Categories
Uncategorized

The best responses to Stefan Molyneux getting banned from Twitter

By David Futrelle

Last week, we celebrated Stefan Molyneux’s YouTube ban. Now the wannabe philosopher racist has managed to get himself banned from Twitter as well, reportedly not for anything he said but rather for “platform manipulation,” specifically fake sockpuppet accounts.

I don’t have much to say beyond “good riddance,” but others have been posting their responses to his banning on Twitter. So today I’m going to go all Twitchy and show you some of my favorites.

Let’s start with the eggs — referring back to Stefan’s weird and creepy obsession with young women’s eggs, particularly those belonging to Taylor Swift.

https://twitter.com/mercfromthesout/status/1280681078961983489

There were some who took a moment to remind us of some of Stefan’s Greatest Hits.

But it’s this tweet that may be Stefan’s real masterpiece:

I have so many questions. Why is the shoe so small? Why don’t the shoe and the egg cast shadows? And most importantly, WHY ISN’T HE WEARING A SHIRT.

For more of Stefan’s Greatest Hits, on Twitter and elsewhere, see the links here.

Good night, sweet prince. Go work your grift on Telegram.

H/T — @RationalGenius, from whom I borrowed the “cult leader banned” meme,

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

110 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw

I recall that ‘JVC’ stood for Japanese Victor Company. Is that related?

It appears they were created as a subsidiary of the Victor Talking Machine Company (which was then acquired by RCA), but during World War II they split and kept the Victor trademark in Japan for their own operations.

QuantumInc
QuantumInc
4 months ago

@Naglfar
“Or her internalized transphobia in the video on Shame.”
The whole point of the video was that she was discussing her internalized transphobia and using it as a case study. Your wording implies that the internalized transphobia was something something that invalidates her message. Really that wording could mean multiple things, but the most likely interpretation is not the most accurate one. “Or her internalized transphobia THAT SHE DISCUSSES in the video on Shame.” Add three words and the misleading implication disappears. It really is that easy to misrepresent someone in a way that leads others to conclude, “Oh they are just another bigot.” If you wrote an essay about internalized transphobia, how would you describe that in a sentence?

“Or her anti-autistic bigotry in her video on Cringe.”
Being autistic I would like to think I can tell the difference between anti-autistic bigotry and a discussion of anti-autistic bigotry. Though I would also hope that anyone can tell the difference. Yes she does accuse of autistics of having internalized bigotry (and discusses a very specific example of it, and makes the exact same point about transgender people) but acknowledging that is just part of any good discussion about bigotry. Reading this line is a serious case of “Did we see the same thing, really?” Unless I am hallucinating, it the equivalent of calling David Futrele an MRA. To be clear I don’t think she is lying, but I have to wonder why anyone, let alone Naglfar, would come to that conclusion, and ironically the “Canceling” video offers a decent explanation with the first 10 minutes. When somebody criticizes a video and yet the video seems to explain their behavior it demands a response. I suppose this is what gaslighting feels like; though I suspect if Naglfar reads this they would feel the same.

“In short, she is a rather problematic person.”
That much is actually true. Insert that one Simpson’s meme, photoshop Natalie’s head over Skinner’s head, print: “Am I out of touch? No it is the [Nonbinary people] who are wrong!” She did the all too human thing of assuming that the people who were angry at her were wrong and failing to swallow her ego. At some point she stopped listening to the criticism, assuming that it can’t be good faith criticism if it includes curse words. From the start she has been an EdgeLady, making the sort of jokes that demand the benefit of the doubt to be read as jokes. Several videos “both sides” important issues. She probably even conflates discussing a group of people and protecting them.
Are these videos even meant for other trans people? Well, no, it is not. Which explains why she has a bigger audience and feels comfortable divorcing the twitter nonbinary community. I would assume that she assumes that the twitter nonbinary community doesn’t really represent the larger nonbinary community anyway. By explaining the trans experiences to cis people she could make the world more accepting, but making nonbinary people feel safe is an indirect goal.

Unfortunately I haven’t watched all of the Essential Thoughts videos, ironically I clicked part 3 of 3 parts, but seeing the conclusion it seems that their goal is to the maintain a distinct safe space for non-binary folk. Communicating with “centrists” isn’t part of their game-plan. Unsurprisingly people with different goals criticize each other. I hope I don’t misrepresent but like Perry mentioned: “canceling” works for one set of goals but not for another. Burning bridges stops both enemies and allies alike. Perhaps I am projecting my own issues with isolation, or perhaps it is the vision of the left-wing squabbling with each other while the Neoliberals and Trumpists seize more hearts and minds, but seeing a progressive dismiss another progressive for ANY reason gives me the heebie jeebies.

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@QuantumInc

Your wording implies that the internalized transphobia was something something that invalidates her message. Really that wording could mean multiple things, but the most likely interpretation is not the most accurate one. “Or her internalized transphobia THAT SHE DISCUSSES in the video on Shame.”

I used that wording on purpose. The video still shows very definite internalized transphobia and mocks other trans* lesbians for what they are interested in. She accuses them of making her unable to come out as a lesbian because she didn’t want to be that. If she wanted to explain her own internalized transphobia, she could do that without attacking other trans* women.

Though I would also hope that anyone can tell the difference. Yes she does accuse of autistics of having internalized bigotry (and discusses a very specific example of it, and makes the exact same point about transgender people) but acknowledging that is just part of any good discussion about bigotry.

She mocked an autistic trans* woman for not passing and for being angry when she was misgendered. She literally called that woman a “dump truck” and said it made her feel good to do so. As well, since she’s not autistic I’d recommend she stop telling autistic people how we should feel.

I suppose this is what gaslighting feels like; though I suspect if Naglfar reads this they would feel the same.

I am not gaslighting anyone, I am saying what I and other people I know saw in her videos that was problematic and calling her out on it. To gaslight someone I would have to repeatedly deny what she’s doing and say it’s all in someone else’s head.

Are these videos even meant for other trans people? Well, no, it is not.

It’s possible to make videos for an audience without attacking other audiences. For example, Sex and the City was a TV show aimed at women, but it was able to do that without bashing men.

By explaining the trans experiences to cis people she could make the world more accepting, but making nonbinary people feel safe is an indirect goal.

It’s not just non-binary people. A lot of binary trans* people, myself included, dislike her as well. I think the issue is that she has a very large platform and for a lot of cis people, she is their main source of information about trans* people. As a result, splash damage is magnified and really not acceptable.

Unfortunately I haven’t watched all of the Essential Thoughts videos, ironically I clicked part 3 of 3 parts, but seeing the conclusion it seems that their goal is to the maintain a distinct safe space for non-binary folk.

Maybe watch all the videos first then comment on what you got out of it? The first 2 videos have a lot more information in them.

seeing a progressive dismiss another progressive for ANY reason gives me the heebie jeebies.

The thing is, ContraPoints is doing harm to trans* people (especially non-binary people), who are mainly on the left. If we don’t criticize someone who is harming others because they’re supposedly working “for the greater good” (which is debatable), then we are throwing away those they are harming as collateral damage. If the left doesn’t call out problematic people, what stops us from sliding into being the alt right?

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 months ago

There are plenty of videos breaking down Natalie’s discourse. Here’s another one I find pretty concise:

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
4 months ago

@Alan:
Naglfar already answered on the Japanese Victor Company. As I said, the trademarks were a bit complicated, which isn’t surprising when you’re dealing with multiple interconnected multinationals with roots stretching back over a century. (The Victor Talking Machine Company was founded in 1901, RCA in 1919, JVC in 1927…)

I remember hearing about the Apple Computers/Apple Records controversy before iTunes existed as such (back in 1987 during the early Mac days, which would have been during the second round of lawsuits according to Wikipedia), and the agreement that Apple Computers wouldn’t get into music to keep the trademarks separate. That, obviously, didn’t happen.

And yes, I remember hearing about Jackson buying the Beatles back catalogue being an issue as well. That was a mess all of its own. (Of course, a LOT of things involving Michael Jackson were a mess. Not helped by the way he got surrounded by what I would later term as ‘an ablative armour of yes-men’.)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ jenora

A nicely weird IP case was when Bowie (who didn’t own his back catalogue) got sued for sounding too much like himself.

There was also a case with the two Budweiser companies. They had a ‘standstill’ agreement which allowed them both to use the brandname for 20 years. There was a clause that, unless either party sought to change that, then the agreement would continue in perpetuity. One of the companies then issued a trademark infringement claim one minute before the deadline expired.

The claim was stuck out with the judge basically saying: “Nice try. Fuck off.”

Naglfar
Naglfar
4 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw

A nicely weird IP case was when Bowie (who didn’t own his back catalogue) got sued for sounding too much like himself.

There was a similar case in the US with John Fogerty, who wrote the song “Run Through the Jungle” in 1970 while in the band Creedence Clearwater Revival, then 15 years later as a solo artist signed to another record label released a song with the same music and new lyrics. His previous label, Fantasy Records, sued for copyright infringement. He won, but was denied the request for attorney’s fees, which then made its way to the Supreme Court separately.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 months ago

@ naglfar

It always seems a bit weird to us here that the US doesn’t have the “loser pays winner’s costs” rule (IP cases being one of the possible exceptions). Can’t help but think it means ‘justice’ is about who has the deepest pockets.

Although now we have ‘Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting’ (“QOCS”) in some cases. That’s where an individual sues a larger organisation and there’s a general public interest in doing so. Say for example a test case against a government body. If the individual wins they get their costs from the big organisation; but if they lose they don’t have to pay the organisation’s costs. Sort of litigation socialism.

It’s relatively new but we have just about grown out of giggling because it’s pronounced ‘Cocks’.

cubist
4 months ago

Regarding the Lincoln Project: I love ’em! They are absolutely not allies, of course, but they’re pretty close to a textbook example of the useful idiot. Never interrupt an enemy who is doing your work for you!

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
4 months ago

One of my favourite complicated trademark cases was the case of Radio Shack’s Canadian stores. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned it here before…

So, Radio Shack was owned by Tandy Corporation. (Yes, the same Tandy as in Tandy Leather.) This is the reason why their original computers were the TRS-80 line: Tandy/Radio Shack, with a Z80 processor.

When they expanded outside of the U.S., they created a separate company up in Barrie, Ontario, called ‘InterTAN’ to handle all of their international operations. Over time, some of the expansions got sold off until InterTAN only handled the Canadian stores. They were given a license to continue using the ‘Radio Shack’ name as long as they didn’t act to compete with the original Tandy/Radio Shack in the U.S.

Then, Circuit City, in an attempt to stave off their own financial issues, bought up InterTAN. (Why the U.S. company thought that buying up a significantly smaller Canadian firm would staunch their own bleeding financial records, even if the Canadian side was actually profitable, is a mystery to me.) At which point Radio Shack in the U.S. said, “By buying them, you also bought the licensing agreement… and because you are competing with us in the U.S., we hereby revoke the licensing agreement. You have a year to change the name of every ‘Radio Shack’ store you continue to operate before we sue you.”

And, so, every Radio Shack in Canada became ‘The Source (by Circuit City)’.

Needless to say, this didn’t actually do more than briefly slow down Circuit City’s slide into bankruptcy, because it didn’t fix any of their actual problems. But since the Canadian operations weren’t in the main liquidation proceedings in the U.S., they got sold off separately, and bought by Bell Canada Enterprises, so they’re now owned by one of the primary phone companies in Canada.

And so every store took the ‘by Circuit City’ part off its signs, but most of them are still around as ‘The Source’.