/pol/, is this guy really a cult leader?
>>68033026
not an argument
>>68033026
Don't know. He makes some damn good videos though, I like listening to him on my commute. It's not that long of a commute so only a select few make the cut.
I don't buy into his ideology though.
ONE
>>68033876
Not an argument
>>68033026
Not and argument
>>68033876
FUCKING
I listen to Stefan every night. It helps me fall asleep.
Am I indoctrinated?
The Truth About What They Won't Tell You
2016 when the times are so banal that anyone slightly influential is labeled a cult leader
>>68033026
Funny considering the ones perpetuating this cult leader maymay are most likely Bernie Sanders supporters.
I don't even know how this "cult leader" meme started.
What did he do? I only watch his YouTube videos.
>>68035141
He has propagated the idea of defooing (or leaving abusive/negative blood relationships). Some retards equate this with cult tactics. Plus a lot of his fans seem far too enamored by him. People just push the cult meme because he doesn't support masochistic nice guy pat yourself on the back memes.
YOU DIDN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>68033026
are you a member of a cult that he is the leader of?
He's not really that special. Very intellectually dishonest.
>>68033026
wait wait wait
hold on hold on hold on
>>68036990
He was a theater major.
>>68036990
Not an argument.
>>68034108
Only if me doing the same makes me Whittle indoctrinated. I totally am.
Feels good.
>>68037237
He makes his money doing this so whatever. Fools end up designating him as some kind of enlightened master. Saves a lot of time if you assume everything a personally legitimized figure says is true.
What Molyneux defines as abuse is merely existing and not believing everything he believes. So if your family arent all converted to ancaps (molyneux has been known to even request to interview his followers parents) then you must leave. He, like the SJW, believes in a world of pure evils that is biogenetically deterministic. His understanding of biology is undergrad at best and he totally misrepresents the larger questions of epigenetics and contradicts his own biodeterminist ethics constantly when he must admit the power of environmental influence and therapy to suit his own ends. What this means is, there is only one exit for the sinful - to join his flock and give him your money. He intentionally arouses guilt in people because he knows that they all can't wait to project that guilt on everyone around them.
>>68037736
Am I safe if I listen to him and give him no money?
>>68037457
Calling somebody intellectually dishonest is an argument against their credibility. Molyneux's 2D definition of argument is designed for his advantage, it's a meaningless statement.
>>68037811
Dont tell him cause he gets angry. He pissed his pants when someone donated 1 dollar and purged his forum when peope backlashed
>>68037811
Sure. Just don't limit yourself to an echo chamber and know that this guy has no problem with misrepresenting information to fit his views.
His stuff about immigration, economics, and anarchism/anarchocapitalism are your best bet. The bioethics/gender stuff is sometimes interesting but take it with a big grain of salt, he's not an expert in that field and MRAs are a hugely lucrative audience. I don't agree with his ancap views of the state and of violence but he is good at explaining to the layperson
He talks about interesting subjects. But he claims to be an anarcho-capitalist which is dumb since the full on capitalism wasn't achieved by anyone yet.
requesting photo of stefan sucking that guys dick
His DeFOO shit is apparently kind of cultish.
>>68038317
>Sure. Just don't limit yourself to an echo chamber and know that this guy has no problem with misrepresenting information to fit his views.
I've studied philosophy before I got into real science. I think I'll be fine.
>>68033026
No
>>68038343
Full on capitalism? Whats that exactly?
he's a mong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOFhihsLsII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8
>>68033026
>not an argument
>>68036692
He's a miserable faggot but he advocates his followers to put on a mancially positive facade to bring in other followers. He's a freak
>>68033026
yes, and i want him shot
>>68034108
I do the same thing Francebro :) Nothing like flooding my brain with facts to quell the voices
>>68033026
Still not an argument
He's an egomaniac who requires constant praise to stay alive, so he surrounds himself with weak willed teens and young adults who praise the ground he walks on and blindly agrees with him.
He basically has all of the prerequisites of a cult leader but he hasn't created a camp yet.
I do expect him to go full Jim Jones eventually, but it'll be a couple of years still.
>>68038458
Oh, well there's no reason to waste your time on a failed academic like him. He's C-Tier as a libertarian/antimarxist thinker. If you need a break from denser material Molyneux is at least entertaining but know that youre getting fast food. The best outcome is you realize one of his videos makes for evidence that is coherent to a person of average intelligence and thus becomes a tool of argumentation.
>>68037865
No. If you want to call someone intellectually dishonest, you have to prove it. That's why the claim is not an argument by itself.
>>68038685
Ancaps are already doing something like that in New Hampshire and some.of his followers are involved or deFOOd and then ran away there
>>68038744
>Molyneux is at least entertaining
He sure is. On the other hand he seems to contradict himself in different videos.
>>68034054
This is not enough cuckollis
>>68038744
>>68038685
>>68038519
Still no arguments. Are you guys even trying?
Defoo is a classic cult mentality. How could you argue otherwise?
>>68033026
OP, listen up. Not only is this not an argument, it's never been, and never will be an argument. Do you even know what an argument is? I've seen my fair share of arguments in my time, and I know exactly what it takes to make an argument. With my vast knowledge and expertise of all things to do with arguments, I can confirm that this lacks every single quality that makes something an argument. In fact, I think it's fair to say that this is probably as far from being an argument as it's possible to be. I suggest you go find a dictionary, and look up the word 'argument' and learn the fucking definition of the word, because maybe then you'll realise that what you just posted is NOT AN ARGUMENT.
>>68038480
no taxes
no government programs like welfare
>>68038892
That's not an a prioi provable statement and you can always claim instrumental rationality isn't intellectually dishonest which collapses the entire point of that term. In other words its a waste of time, argument is only incantations of influence. Your meaning of that term doesn't matter
>>68034803
Kek
>>68033026
NOT
The Truth About Not Giving Me Enough Money
>>68039253
That's all? What counts as "welfare". Do you believe in a centralized state? A federal constitutional or contract enforcing entity?
All taxes including tariffs, import/export taxes? Do we tax other nations?
The shills are back at it.
He's pretty intelligent, but it never really seems like he actually has a good argument with anyone. He uses some underhanded argumentative tactics when discussing with other people or in his youtube comments.
So he's not the be all end all, but he's alright to consider.
>>68039227
If you were abused (let's say sexually for the sake of the argument) by any relative, would you stay in contact with said relative?
Psychologists recommend that you do. Just like drug addicts should stop frequenting each other when trying to stop.
>>68034803
>3 hours long
He's great though.
>>68038967
Yeah, his foundation on bioethics is shaky as fuck and totally incoherent, its obvious pandering to the new hbd and mra scene
DO YOU SUPPORT...
ME GETTING SHOT...?
>>68039489
That'd be fine if Molyneux didnt consider letting your kids play sports or not being an ancap as chid abuse. He doesnt tell you that until hes been grooming you for a while though.
>>68033026
Can someone refute his "cut off people who want you dead (non ancaps)" argument?
>>68039268
>adjectives are only incantations of influence
ftfy
But more seriously, why should I believe you? Because you said so? Then if another guy say the contrary, I should also believe him because the standard is "You don't need proof to believe me".
Thus, if you want me to agree with you, you'll have to make a case that's either logical or empirical.
>>68033026
Go away stefen
>>68039412
>socialist here
in a capitalist state, if the government needs money they can get it by opening their own businesses and not by enforcing people to pay for things they don't need
also in a true capitalism there is no minimum wage
>>68039705
It's a misunderstanding of what intentions are. It's like saying because I didn't stop a tragedy I didnt even know existed that I caused it. If you start viewing life like that, you might as well genocide everybody because theyre all horrible sinners. Do you really think if your mom isnt an ancap that she WANTS the government to kill you? Read what Sam Harris has to say about intentions and see if you get the bigger picture. People don't live in a philosophers moral thought experiment in reality, its just a distortion. Binary moral narratives are an emotion control strategy
>>68039703
That's correct. The line is not very clear.
Let's take a gray zone: he says if you don't reject taxation, you are against me (you're using the violence of the State to enforce laws) because if I don't comply I'll end up in jail or killed.
Then not keeping contact with this person is avoiding a person that wants you to submit to violence. Is that a fair case of why you should not be around some people? I would say that it is.
>>68039820
This is funny because i'm actually a strict rationalist. To be clear I just dont feel like taking the time to make a data driven case or pull quotes off of google.
I think it's a little honest to say morality is prenatally biodeterministic and then regularly fall back on epigenetics and socialization arguments when convenient. It isn't clear what his stances on bioethics are and they seem to change. I think probably due to ignorance on his part more than malice.
>>68040133
Intentions are meaningless. Only results matter.
If someone say "I want the best for you" with the best intention and I hit you so you'll get a thicker skin is abuse. The intention doesn't matter when you consider the involuntary nature of the relation.
>>68040494
>i'm actually a strict rationalist.
even if he is, not an argument
>>68033026
No. he's just just a dumbass and has no idea what he's doing or what his beliefs are.
It's hilarious how many popular libertarians have turned into nationalists due to Trump. Ron Paul and That Guy T are the only true believers left.
>>68040141
The average person has spent probably zero time thinking about the ethics of taxation or teleogical endpoints that end up never happening in the real world. This presupposes that the non aggression principle is even a solid basis for ethics or that the state is not an organic entity, or any other ideological frameworks with a rich history of argument and literature.
I don't think that position is instrumentally irrational, but i dont agree with the epistemical rationality of ethics. Let's define ethics as the study of "how people/culture ought to be", for simplicity sake since thats the big grand question all ideological factions seek to answer
>>68040494
>morality is prenatally biodeterministic
what the fuck are you saying?
The non aggression principle is the only determining factor between voluntary (moral) and involuntary (immoral).
This has nothing to do with biology, it's logic: you can't have something involuntary labelled as moral.
His videos are way too fucking long
>>68040622
Intentions are instruments of results
>>68041008
I don't believe in objective morality so Stefan doesn't want to talk with me :(
>>68041008
I'm talking about Molyneux's bioethics. It is clear he believes in biological and predetermined evil. He regularly tells his followers things along the line "these people cant be helped, they cant change, theyre born evil" but what he really thinks is unclear. He seems to say at the same time that human beings are fluid between r and k selected behavior within a lifetime and also that "the bad people are born r selected and remain that way forever"
>>68036692
Telling your followers to cut all ties to people who disagree with their views is a cult tactic.
>>68041008
And it you're making presuppotions about free will and involuntary/voluntary behavior. Can you prove all behavior isn't deterministic?
>>68041001
Is taxation theft? If not, why can't I refuse to pay at least some part of it (like the military)?
That's the position. You can argue that it is a necessary evil but you can't argue that it is not evil.
The argument becomes then so you are supporting something that you actually label as evil against me when I'm trying to find a solution? If that person still agrees, you are free to stop any discussion and not keep contact.
DEFOO
E O
F F
O E
OOFED
>>68041464
What if that person says "I personally consent to living within the tax system but I support your exit".
It isn't a logical trusim that property ownership is a moral good or that theft is evil.
>>68040119
This also follows with the complete dissolution of all state protectionism right?
>>68041407
I can't prove that ALL behavior are not deterministic but that doesn't mean that ALL behaviors are. I do believe human possess free will and we should act on it.
To make my case: a simple example would be that advertising is trying constantly to change people's behavior. It all behavior were deterministic, that would be meaningless (there would be no correlation between marketing and profits).
Another thing would be that if you can change someone's behavior (for instance, telling someone that smoking is bad thus he should stop and he does) is possible, then people are able to change (i.e. can change) their behavior when confronted with new information. That's free will to me. But I'm aware that it is a challenge.
>>68033026
Only a weak minded person would think so
>>68033026
He is the holder of emperical truths. He is the epitome of reason and logic. I send Mr. Molyneux 10% of my paycheck because he is funded by me and the FDR community. He showed me the truth, I now see my family wants me dead for my beliefs. How can they be my family if they want me shot? FDR is my family now and Mr. Molyneix is my new daddy.
Would be the most redpilled guy on Youtube if not for his lolbertarian tint.
Still in the top 10 probably.
>>68041840
Then that's a whole other story I'm know Stefan would agree
>>68042293
sure*
>>68042066
The effectiveness of advertising doesnt prove that behavior isnt deterministic. The intellectual giants of that sector consider people as lemmings with zero free will. Our crude methods of social control only reflects on our currently limited understanding of the causal elements of behavior. There is also a certain anxiety about knowing too much so to speak.
It's ridiculous to dissociate from your mom cause she didnt become a Randlard after ten minutes of ethics arguments she can't even comprehend. This is just like when SJWs shout "this isviolence against black bodies" when some neocon gives a speech. Your mom isn't gonna shoot you in your sleep over statism.
>>68041840
>What if that person says "I personally consent to living within the tax system but I support your exit".
Perfect, more power to you but I don't consent and I am not able to not consent.
Is theft evil? That's a good question. Let's say it is not. Thus when someone steal he is in "his moral right to do so". But that also mean that the person being stolen from is being infringed upon his property ownership.
Indeed, stealing needs that the person being stolen is not consenting to the act (otherwise it's charity or something else).
Thus there is a contradiction: if stealing is moral, you will violate property ownership.
Even worse, stealing implies property ownership. When you steal you take someone's property to make it yours. Do you see the contradiction?
You affirm and reject property ownership at the same time.
Thus stealing can not be moral (it can not be amoral), thus it is immoral and evil.
(I assumed that property ownership is moral. It's possible to make that case but I won't do it here.)
>>68033026
pretty much yes
His "Truth about X" videos are informative but he goes overboard to make his case and gets some facts wrong.
In his truth about George Washington video, he claimed that the French scouting party led by Jumonville and attacked by Washington was a French diplomatic party. The French claim this but it's not known for certain, as Stefan implied.
In his Abe Lincoln video he claims that Lincoln threatened to imprison Roger B. Taney, when there's just one source that claims this and all major biographers agree it didn't happen, yet Stefan disagrees without any new information bring presented.
>>68042293
The average person really believes in nothing, a world of bewildering signals, knuckledraggers who don't "get" ancaps - they are not the architects of state evil but the mass human resources that all ideologies compete to manipulate.
You don't have to distance yourself from ideological "opponents" out of paranoid fear because of your violence ethics thought experiment. It's dehumanising and unsustainable as a moral crux of a political movement.
>>68042689
Good point, you can't really blame people for cognitive dissonance.
>>68042066
If you are politically interested you need to watch the videos with Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB agent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
And watch The century of the self if you want to learn how easy it is to control people through media and culture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
>>68042689
Still if you can change people's action with advertising, that means they you can still change their behavior. I don't see how that is compatible with determinism.
Another way to say that is "I don't want to pay for the military but I'm forced to. I think I am in a position where my freedom is being infringed. Am I reasonable to say that I should be able to opt out?" If she says yes, let's take it further to taxation as a whole. If she says no, I think that I am rejecting the violence that she agrees with. I don't see why I am a bad person for refusing to be used like a slave by the State.
If that's the case that my mom can't understand what I am saying, why should I care to keep her in my life? What's in for me? I don't want to talk to people that are unable to discuss subjects as crucial as that.
>>68033026
>/pol/, is this guy really a cult leader?
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY
>inb4 "not an argument." it isn't. it is a plain statement of fact.
>>68043785
based on a non-argument
>>68042832
I tend to be more concerned about power and agency than abstract morality and I think of universally preferable behaviors as the most epistemically rational basis for ethics - but that isnt one size fits all for instrumental purposes. Postmodernism undermines reason in a sense but it more aptly mirrors the real state of human social life - confusing, incoherent, emotional, tribal.
I don't see why an authoritarian government cant produce a society with better happiness or highest occurence of UPB or lowest occurence of UDPB. I'm curious about the potential of a decent human society as a closed garden in submission to a total authority. I'm also not allergic to ideas like a future of formalised neocameralist microstates, or other interesting libertarian praxis but I'm not sure that state violence isn't just organic anyway. If that's the case ancaps are just idealists transitioning into a new form of discipline, punishment, control, brutality, every evil supposed to be dispelled
>>68043160
You can't if you don't make a case for it. You have to present the information then ask them if they understand it.
For instance, you can believe that circumcision is a good thing. Let's say I make a strong case that - at the very least - you should let the child grow before asking him to do it by he's own decision.
Then if you still refuse the case, yes I can blame you.
>>68043353
Seen them both. You know that all these kind of manipulation relies on the person not knowing that they are manipulated, right? In social sciences, when someone knows he is manipulated, everything is different.
If determinism was true, whether the person knew he was manipulated or not would not change the outcome.
>>68043666
That says more about your terminal values and pair bonding than a greater objective morality
>>68033677
>I don't buy into his ideology though.
perchance, what exactly would this ideology with which you disagree, be?
>>68043666
If behavior is determined that makes theoretically possible to predict with certainty, how is that not true? How does true free will make people easier to manipulate? PR/Advertising is just based on the interpretation of what is thought ti be causal in a deterministic relationship
>>68044025
You know what, whether you agree with me or not is not what matters. What we fellow ancap want is just being able to choose (and succeed or fail).
I'm not against communists but I'm against living with communists. Does that make sense?
Maybe there is no way to avoid violence but as long as we haven't tried, we don't know.
It's like with slavery: slavery was everywhere and an economic necessity (at least it was believed so). In the same vein, taxation is necessary. We want to challenge that notion like slavery was challenged. Now, if you don't care that's fine, just don't force us to pay for slavery because we find it morally questionable.
Is this making sense?
>>68044108
>Seen them both. You know that all these kind of manipulation relies on the person not knowing that they are manipulated, right? In social sciences, when someone knows he is manipulated, everything is different.
If determinism was true, whether the person knew he was manipulated or not would not change the outcome.
Good point, thats why I always tell people to watch them.
>>68044108
When I said you can't blame people for cognitive dissonance I didn't mean you can't blame people if their actions or inactions are casual, I meant you can't blame people for exuding the mental phenomenon that is cognitive dissonance.
>>68044671
Yes and I'm very sympathetic to the idea of "a search for exit". I think maybe authoritarians are needed to pacify incompetent hordes but I don't want to find myself in an unprivileged position either. I think even if it is utopian and impossible it may at least be a path towards gradual improvements.
>>68044816
No, because knowledge can be a known causal factor in a determined outcome. Obviously we dont have anything like algorithims or brain scans capable of identifying every casual element, but that doesnt mean anything about the true nature of choice.
>>68044159
I can't pair bond with people that can't understand me or think I should be thrown in jail if I refuse to pay for the military.
>>68044373
The issue I have with this standard is that then it becomes unfalsifiable:
if PR change no one, it's deterministic
if PR doesn't change every one, it's deterministic
if PR change some people, it's deterministic
Then determinism is meaningless, right?
>>68044816
Yeah, they are top-tier.
>>68044852
I would agree but with the internet, people should do their own research on religion for instance. Not challenging important ideologies are difficult to excuse 100% these days.
>>68045086
Great. Let the actions of people talk. Maybe the movement will fail and this would provide more data in the grand scheme of things.
I hope I'm not being overbearing, it's just a topic I'm passionate about.
>>68045692
No because determinism as I see it is based on the nature of free will and choice. The meaning of determinism isn't derived from the PR industry. There are alternative explanations for why humans beings are supsceptible to manipulation that you can frame a discussion about (insert behavioral control method here) with. It's not an ideal way to talk about determinism.
I get accused of being overbearing too, this is a conversation I'm enjoying though
>>68033677
>Don't know. He makes some damn good videos though, I like listening to him on my commute. It's not that long of a commute so only a select few make the cut.
>I don't buy into his ideology though.
kek, are you me? He has so much to say that I don't give a shit if most of it is wrong
>>if not for his lolbertarian tint
>>68042258
He's still redpilled DESPITE that? What does his libertarianism show that he hasn't figured out? Redpilling implies statism?
To me, that's like saying somebody's an excellent chess player despite never having heard of the game.
>>68046105
Have you already seen people changed their behavior after being confronted with new information?
Because if yes, how do you explain that from a deterministic point?
I really can't put these two together.
>>68033026
He wrote the satanic bible
>>68046471
New information is just another causal element. It becomes part of the huge storm of variables that individually inform and collectively determine our next thought or action. Change doesn't mean choice.
>>68046669
Then, from a logical point a view, determinism is unfalsifiable.
If new information changing you is still determinism, how can you disprove determinism?
What would you accept to change your view on determinism? (I'm not saying I can provide that evidence, just genuinely curious)
>>68047003
>What would you accept to change your view on determinism? (
It can't be proven completely, that's true,
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/twain/
it seems likely though
I have seen some interesting points against determinism from kierkegaard though
>>68047003
It is, but so is any rigid alternative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
It's an idea worth exploring. Not all questions are settled. I don't have a terminal belief in the nonexistence of free will and I'm not a researcher.
If work continues to be done in neuroscience maybe falsification is somewhere in the future.
>>68033026
He has some REALLY good ideas.
>>68047360
Not an argument
>>68037611
bill "i let jewish bulls fuck my shiksa wife" whittle and everybody who listens to him should kill themselves
>>68047003
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament
I recommend reading this, good points on both sides
>>68047259
>>68047374
Well that's my issue with determinism.
I'm making the case that when saying "when people change when confronted to new ideas" is still determinism, it seems to me that the debate has no meaning because I can't make the case against determinism.
>>68047585
Not an argument.
>>68046636
>Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stɛˈfæn ˈmɑːlJnjuː/; born September 24, 1966)
>The Satanic Bible - Publication date 1969
So either he didn't, or he's such a fucking genius that he was able to write it at age three.
As much as I find the latter credible, I know that Anton Lavey was the true author. And it's just a mashup of Rand and Nietzsche wrapped up as a religion so people could call themselves "Satanists" and feel "official". Molyneux is above it.
>>68033026
yes
>51:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spe9JbmDOms
>>68047724
Wtf?
Story?
>>68047910
stefan monyleaux sucks cock
>>68047703
I don't see how that is the case. I think academics havent uncovered enough information about neurobiology yet to definitively say. There are other arguments you could make about free will though, change in accordance with new knowledge as far as I know isn't one of the major points of dispute among philosophers
>>68047585
An uncontested allegiance to the jewish people is essentially unavoidable among conservatives raised by the greatest generation. The important thing is that whittle has the conservative principles down and can defend them well.
>>68047910
>>68047724
lol guy's bald so it must be stef
>>68048047
I'm sorry to be annoying but you still haven't answered the question:
>What would you accept to change your view on determinism? (I'm not saying I can provide that evidence, just genuinely curious)
If change to new information is not enough, what could standard would you accept as a good argument against determinism?
>>68048363
I'd have to be presented with evidence that choice is an immaterial phenomenon
>>68048473
Well that's an impossibly high standard from my basic understanding of neuroscience.
I think that's a good point to stop the conversation then, my typing is getting sloppy. Very enjoyable chat though.
>>68048771
Yeah, well, to be clear I'm not sold on it but determinism neatly fits my detached ethos. Same to you
>>68039253
the confederacy tried to fight against that shit :(
>>68041464
>If that person still agrees, you are free to stop any discussion and not keep contact.
You are not a healthy, normal person if you believe that. Sorry.
