Author Topic: Met a Molyneuxite randomly  (Read 3631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« on: February 10, 2018, 03:30:48 AM »
+1
I had the displeasure of meeting a Stefan Molyneux fan at work today (I live in a relatively small city, so that was surprising). I told him I was one of the first members of his group in the old days. Of course, I didn't tell him I was also one of the first to get banned. I figured that anyone who's a Molyneux fan nowadays must have the IQ of a turtle, so I didn't want to argue with him.

He was also talking about Libertarianism. Does Molyneux still pretend to be a Libertarian these days? I was kinda surprised by that.

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +56
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2018, 05:46:06 AM »
+1
I laughed at your turtle joke, but I know several people who I think are very smart and still listen to Molyneux's BS. And they see themselves as Libertarians.

Psychological blind spots from emotional wounds, is my explanation. I certainly know what it can be like, to have no awareness that one's mind is avoiding entire topics and aspects of experience!
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2018, 06:03:25 AM »
+1
I laughed at your turtle joke, but I know several people who I think are very smart and still listen to Molyneux's BS.

Hmm... I find that rather hard to believe...

Libertarian, I can understand, I used to be one (it's vacuous as hell if you think about it for more than a minute, but I get the attraction). But believing in current Molyneux's brand of MRA alt-right fire-and-brimstone?

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +56
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2018, 06:44:10 AM »
0
I suppose they don't believe all he says, only some of it.

To illustrate what I mean about how blind spots can explain this, I'd like to point out a pattern I see in your posts. I also hope we can both learn from this. Are you interested?
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2018, 02:05:26 AM »
0
Okay...

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +56
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2018, 09:26:55 AM »
0
Thanks, I'm excited to try this, hoping it results in some positives!

So you wrote about this Molyneux fan having the IQ of a turtle. Then how being libertarian is vacuous.

Then in another thread you mentioned your blog https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-problems-with-the-non-aggression-principle/ and there I noticed you called someone you disagree with a "professional whackjob". A few lines later you called libertarians whackos.

Please note I'm not commenting on the ideas you discuss, only on this aspect in the way you express your disagreement with others!

So my suggestion is to check if you express yourself this way by choice, because you thought about it and you decided that attacking people's intelligence when you disagree with them serves a purpose you find useful. If that's the case, I'm curious, please let me know what that is!

lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2018, 04:04:25 AM »
+1
I write things in order to make points. That's the usefulness of it. I also occasionally write things to entertain, but that's not the case in that entry.

In the specific case you discuss, I did not call someone a "professional whackjob" because they disagreed with me, and it's disingenuous of you to say so. I called someone a "professional whackjob" because it's WALTER BLOCK. The same guy who supports sexual harassment at work, child prostitution, and that slavery "wasn't so bad." If you DON'T think he's a whackjob, then I have to question your most basic judgment abilities.

But maybe you somehow think Walter Block is not a whackjob and have a good reason for this. If that's the case, I'm curious, please let me know what that is! Otherwise, my suggestion is that you think about not defending whackjobs.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 04:08:03 AM by Hierophant »

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +56
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2018, 02:26:10 PM »
0
I'm not trying to attack you, my goals here are:

1) offer a possible explanation for why people who could know better, still give Molyneux a pass.
2) hopefully do you a favor, if you appreciate people pointing out any blind spots you might have.
3) learn something, if I can.

In order to do so, I  would like to stay focused on format and not content. So right now I don't want to focus on what you wrote about Block, I want to look at it along with the 3 other instances I mentioned, which I think are part of a pattern.

Are you willing to look into this some more together?
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2018, 06:46:51 PM »
0
I am addressing your points. You have nothing to say to the first, that's fine. So let me address the second.

You said I called Libertarians "whackos." Here is the full quote:

"On the first, and more common, definition, there is no evaluation of actions which do not fall afoul of the NAP. But one necessarily follows from the other: if any non-aggressive action was illegal, then it would have to be dealt with using government force, which would go against the NAP. So the position that the initiation of aggression is illegitimate can only lead to the position that any other action must be legal. Libertarians do not just support outrageous positions because they’re whackos: they support outrageous positions because they have no other choice."

I am referring here to the political positions held by Libertarians based on them not breaking the NAP. My point in this paragraph is that Libertarians hold to these bizarre positions because they have no other logical choice. I also believe they are whackos, but that's not my point here. But as my repeated attempts to get Libertarians to debunk Walter Block's arguments have shown, Libertarians have no defense against them, which means that their ideology is exactly as whacko as Walter Block.

I used to have prominent Libertarian writers read my materials, including Roderick Long and Stephan Kinsella. If they cannot answer those arguments then I contend that probably no Libertarian can.

I never said you were attacking me. You presented two points where I insulted people. I have addressed them and pointed out the context. Libertarianism being vacuous and Molyneux having the IQ of a turtle are, I think, pretty obvious statements to make on this board, but if you want I can address those too.


Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +56
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2018, 12:50:36 PM »
0
Thanks, I see you gave explanations to justify why you are calling people stupid in 2 of the examples I picked, and you offered to also justify the 2 other examples.

Let me say more clearly what I would like. You say you are addressing my points, plural, when I only have one, about a pattern I see across these 4 examples. I am not asking for your reasons for thinking people in each of these examples deserve to be called some variant of stupid, I am asking about your reasons in general for attacking any person's intelligence or character.

I am asking how you go from "person X said or did something I strongly object to" to "person X is an idiot/whackjob".

I don't know if this is what you are doing in your mind or not, all I have so far is my impression that you do. What I am curious about, that I would like to discuss with you, is how you settle on "person X is stupid".

I see I could have asked this more clearly from the start. Thanks for your patience and cooperation, please let me know if I again wasn't clear enough.
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Weston Dupree

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Respect: +63
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2018, 01:22:37 PM »
0
What happened with the Walter Block comment on slavery was a case of libel by the New York Times. He said something like "slavery wasn't so bad except that you couldn't quit." This would be like quoting Winston Churchill as saying "Democracy is the worst form of government" The article was probably just an attempt to smear Rand Paul by associating him with racists. 

I wouldn't call Walter Block a wacko. I just think he takes some strange positions by trying to apply the NAP to absolutely everything. Like he said, it's ok to starve your children just as long as you tell other people about it and give them the chance to adopt the children.

A person I absolutely would call a wacko is Stephen Kinsella. He acted crazy in his debate with Jan Helfeld. I could never respect him again after seeing that.

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2018, 06:31:41 PM »
+1
"I am asking how you go from "person X said or did something I strongly object to" to "person X is an idiot/whackjob"."

I do not say that because I strongly object to what they say. Many people say things I strongly object to, and they are not whackjobs. They are simply mistaken, or hold different belief systems, or they have been deluded. I say someone is a whackjob when they are a whackjob.

" A crazy, possibly dangerous, person.
Synonyms
(crazy, possibly dangerous person): basket case, loony, nutjob, nutter, screwball, wacko, wingnut, freak"

I hope this answers your questions!

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2018, 06:32:46 PM »
0
What happened with the Walter Block comment on slavery was a case of libel by the New York Times. He said something like "slavery wasn't so bad except that you couldn't quit." This would be like quoting Winston Churchill as saying "Democracy is the worst form of government" The article was probably just an attempt to smear Rand Paul by associating him with racists. 

I quoted the full content of what he said on the subject on my blog. It doesn't make it any better.

Quote
I wouldn't call Walter Block a wacko.

Then you are deluded at best.

Weston Dupree

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Respect: +63
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2018, 09:56:42 PM »
0
You seemed to have confirmed Marc's point that you call people stupid who disagree with you.

I read your post where you quoted Walter Block on slavery. I assume that you're criticizing him for not acknowledging the full horrors of slavery, like how slaves could be whipped, raped, and/or killed by their masters. Maybe it wasn't a perfect comment, but it's not at all like saying "slavery isn't so bad." You seem like an SJW.

Hierophant

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +26
Re: Met a Molyneuxite randomly
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2018, 05:22:50 AM »
0
1. I didn't call you stupid. I called you deluded. There's a big difference. You can be stupid and not deluded, and you can be deluded and very intelligent (intelligent people, actually, have more of a capacity to rationalize their own delusions- I know, I used to be in that position). In general, I think people who are not in leadership positions and are well aware of the horrible nature of what they promote are profoundly stupid, but most of their followers are deluded.
2. You call anyone who disagrees with you an SJW, so, tu quoque and all that (since you have zero indication that I am one, and I am about as far away from one as you can be- with their constant entitled whining about losing their religious or racial domination, demands that we stop attacking their self-identification as white, Christians, and Americans, and desire for a "safe space" in America, the alt-right is actually very close to SJWs).
3. I am not criticizing Block for not talking about how slaves could be whipped, raped or killed. I criticized him for saying that:
"Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory."
That's a whack-a-doodle thing to say no matter the context. If there was such a thing as "voluntary slavery," it would still be highly f ucked up. It wouldn't be "not so bad." Regardless of whether you could kill or rape slaves or not.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 05:55:00 PM by Hierophant »