Dark side of Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio revealed in two videos

[QuestEon]

Dark side of Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio revealed in two videos

Two moving stories--one from within and one from without

[L]

Hi All,

I write this as an interested observer.

When that guy describes Molyneux as seeming "so non threatening" I thought it incredibly strange, as to me he had always come across as aggressive to the point of being a bully. I guess others must not get the same vibe from him as I did (and still do), but I had always assumed that others excused his aggressive manner, as opposed to not perceiving it.

Do those at FDR really think he has a non-threatening manner, or is it rationalised away?

Edit: Grammars

[mikef]

Hi All,

I write this as an interested observer.

When that guy describes Molyneux as seeming "so non threatening" I thought that incredibly strange, as to me he had always come across as aggressive to the point of being a bully. I guess others must not get the same vibe from him as I did (and still do), but I had always assumed that others excused his aggressive manner, as opposed to not perceiving it.

Do those at FDR really think he has a non-threatening manner, or is it rationalised away?

Speaking personally, rationalised it away, I think.  At least at first.   I just figured he was doing good work and everyone gets annoying at times.   And I was a bit immune to that kind of behaviour, I guess, because I'd been putting up with it for so long from family members.   The more I decided to stop putting up with it from others the more I began to see it in Molyneux too.  Kind of like a "well, this guy is no different to those that he condemns" moment.

Edit: On reflection I would say I chose not to think about it rather than rationalising it away, which is exactly I how I approached my parents behaviour.

[féanor]

He's definitely a bully. An angry, narcissistic bully who's taking out his rage on the world via the relative safety of YouTube videos.

[Elucidated]

I listened to FDR zero not so long ago and noticed a big difference in his tone of voice then compared to now. He has become more and more arrogant and less inclined to hide his true nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eWpo4faDtY

[Disillusioned]

Hi All,

I write this as an interested observer.

When that guy describes Molyneux as seeming "so non threatening" I thought that incredibly strange, as to me he had always come across as aggressive to the point of being a bully. I guess others must not get the same vibe from him as I did (and still do), but I had always assumed that others excused his aggressive manner, as opposed to not perceiving it.

Do those at FDR really think he has a non-threatening manner, or is it rationalised away?

I began listened to the FDR podcasts in order from the beginning, and I agree that his tone has changed over the years. I think earlier on he was less threatening and more compassionate sounding. He comes across much more angry and arrogant in recent years.

Still, I do remember hearing the way he would laugh at people sometimes, or the way he would express anger, and being very off-put. During those times I would usually end up convinced that I had heard his tone wrong because of my own childhood traumas. Over time, though, all of that stuff added up and ended up helping me discredit him and break free eventually.

[CupOTea]

Hi All,

I write this as an interested observer.

When that guy describes Molyneux as seeming "so non threatening" I thought that incredibly strange, as to me he had always come across as aggressive to the point of being a bully. I guess others must not get the same vibe from him as I did (and still do), but I had always assumed that others excused his aggressive manner, as opposed to not perceiving it.

Do those at FDR really think he has a non-threatening manner, or is it rationalised away?

I began listened to the FDR podcasts in order from the beginning, and I agree that his tone has changed over the years. I think earlier on he was less threatening and more compassionate sounding. He comes across much more angry and arrogant in recent years.

Still, I do remember hearing the way he would laugh at people sometimes, or the way he would express anger, and being very off-put. During those times I would usually end up convinced that I had heard his tone wrong because of my own childhood traumas. Over time, though, all of that stuff added up and ended up helping me discredit him and break free eventually.

I hate how he humiliates people and gets them feeling very vulnerable then moves in an twists what they are saying to something very dark. 

Disillusioned, when you say your childhood trauma, was that mostly from the inevitable twisted perspective about your childhood from listening to Molyneux or was it true abuse?   Or was it just normal traumas that we all get growing up due to life, by it's own nature, being quite imperfect?

[L]

Thank you all for your responses.

The difference in manner between now and podcast zero is quite remarkable. He has definitely evolved as well as expanding his horizons. It so easy to think of people being unchanging, even though they definitely do change. Similarly, thinking about FDR as something relatively young and changing all the time makes me wonder about it's fate and when it will end. Is it heading towards some conclusion? Will it just move in directions?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply to me.

[Disillusioned]

Disillusioned, when you say your childhood trauma, was that mostly from the inevitable twisted perspective about your childhood from listening to Molyneux or was it true abuse?   Or was it just normal traumas that we all get growing up due to life, by it's own nature, being quite imperfect?

Childhood trauma is a concept at FDR that is similar to original sin. It is an all-encompassing scape-goat for our failings. That is mostly how I was referring to it.

I feel uncomfortable trying to classify my childhood traumas as true abuse, or just normal, or twisted by Molyneux. I think I have some very understandable complaints about my childhood, as do most other people I know.

[CupOTea]

I listened to FDR zero not so long ago and noticed a big difference in his tone of voice then compared to now. He has become more and more arrogant and less inclined to hide his true nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eWpo4faDtY

Except defooing.  He is afraid to talk openly about that in public.

[: o )]

I listened to FDR zero not so long ago and noticed a big difference in his tone of voice then compared to now. He has become more and more arrogant and less inclined to hide his true nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eWpo4faDtY

Except defooing.  He is afraid to talk openly about that in public.

Although - given the opportunity - he still does snipe at the family, it doesn't take much prompting for a father or a mother of a caller to be disparaged and attacked, in fact I'd say that it's a rare case where a caller mentions their parents where Molyneux doesn't at least attempt to target them in some way - but you are right in that he seems much less inclinded to go that extra mile these days and go for the full DeFoo.

[Rafaman]

Hi All,

I write this as an interested observer.

When that guy describes Molyneux as seeming "so non threatening" I thought it incredibly strange, as to me he had always come across as aggressive to the point of being a bully. I guess others must not get the same vibe from him as I did (and still do), but I had always assumed that others excused his aggressive manner, as opposed to not perceiving it.

Do those at FDR really think he has a non-threatening manner, or is it rationalised away?

Edit: Grammars

You will notice that each podcast/video begins and ends on a positive note. No matter how superficial the appearance it will be a call for change or insight into a relationship/issue but always under the guise of improving it. Many follow this flimsy narrative all the way through but you are totally correct it is achieved through in-congruent methods. Callers are "helped" by snarky jokes, put downs and being totally dominated in a conversation. There is no code of ethics in any profession that aids others such as teaching, counselling and therapy that condones such behaviour. Molyneux is engaging in textbook passive aggressive behaviour and many fail to realise this.

The crux of the issue stems from a belief that Molyneux has something valuable to offer. We can see this sold to viewers/listeners - the sub text of every single published work from Stefan is: I am important, I am valuable, I am smart, I have the answers. People will listen and go through the verbal abuse if they feel the pay off will better their lives.

I have worked as a high school teacher for 10 years. It never ceases to amaze me what children and adults will tell you about their lives. If you ask only a few probing questions you will be inundated with very personal information. Many people just want to vent their issues and be listened to, even if they have no connection with you. Molyneux abuses this instinct, he starts each podcast with a few questions, gets his ammunition then takes over.

There is also a massive misconception going on at FDR. The terms "self knowledge, rational, empiricism and not an argument" all sound like highly defined technical academic frameworks. This couldn't be further from the truth, they are so abstract and poorly defined they could substituted for simply "This is my opinion". People think they are mixing with an informed, structured, academic community who have their best interests at heart.