From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Nazism is a form of fascism,[4][5][6][7] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. Its beliefs include support for dictatorship,[3] fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism,[8] anti-Romani sentiment, scientific racism, white supremacy, Nordicism, social Darwinism, homophobia, ableism, and the use of eugenics.
Overall
I won't trade in this market.
The focus of these questions is object level endorsement or practice, not self identification.
e.g. "I am not a white supremacist but [... white supremacist stuff...]" resolves as yes for the 'white supremacist' subquestion.
All statements or actions must occur after 22 Jan 2025, 23:31:08 PST and before May 2, 2025 23:31:08 PST
In the event of ambiguity judging any criterion, I reserve the right to rope in a quorum of judges from mods/the community/responsible neutral third parties to determine resolution.
I've tried to operationalise these as clearly and unambiguously as I can in terms of explicit action or endorsement in order to make resolution easier on my future self, even if in some cases the criteria are a bit more restrictive than the full intuitive meaning of the category.
~~~I'm open to any reasonable widening of a category that lines up with consensus understanding of a term and which won't set me up for a horrible subjective argument in 3 months' time.~~~ too late, definitions are now frozen
Otherwise, I will try to resolve precisely as worded - I'm looking for "explicit" endorsement/practice.
I've made the judgement call to eliminate some items from the original wiki list as less-relevant in modern American society (anti-slavism, anti-romani, nordicism) or just 'in the water supply' (anti-communism).
(a) Anti-democracy:
He says that any democracy (defined as any 'Full' or 'Flawed' democracy according to the Economist Democracy Index as of 2023) would be better off as a dictatorship or if a particular current dictator was in charge
He or his corporations take actions supporting a dictator (defined as any leader of an Authoritarian Regime in the Democracy Index as of 2023) in a way directly connected to them taking or maintaining power in their country
Saying something positive in isolation about an individual autocrat doesn't count
Supporting a dictator obliquely in an unrelated matter doesn't count, e.g. selling Starlink units to the king of Jordan would in general not count
e.g. selling Starlink units to a dictator to be used to crush a rebellion would count
e.g. censoring dissidents in a dictatorial regime on X would count
e.g. publicly endorsing Lukashenko in the context of the upcoming Belarussian 'election' would count
(b) Anti-semitism:
He engages in holocaust denial
E.g. explicit claims that deny it happened or minimise casualties below the widely-accepted numbers
E.g. tacitly endorses, by retweeting someone else's holocaust denial claim in a supportive way
Any of his statements are officially denounced as anti-semitic by the ADL, the Weisenthal center, or the World Jewish Congress
(c) Scientific Racism:
He claims that any racial or ethnic group is inherently inferior to another racial or ethnic group on a biological / genetic basis
Claims acceptable in general polite conversation don't count, e.g. observing that the fastest sprinters tend to be of African descent wouldn't be enough
Claims must state or clearly imply an inherent, not cultural/environmental, basis for superiority/inferiority
A claim must both include a judgement of 'inherentness' and state or imply an overall judgement of superiority/inferiority of a race or ethnic group.
Examples
A colloquial language claim of "group X is dumber than group Y" would count: the common-sense reading implies inherent-ness and a value judgement
Posting a table of national test or IQ scores without any other context or comment wouldn't count: it doesn't by itself imply a position on "inherent-ness" or a value judgement
Using the same data as an argument to justify a policy position would in most cases count, as it's enough to imply a view on 'inherent-ness' and a value judgement.
E.g. "the US shouldn't allow immigration from [country] because [IQ test scores]" would probably count.
A claim like Lynn of "we should be worried that abc group are reproducing faster than white people, because abc group are dumber" would count - it implies an inherent quality and an overall value judgement
(d) White Supremacy:
He claims that whites/caucasians/europeans are inherently superior to any one (or several) other race(s), or implies it with a more specific claim (e.g. people from white country A are inherently better than people from brown country B)
Claims of cultural superiority doesn't count here; it has to be explicitly race superiority.
(e) Social Darwinism:
He justifies or supports any policy change or proposed policy in the US by directly or indirectly referencing "survival of the fittest" or that the hardship resulting from it is justified because of the weakness of the people affected
A policy that primarily affects companies or organisations not individuals isn't sufficient here
(f) Homophobia:
He claims that homosexuality or bisexuality is morally wrong or disgusting, or bad for society at large, or directly endorses someone else's claim of the same
He uses a homophobic slur towards or about a homosexual/bisexual/lesbian person
(g) Ableism:
He uses an ableist slur towards or about a disabled person (e.g. calling a disabled person "retarded")
He mocks the movements or vocal patterns of a disabled person (e.g. the Trump incident with the reporter)
(h) Pro-Eugenics:
He endorses eugenics that are involuntary, population-level, or otherwise beyond the accepted norm
E.g. endorsing embryo selection to avoid serious genetic conditions would not count
E.g. forced sterilisation or forbidding reproduction for a particular population would count
E.g. Casual or offhand remarks (e.g., saying "my umpteenth child was embryo-selected for IQ" or noting that a company is engaging in embryo selection) are not sufficient
Promoting embryo selection as part of or in the context of a proposed government policy might or might not count
e.g. broad subsidisation of embryo selection for IQ probably wouldn't count
e.g. "soft mandatory" embryo selection ("you don't have to do it, but if you don't you don't get any special needs funding") probably would
The evaluation will use the heuristic of asking: would the statement or action seem clearly extreme-eugenicist driven if someone else made it?
(i) Transphobia:
He claims that being trans is morally wrong or disgusting, or bad for society at large, or directly endorses someone else's claim of the same
He uses a transphobic slur towards or about a trans person
He advocates for the forced detransition of transgender individuals (e.g. Paragraph 175)
He promotes legislation or executive action to eliminate transgender-related research
Endorsing Transmedicalism isn't enough to count by itself (I assume the Nazi position on the topic was much harsher)
Update 2025-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator
Explicitness Threshold: For a statement about group X having a stereotypical quality to count as saying “X is bad for society,” it must clearly imply that the quality is inherently negative or that the group embodies this trait to a problematic degree.
Sufficient Signals: Use of heightened language (e.g. repeated use of "EXTREMELY" and exclamation points) and directives such as "reopen the asylums" are deemed to push the statement over the threshold to be considered explicit.
Comparable Standards: The same criteria apply analogously to other categories (for example, if a similar explicit phrase was used in reference to another group, it would count as explicit endorsement of that form of hatred).
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,634 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,062 | |
| 3 | Ṁ608 | |
| 4 | Ṁ169 | |
| 5 | Ṁ163 |
People are also trading
Ableism:
He uses an ableist slur towards or about a disabled person (e.g. calling a disabled person "retarded")
He mocks the movements or vocal patterns of a disabled person (e.g. the Trump incident with the reporter)
He frequently uses the ableist slur r*t*rd, I count three mentions in xeets during the target period
Admittedly it's hard to tell whether the targets are genuinely disabled people, however I really don't think that should be the deciding factor in whether he is being ableist. It would still be racist to use n*gg*r as an insult against an Indian person, and it would still be homophobic to use f*gg*t as an insult against a heterosexual drag queen. The very use of the word as an insult implies hatred towards the group, and arguably the use of slur words even non-insultingly has implied hatred. As a neurodivergent person myself it feels like he is attacking me too with this language.
I'm open to any reasonable widening of a category that lines up with consensus understanding of a term and which won't set me up for a horrible subjective argument in 3 months' time.
I think this is a case that requires such category widening.
@TheAllMemeingEye I meant that "widening" clause for "well in advance", not for the last 6 hours of trading.
At this point it's been long enough that I'd feel like I was rugpulling if I changed given the amount of trade that has happened with the current definition, and the amount of time that has gone by since those tweets (implying my upholding of the rules as-written to current market participants).
@draaglom I mean, the reason why I'm doing it now is because I only just saw your comment tagging all traders and asking us to check for evidence, would you be open to leaving the market open for longer so we can gauge whether other traders agree with my proposal so it feels like less of a rug pull?
@TheAllMemeingEye I'm going to respectfully decline:
- I think my even raising the discussion at this point would be a bit rugpull-y; changing the definition now will guarantee it resolves "yes", so discussing feels a bit like switching the criteria from something objective but imperfect to "resolves to poll". I think if I was a trader I'd find that annoying.
- The precedent it sets would be an unpleasant one for me to deal with. If I allow a debate about this category, I really have to allow it about other categories -- or if I don't, in a way that could be read to imply something about my beliefs about each category, some of which are highly divisive; I'm trying actively to avoid taking a significant stance here. The question would slide a bit into "what does @draaglom think" implicitly.
Mea culpa for leaving that "widening" comment in the description though, I should have explicitly said "valid for first X days" or something.
(For what it's worth, on the object-level, I can see where you're coming from with the language he uses; but I was also aiming for a "bright line" that people on different sides of the political aisle would unambiguously agree was unacceptable; I feel that opinions would be divided on the usage in Musk's tweets you've linked).
@JussiVilleHeiskanen Covered at the time it happened: https://manifold.markets/draaglom/will-musk-explicitly-endorse-or-pra#j2p5unyjue
@JussiVilleHeiskanen
This is within the relevant period.
Rule:
>(g) Ableism:
He uses an ableist slur towards or about a disabled person (e.g. calling a disabled person "retarded")
He mocks the movements or vocal patterns of a disabled person (e.g. the Trump incident with the reporter)
Is Morgensen disabled and does Musk reasonably know that?
@JussiVilleHeiskanen
This is in the relevant period. It's not obvious to me which rule / element this could qualify for. If you think this qualifies for one of the items, please explain.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen
Same for this one (article is dated 2024):
> All statements or actions must occur after 22 Jan 2025, 23:31:08 PST and before May 2, 2025 23:31:08 PST
@JussiVilleHeiskanen I genuinely appreciate the research!
Please help me help you though -- if you could post sources alongside the rule or rules you think it qualifies for, that'd be much appreciated.
This one won't count due to the rule above:
> All statements or actions must occur after 22 Jan 2025, 23:31:08 PST and before May 2, 2025 23:31:08 PST
One more day!
I really don't relish the prospect of trawling through ~3 months of Musk tweets and public statements, so my plan for resolution will be:
- I'll allow the question to close as scheduled
- I'll do one cursory google on each topic to see if anything obvious comes up
- I'll wait 24 hours for any "yes" evidence to be commented on the market
- If I find nothing with a google and nothing is commented within 24h, the option will resolve no.
@traders please take note
(i) Transphobia
Factors I'm considering:
Top level pinned tweet "Wow, trans violence is EXTREMELY FAR above normal levels!!" https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1902741142040387604
Responds "yes" to "reopen the asylums" in response to the tweet: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1902741930313671024
"The probability of a trans person being violent appears to be vastly higher than non-trans. Hormone injections cause extreme emotional volatility. That is simply a fact." https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1902738447124545797
I'm assessing these against the criterion "He claims that being trans is [...] bad for society at large, or directly endorses someone else's claim of the same".
Clearly this is transphobic, but is it explicit enough on the basis of the criteria in the market? Factors I'm thinking about:
The bolding of "EXTREMELY FAR" seems to be best read with the rhetorical purpose of saying "bad for society at large" per resolution criteria; saying "violence of group X is above" can also mean that, but doesn't necessarily; e.g. I think Musk would also say "violence from men is above women" but not "EXTREMELY FAR" above; so by gricean implicature, the presence of "extremely far" serves to rhetorically state that violence levels are above normal to a degree that is harmful to society.
The "yes" to "reopen the asylums" only makes sense with the reading above. One puts people in asylums to keep them away from society because they are dangerous etc, and only secondarily to treat them. This seems very explicit to me.
"Hormone injections cause extreme emotional volatility. That is simply a fact."
There's a double emphasis here - "extreme" emotional volatility, and "simply a fact". I think a neutral third party would agree people with "extreme emotional volatility" are "bad for society"; and "simply a fact" seems to leave little room for nuance that this means e.g. just the people who burn Teslas or something.
@Shai writes that he's essentially having a temper tantrum because of the attacks on Teslas, (with the implication that he might not really mean what he's saying, or something to that effect).
I do agree in the assessment of Musk as being highly reactive and having limited impulse control and maybe not "fully meaning" what he's saying. However, as I wrote in the resolution criteria/comments, I plan to resolve based on what he's said, not my assessment of his mental state, over and above basic judgement calls of common sense stuff. So I don't think that the fact that this is pretty obviously an emotional outburst should rule it out as a "yes".
My inclination is to resolve this option yes on the basis of the above, but I'll leave the market closed for the next few hours for any counterarguments - please reply to this comment if you feel the assessment is unfair or missing something important, or something.
(Note separately that while I wrote in the original resolution criteria "statements or actions have to happen while the market is open", a temporary closure like this doesn't count; I meant after the question started and before the 100 day deadline)
@draaglom I agree that he's being transphobic by most reasonable definitions. I think he fully means what he says even if he's emotional.
My objection is the following (I am Jewish so using it as an example):
Compare the statements:
- "jews are vastly more likely to commit usury"
- "jews are prone to greed because X, it's just a fact".
To:
-"jews are undermining the foundations of Germany"
I think only the latter is making the claim that "jews are bad for society at large", the first two are implying it, and it's not obvious given the criteria that an implication is enough.
The criteria doesn't include "spreading negative or hateful stereotypes about trans people".
If this isn't convincing or doesn't match what you had in mind when defining the criteria by all means resolve YES.
@draaglom I'm a YES holder so full caveats, but my general view as a creator and as a bettor is that when a creator ask this question: "but is it explicit enough?" , they are starting down a path that maximises participant dissatisfaction and is at best orthogonal to intellectual clarity.
I would resolve YES here and I will try to remind myself of this the next time I'm staring into the abyss of my own criteria!
@Shai ty! I actually agree with you in principle.
Where we differ: In my mind, if you're saying "group X has Y stereotypical quality", for that to be a statement of "X are bad for society", you have to be communicating that "Y is obviously inherently bad and/or X is Y enough that it's a big problem"
I think all of the EXTREMELYs and !!s and "reopen the asylums" "yes" achieved enough that it passed the bar of being explicit to me because it pushed hard enough on the Big Problem button, so to speak.
In your analogy, thinking along these lines, if e.g. Musk was to say 'bring back the death penalty for usury' while clearly referencing jewish people, I'd also resolve antisemitism 'yes'.
@JoshuaWilkes ty for the feedback, good advice
@bens I think this meets the listed criteria of implying that “being trans is bad for society at large”
@bens 'implying' isn't in the criteria. He must claim so or endorse such a claim.
(that said I am very very biased so take my objections with a grain of salt)
@bens So injecting biological males with female hormones makes them more violent? Very silly tweet by him. What's actually going on is that the kind of biological males who choose to get these hormones usually have other things going on. The Unabomber was considering getting these hormones but ultimately did not. Steve Sailer, who absolutely no one can accuse of being woke, pointed out that this is a good reason to allow the hormones and surgery and such.
@nathanwei Seems like he was having 'demon mode' temper tantrum due to trans people vandalizing teslas. He was just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.