Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux is NOT a white supremacist. This is a slander campaign against individuals who were discussing the very real and documented phenomenon of slight differences to IQ bell-curve distribution when comparing different ethnicities and regions of the world. This is based on scientific studies conducted without bias reaching scientifically accurate conclusions.

In fact, Molyneux frequently clarified that he is not racist, rather a man of science who will not shy away from a difficult conversation topic because of slander. I share what I would ascribe as broadly the same views espoused by Molyneux; Bellcurve distinctions between populations average intelligences are in fact scientifically confirmed in at least limited scope. The fact remains that there are intelligent people of ALL ethnicities, some geniuses are performing at a greater relative advantage to members of their own ethnicity than other ethnicities relative to theirs.

My proposal is to remove verbiage indicating that Molyneux is a white supremacist directly and address the issue in neutral language. Mention that he is accused of being a white supremacist, include that he refutes this assertation. It is not a factual statement to call him this ad-hominem. 71.76.36.184 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I know it's not productive in the course of getting the page changed, but this subject and talk page are a good reminder that Wikipedia is just a summary of the corporate media sentiment and nothing more. It doesn't matter if there is absolutely no fucking evidence for a claim; if some columnist at forbes or salon feels like writing a smear piece, there are your reliable sources, in plenty. Conversely, you need a "reliable (always corporate) source" to refute the corporate smear even if it's obviously untrue. Good game 2601:CF:4580:E3C0:3432:8E35:B2C0:B367 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, see wp:rs. But in essence if "if it is shown to actually make stuff up its not reliable". Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The Bell Curve, and similar works derived from its methodology and claims, are pseudo-science. Even the fundamental claims about heritability of intelligence (in the sense of genetic heritability), the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, and their relation to social outcomes, are extremely dubious, and usually indicative of a lack of understanding and misinterpretation up to misuse (abuse) of the statistical procedures used to estimate them. I suggest that you actually try to understand what the words you are using mean; competence is required to edit Wikipedia. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

See also: Wikipedia:No racists. Excerpts (emphasis mine):

[...] The basic definition of racism is one who believes that different races have different levels of various abilities, and that one can organize the races into hierarchies based on this. It is important to note that not all racists believe that their race is superior in every way. For example, many white supremacists believe that Asians are the most intelligent race. They will almost invariably feel that their own race is superior overall, but may "concede" that some other race is better in some highly specific way.

Racists generally believe in the following: [...] That genetic difference between races are fundamental and meaningful. [...]

[...] The categorization of humans into "races" has been considered a pseudoscientific idea by scientists and anthropologists since the 1960s and the discovery of molecular genetics. See Race (human categorization) § Modern scholarship. Because racists reject empiricism and the scientific method, it is exceedingly difficult for them to neutrally evaluate logical arguments which challenge their beliefs.

Just because you use dry statistical terminology and replaced "race" with "population" in your arguments doesn't change the fundamental core of what you're arguing for. You're not the first one to use this style of rhetoric, and you won't be the last one either. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That’s an amazingly poor definition of racism. Black skin conveys certain benefits in climates with greater amounts of UV light, for example. By the quoted definition, my believing this readily verifiable scientific fact makes me racist. Racism, as commonly understood, requires animus on a racial basis, or a belief that the social order must be changed to reflect racial differences. Molyneux shows no such inclinations. 2600:100A:B149:9E5A:B5D7:C779:B7C7:9FE7 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]