning about Islam, especially a racist like Molyneux who supports Trump and tries to skew the Crusades in favor of the Europeans. SURE MANG. Fuckin dumbass.
- I mean I already said that the point of those rhetorical questions was snark. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why said snark would be appropriate. You're seriously going to raise issue with a dumb joke like Steve? Fuck on off outta here with that shit. James Earl Cash (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO:Some people regard this wiki as a carnival: a place where all the bad people are castigated for their bad ideas, like clowns sitting on a trap-door over a tank of water; and we wise few toss the balls at the target until we sink the suckers. But, in my view, the main product of these articles should be a fairly accurate picture of the people being represented, with some humor and a healthy dose of ridicule too. I think any ridicule should be specific. Ridicule Molyneux for specific faux pas, not just non-standard ideas, but ideas that can reasonably be viewed as pernicious. I suggest you ask CowHouse or LeftyGreenMario, both moderators if you are unsure about anything. James: if no administrator agrees with you, you need to relent.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- If no administrator agreeing with me is codeword for, "Let's pretend to have a debate while ignoring anything you say," as McLaghing just did, then hell no. He outright said he's not going to acknowledge anything I say even after I raised my salient points. And I'm being lectured by you of all people? Get bent. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Limit the Snark bullshit
This guy is about as bad as they come. A true and faithful representation of what an asshole he is is what I would like to see. There is too much dumbass snark editing, by editors who don't know enough about the subject to say anything intelligent. I don't want to read stupid jokes. This article could be 100 pages long just describing why this guy is a crazy asshole.Ariel31459oh yeah?
- The snark in question that's being debated doesn't really add up to much though. Removing the sentences also kinda undermines how racist and sexist he really is. I'm not going to look for the source right now because this is just on a talk page, but whenever his wife is feeling down, she asks him how she should feel instead of actually feeling anything for herself. Icing on the cake and all that. Typical of a man who looks into meaning on Beauty and the Beast and regards Maleficent as feminist propaganda. Nor is it surprising that a man who pushes the lost cause of the south, where prominent libertarians in general tend to think slavery isn't so bad and think race really inherently determines IQ (hello there Walter Block) is going to push black people away from the movement. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)