Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Good start

Needs moar, wikipedia:Stefan Molyneux is good for cribs including his small amount of mainstream press coverage - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Stop making yourself look like fucking sex clowns to milk money out of mens dicks." Deep Thoughts by Stefan Molyneux is a Facebook page of heartwarming and accurate (as far as I checked) quotes, and a lovely source on his views - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thunderf00t

Has put out a video on this dude, including going after debunking the whole "nice guy" shit. Include? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DMCA countersuit and defamation suit

Stefan Molyneux sued for misrepresentation, defamation

http://www.fdrliberated.com/exclusive-stefan-molyneux-sued-for-misrepresentation-defamation/

Stef did precisely this, and it's going to be fun. It's stupendously difficult to defame an even slightly famous figure in the US, but Stef had a really good old go at it. (That he's Canadian may not save him on this one, and definitely won't on the DMCA case.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does he live in the U.S.? Canadian courts have historically prevented Canadian residents from being sued under U.S. copyright law, so if he lives in Canada, it might not matter. - Grant (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It'll affect his YouTube channel. Additionally, that's attachable income from the US - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is true. While he could very well be protected from the lawsuit by Canadian courts, his YouTube income is certainly vulnerable to legal actions taken in the U.S. - Grant (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad start

This is a very disappointing article that is clearly biased. I thought Rational Wiki had better standards.^{— Unsigned, by: 24.9.23.42 / talk / contribs}

Perhaps you would like to make some specific criticisms that could be addressed? Are there any falsehoods? Is there anything factually wrong that needs changing? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed philosopher

This is in response to the BoN who objected to calling Molyneux a "self-proclaimed" philosopher. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a philosophy degree and all his writings, philosophical or otherwise, appear to be self-published. That's pretty much the definition of a self-proclaimed philosopher.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If we wanted to be super-nice, we could say amateur philosopher - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That YouTube comment

Yeah, it turns out he was just reposting what another commenter said. Link to original comment^image -Einstein95 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly is it? I mean the YT video you linked to is an hour long...

Anyhow, if the comment is quote mined, remove it from this article as well as from suppressed correlative or at least make it clear that Molyneux is quoting someone else (hence the error is the source's, not Molyneux, unless he repeats it favourably). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The comment isn't in the video at all, it's just how YT does comment linking for some reason. (The linked comment then appears as the first comment.) Anyway, removed it from the article. -Einstein95 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that YT comment, sorry, got confused with this YT video just added by a BoN, hence my reference to the suppressed correlative article where it was also added. My bad. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow

This guy's grade A asshole. No wonder there are so many college-aged anarcho-capitalists floating about the world now. Take a look at some of his videos about poverty. 50.153.130.12 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Attest to Clear - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How?

Do you guys figure that world war 1 was less destructive? Because less people died? We'll leave aside the fact that you guys ignore the population of the western world still growing between the two wars. I'll concede that many more people did die in world war 2. But you also have the fact that world war 2 despite its faults (and I am something of a skeptic on the WW2 official narrative) wasn't anything like the colossal failure that WW1 was. The peace settlement of WW2 did not produce a fascist Europe. The Versailles treaty arguably did. It has been widely observed that the aristocracy was almost entirely wiped out by the first world war. So an entire generation of educated people who had been groomed for leadership were lost and who knows what great contributions they might have made. That did not happen in WW2.

The battlefield experience was often far more harsh in the first world war, and the injuries much more grotesque. The average amount of time on the battlefield was much greater (like in Vietnam) which of course drastically increases the potential for PTSD, fatigue, low morale. And although there may not have been anything like Hitler in the first world war, extreme atrocities committed by each side were actually quite a bit more commonplace on the whole. This also doesn't take into account the devastating psychological damage of the war, because people had never seen anything like it before, whereas in the next conflict, people at least had some idea of what a world war was. Finally, the first world war was, I believe, more destructive because it was so much more avoidable, and therefore that much more of a waste. I would think the idea that world war 1 was much more ultimately destructive and futile than the second one would be a prospect most people of the left could agree with. Not that anyone on rationalwiki would give a shit, but if you listen to Stefan's rather emotional reflection on the bloody conflict and the consequences it has for our world today, I would think most people would find it quite touching. Burkean (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You wanna fight ? No seriously, why that amount of anger ?

>I'll concede that many more people did die in world war 2.

So kind of you #sarcasm

> and I am something of a skeptic on the WW2 official narrative

eeh, okay ?

> The peace settlement of WW2 did not produce a fascist Europe.

I think you need to educate yourself (you know, the 1950-2010 period)

> So an entire generation of educated people who had been groomed for leadership were lost and who knows what great contributions they might have made.

speculative fallacy

> The battlefield experience was often far more harsh in the first world war, and the injuries much more grotesque. The average amount of time on the battlefield was much greater (like in Vietnam) which of course drastically increases the potential for PTSD, fatigue, low morale.

> whereas in the next conflict, people at least had some idea of what a world war was.

PIROOMA

> I believe, more destructive because it was so much more avoidable, and therefore that much more of a waste.

well I'm happy to learn what you believe, but what is asserted without evidence...

> I would think the idea that world war 1 was much more ultimately destructive and futile than the second one would be a prospect most people of the left could agree with. Not that anyone on rationalwiki would give a shit,

some kind of ad-hominem, alright

> if you listen to Stefan's rather emotional reflection on the bloody conflict and the consequences it has for our world today, I would think most people would find it quite touching.

maybe we can add that his emotional reflections are touching ?

I'm angry because World War 1 was so destructive and meaningless and there kind of seems to be this resurgence of people to the left of center acting like somehow it was a good thing and giving little to no evidence for same. And as for evidence, I thought the historical literature and the folly of it, the folly of the supposed cause behind it, the fact that all sides were behaving recklessly, the fact that it could have easily been prevented, the fact that it ushered in a whole new brutal kind of warfare, the fact that it was fought over the neutrality of Belgium, based on a treaty older than most living people at that time, the fact that it was a shameless political stunt for Britain to get involved, initiated by a prime minister looking to further his political career. I mean, you can read for yourself. And I don't know why you say pulled right out of my ass, because Hitler was a different thing altogether, as most people realize. Therefore, WWII was a less ambiguous affair. Doesn't seem too crazy. And medicine had advanced. The technology was not nearly as far ahead of the tactics as it was in the civil war or the first world war. This is evidenced by the smaller incidence of brutal, serious injuries in the second world war.

It also seems that given the extensive accomplishments of the British people, that at least some of their best and brightest would've gone on to become engineers, scientists, poets. It's like if someone told you your child would probably turn out better if you didn't beat them. Speculative, yes. Overwhelming likelihood of being true? Yes. I realize you guys have your issues with Stefan, but why does that have to entail defending World War 1 for God's sake? Burkean (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

People ignoring how destructive and meaningless WW1 was, and those acting like it was somehow a good thing (seriously?), do not deserve to be cited. Being leftist or rightist or whatever, doesn't matter. I'd summarize it this way : those two wars were indeed different. I don't think you need me to numerate some 'facts' about WW2. Timescale, politics in place, warfare and treaties at the time (as you pointed out), countries involved, etc. Even though those wars took place in the same first half of last century, they were utterly different. Can we agree on the following : trying to compare them in such an implausible way ('the most destructive') 1. is, at least, wholly pretentious 2. will most likely lead to pointless discussion (and speculation, anti-speculation, PIROOMA, anti-PIROOMA,...). ? Don't misread : I would love to have such a discussion, but there is no point in outlining "WWi was the most... " (unless you need clicks, of course... Stefan ?). If X (knowing X is by no means an expert in history) claimed 'widely controversial and hard to assess fact', wouldn't you laugh at it ? Best,

Well, maybe it was pretentious on Stefan's part. But there does seem to be quite a resurgence of the idea that World War 1 was a just and necessary thing (especially from mainstream liberals) and I think it's awful. I think the fact that WW1 was much more unprecedented from a historical standpoint, and the fact that its resolution did not yield the positive results that the second world war, at least in some ways, did, are both reasons to think of it as more destructive. Your assessment that they were utterly different I would agree with in one sense. In the sense that World War 1 was much more inherently meaningless, even though I think the 2nd war could've been avoided (the best way being if the first one had never been fought!). But there are many reputable historians who consider it one single elongated conflict with a long armistice. You may not like it, but that is considered a legitimate school of historical thought. Burkean (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

the idea that World War 1 was a just and necessary thing (especially from mainstream liberals) I'll almost certainly regret this, but: three examples of this from "mainstream liberals" please - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be dishonest. I meant people who are prominent in the field of war history who happen to be liberals and who justify the war within the context of liberal political argument (liberal that is in the modern sense). Hew Strachan, who is tragically considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at this time.

His positive arguments for the war usually center around international order and concepts of political realignment and self determination and his defense of the UN and other supra-national bodies. The consequences and the aftermath to him are less of an issue. I guess in his mind this is big picture thinking. And much criticism of conservative thought these days seems to stem from accusations of myopia. Big is automatically assumed to be better. Ditto Margaret Macmillan. Barbara Tuchman certainly took that view. Fairly prominent liberal. John Ward. Richard Greyson. The late Pierre Burton. Several other prominent historians of today, whose council many seem to be listening to. I think the anniversary has only amplified this mentality.

Again, if this had been the consensus view since the war ended, I wouldn't be whining. It was quite popular with those who took a progressive view at the time. There were supporters on both sides of the political aisle to be sure, but left leaning opponents were much more in the minority. I'm not saying that the war was only progressives fault, I'm just saying that it isn't that hard to see how someone who is drawn to the idea of re-shaping the world might fall into that trap, as others did in the name of patriotism or whatever. And progressives of course, are not a monolithic thing. In the mid century and a little beyond, historians who realized what a stupid, destructive and pointless thing it was were listened to. That seems to be fading and I think we are all poorer for it. I'm glad that you don't seem to take the view that it was somehow worthwhile. In a recent debate a couple of years ago, most of the audience seem to think it was on the whole both just and necessary. College educated mostly liberal people. This I find quite sad.

http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/lloyd_george_david Burkean (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Under "Coloreds? Ew."

Under the section "Coloreds? Ew." I would like to remove the part about Margaret Thatcher that is in parentheses. Molyneux's support for Margaret Thatcher is not hypocritical. She believed in the free market and small government. Considering she actually tried to accomplish (rather than it being empty political talk) it is makes sense that Molyneux would like her. As a voluntarist he would be supportive of her and her goals. Also the footnote no longer leads to a place.

Cyberpink (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

She believed in small government so much she involved the UK in two wars (Falklands War and Gulf War; she left office before the bullets started flying in the latter, but firmly committed to it, even pushing Bush to join when he hesitated). Also she supported apartheid in South Africa (as did Reagan). Of course, the reason Molyneux and many other "ancaps" praise people like Thatcher and Trump is because most "ancaps" are thinly-veiled white supremacists and/or social Darwinists. They don't actually want to abolish government; they're just whiny about having to pay taxes, and don't like the government trying to stop them from not hiring or serving "those people". --Ymir (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Being pro-small government is not the same as being anti-military. I personally do not support wars but I see why she did it. Her (and the Tories) was suffering and so defeating a dictatorship in a small war was a way to so she was capable. At least they did not use conscription. I don't know much about her involvement in the Gulf War (or much about the war itself) so I cannot argue about that. Thatcher and Reagan weren't pro-apartheid they were opposed to sanctions on South Africa. It was about that tactics to end apartheid not the goal itself. They were not racists. Also who cares if business choose not to serve certain groups? Those businesses will suffer due to having less people come to them either because people are disgusted by their racism,because those who aren't racist will have more clients and make more money or a combination. Stefan has actually made this point himself. He is not a racist and actually believes that the state is a problem. Most white anarcho-capitalists aren't thinly-veiled supremacists just because they are white and they occasionally talk about people who aren't. Cyberpink (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

since thatcher main goal in government was to roll back the wélfare state, something which at the very least started to do (successive governments have continued this), she was very much small government. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

and of course, the whole 'no such thing as society' thing AMassiveGay (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen a politician who was genuinely 'small government'. It's always a convenient label for eliminating the parts of government they don't like, never a genuine a desire for 'small government' as every single example has then gone on to increase the parts of government they like. So, no. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing I see most small government politicians grow is the military. Most small government politicians are conservatives and conservatives have an attachment to the military due to a belief that military intervention is the best way to solve threats. Why do you assume they must be liars rather than suffering from cognitive dissonance? Their interest is in freedom and domestically that means less state interference but for foreigners that means boots on the ground. Thatcher did shrink welfare but expanded the military due to cognitive dissonance. I cannot say that there have never been liars trying to manipulate people who want small government but saying all small government politicians are liars hiding behind a name seems extreme.Cyberpink (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Best not to engage with people who think snark is a substitute for intelligence. Burkean (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

AnCaps and Cops

I've seen several other AnCaps defend police brutality. Most notable example is Murray Rothbard. Legomania105 (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Which is rather ironic to those who adhere to the NAP and hate government coercion. For the most part, though, they tend to want to privatize the police and they do not see them as a force that protects a hierarchy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stefan *literally* doesn't understand how to do logic

https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/903238443127504896 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIjzu8qWAAEQp-b.jpg:large FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy: these links are dead. Any others available? Ariel31459 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Here are archives for both of the above links:

https://archive.is/https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/903238443127504896

https://archive.is/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIjzu8qWAAEQp-b.jpg:large CowHouse (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Thanks CH. Stefan is like Donald Trump without a billion dollars.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

unnecessary & slanderous attack on people over a certain (unspecified) age

Quote from section 1: "He is allegedly a grown man but spent 42 minutes complaining about Beauty and the Beast." What does this mean? This is bigotry against countless people. My arguments don't have less value just because I spent some time talking about something you considered "childish".^{— Unsigned, by: 79.155.215.1 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's bigoted against who?-- Forerunner (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think they mean that there are lots of people watching animation and are very passionate about it (or passionate against it) and those people might not like the label "childish" for being passionate.
I have no opinion on the quote. RSamys (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentall illness denial

The section in question says: "Molyneux has denied that mental illnesses are real, saying there is not enough evidence to prove otherwise." This is an oversimplification, if not just a false statement. Indeed, even in the debunking article cited in the same section, Emil Karlsson - although condemning Molyneux's video on mental illness - has the honesty to admit that "Molyneux is not claiming that the conditions that the scientific establishment labels as mental conditions, such as depression and anxiety, do not exist. On the contrary, he admits that the anguish and suffering is very real. His problem lies in the notion that these are classified as mental illnesses."

--McLaghing (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning

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.

Changelog:

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.[1]

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.

McLaghing (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Cleaning

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

Why 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)

Since you keep ignoring my motivations (what about Steve? Islam and Crusades? Blacks at the end of "State support"? ...) I'll keep reverting and, from now on, ignoring any of your replies. --McLaghing (talk) 09:05, 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.Ariel31459^{oh 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)

So how long until Moly goes full-on fourteen words?

I can't be a white supremacist, Chinamen are good at math! 173.77.216.201 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

IQ and greenhouses

Both ought to be added, I suppose this is to remind me. — Dysk (contribs) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, just in case you forget, you know the resources we can work from? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

start here, and here. — Dysk (contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)