The day Joe Rogan discovered the real Stefan Molyneux

[QuestEon]

The day Joe Rogan discovered  the real Stefan Molyneux

On your newstand now!

[HansKarlsson]

If it would be to imagine of an article which puts an end to the entire FDR shenanigan, I would vote for this article of QuestEon. Great job putting it together!

In addition to it, I have at least two more obvious lies Molyneux said during the Joe Rogan interview that I didn't get to post yet on the forum. Will do it soon.

Also, at this time one could see some people waking up on the FDR board, while others are still deep in denial:

IMO, Joe Rogan is probably not a good influence to the message being transmitted here.

Joe Rogan invited Molyneux like a prima donna, just to f*ck him in the ass and pay him nothing after that, but a smiling picture. From the reaction Joe had on twitter after the interview, while Molyneux is a silent lamb, I get the impression that Molyneux understood he just got exposed.

[Elucidated]

Interesting that you say

  "Did you know he once denigrated a philosopher over the man’s weight? Apparently, he considers even overweight as an outer symptom of a moral failing. This is what he said about the man:  “Wow, he’s got to be like 300 pounds – I wonder if a philosopher should not be able to at least control his own appetite…”

More hypocrisy

[QuestEon]

Interesting that you say

  "Did you know he once denigrated a philosopher over the man’s weight? Apparently, he considers even overweight as an outer symptom of a moral failing. This is what he said about the man:  “Wow, he’s got to be like 300 pounds – I wonder if a philosopher should not be able to at least control his own appetite…”

More hypocrisy

I have all kinds of little treasures squirreled away!

[Argent]

I had some work to get done this morning so I put the Joe Rogan show on in the background and listened to the whole thing.

After listening to Stefan's outer persona (false self, to use his own terminology?!) for 3 hours, everything else I know about him fades to the background a bit, and a site like this does seem like an extreme reaction to an internet radio show. He presents himself as a reasonable dude who merely suggests that people align their actions with their principles (either by changing their lives, or by being honest with themselves about what they truly believe and value). And while that may be generally true, you can look through this site, the Tru Shibes videos, etc. to see all the instances where he has crossed the line.

In addition to the lies covered in the article, something that stands out as potentially dishonest is the way he presented his Against Me argument. After some grilling from Joe, Stefan came out and stated that the intended goal of Against Me is just to get people to agree that government isn't a good thing. That no one has to change their lives one iota, as long as they call themselves an anarchist in principle. Joe was puzzled, and I'm also not sure how that lines up with what Stefan said earlier about the importance of living according to your principles. Does anyone have any links to podcasts where Stefan either confirms or contradicts this stance on Against Me, that it's just about getting friends and family to agree with your politics in principle?

By the way, I thought Joe brought out the best in Stefan, and I probably wouldn't have much of a problem with Stefan if all of his podcasts featured a second person with the intelligence and strength of character to check Stefan the way Joe did. As eloquent as Stefan is, he has a bad (lazy) habit of using false analogies without acknowledging the shortcomings of the analogy. Sometimes he adds caveats, but not always. Joe did a good job of calling Stefan out each time he did it. I'm going to guess that Stefan ended the podcast with less of a bad taste in his mouth than usual, because the perspective he presented was more balanced and nuanced than usual.

[Argent]

After listening to Stefan's outer persona (false self, to use his own terminology?!) for 3 hours, everything else I know about him fades to the background a bit, and a site like this does seem like an extreme reaction to an internet radio show. He presents himself as a reasonable dude who merely suggests that people align their actions with their principles (either by changing their lives, or by being honest with themselves about what they truly believe and value). And while that may be generally true, you can look through this site, the Tru Shibes videos, etc. to see all the instances where he has crossed the line.

At the risk of using a bad analogy just minutes after accusing Stefan of doing so, I was just thinking to myself about the similarities between this and abusive situations. You consistently hear people who were in abusive romantic relationships say that 99.x% of the time, their partner was sweet and charismatic. Maybe the abuser was even manipulative enough to make them feel like when the abuse occurred, it was their fault. The abuser was generally able to present himself as well-behaved to the outside world, making it more difficult for the abusee's allegations to be taken seriously. (Stefan has even said this about his own mother, that no matter how horrible she was to him at home, she put on a great show when they were out in public.)

Stefan does something similar: all of the unethical stuff he does is supposedly brought on by trolls, and we should be focusing on the trolls' behavior rather than Stefan's. And it's such a small fraction of his body of work that only low-life nitpickers would focus on it.

If anyone has a bit of free time, this is a good read (nothing to do with Stefan Molyneux, but food for thought): http://www.guernicamag.com/features/it-will-look-like-a-sunset/

[Alexander]

I'm working my way through it. He does pull back a lot. I quit FDR because of the misogyny and stef argument to rogan was that he was "just trying to shed the light on women that no one else will". That is total BS. He doesn't just shed light on the abuses of women he drags them through the mud. Just look at the his response to Ana from the young Turks, it's peppered with sexist slurs like "maybe if you didn't spend so much time with your make up you'd have more time to do proper research". Women as the gate keepers for asshole, etc, etc.

I did a bunch of transcribing for David Futrelle and there are a huge number of examples of stef just being straight up sexist. Stef is only reasonable when there is someone more alpha that can keep him in check.

If anyone is interested I could do a post with a ton of misogyny examples that are relatively recent.

[QuestEon]

After listening to Stefan's outer persona (false self, to use his own terminology?!) for 3 hours, everything else I know about him fades to the background a bit, and a site like this does seem like an extreme reaction to an internet radio show. He presents himself as a reasonable dude who merely suggests that people align their actions with their principles (either by changing their lives, or by being honest with themselves about what they truly believe and value).

I think that's a great observation. And it's very smart to remember that most criticisms of Molyneux, viewed next to what Molyneux is saying, sounds like hysteria.

What most people don't see is what Molyneux is saying means something very different to those who look at the world in a reasonable way and those who suffer from splitting (oh no, that again?!)

Molyneux says "you should abandon your parents if you suffer from extreme abuse at their hands." And most people agree. Sounds reasonable. But in his black-and-white view of the world, almost no parents live up to his ideal and therefore most all of them are extreme abusers.

You can listen to the guy talk for hours and he can seem like a reasonable guy. But he is instead a reasonable-sounding guy with an unreasonable world-view. And that part, he often can't articulate.

One of my many half-written, unfinished posts speculates about how John Bradshaw's views on family became perverted through Molyneux's interpretation. For example, Bradshaw has been credited with saying "95% of families are dysfunctional." That seems high to me (and I'm not sure he actually said that) but still, as a reasonable person (and based on my perception that Bradshaw is a reasonable person), I interpret that to mean most families are dysfunctional in some way, and some of them more than others.

Maybe daddy is a workaholic and not as emotionally available to his kids as he should be and that's something we can work on. Or in another family Johnny likes sports and his parents cheer for him but Joey wants to be in a band and his parents just don't get it. These are dysfunctional but fixable issues, and it could easily be possible that the amount of love and nurturing in either family already easily overwhelms the bad.

But because of splitting, Molyneux views Bradshaw's statement to mean 95% of families are never-ending hellish prisons of emotional and physical abuse. He doesn't seem to be able to see the world any other way than black and white.

P.S.

The story you linked to, "It Will Look Like a Sunset" was pretty powerful.

[Alexander]

Let's not forget that one of the biggest parental disfunctions is not teaching your child to set boundaries because those boundaries are inconvenient to the parents chosen method of parenting. When parents fail to teach children how to set boundaries and be skeptical of people in authority those children become prime targets for moly's brand of rationality.

[BiggerThanBothofMe]

Parody video:
Hitler finds out Stefan Molyneux failed to remove Tru Shibes from the internet

DOWNFALL INDEED!

[AMo]

Thanks for sharing that video, BiggerThanBothofMe. Very laughable but, oh so much truth in it.
The big resulting question is, if after all of this has come out into the open, the true believers are still in defense of their Holy Moly, what is it that eventually breaks through in those such as yourself who are able to "wake up" and see Molyneux for what he really is?

[BicameralMilieu]

The day Joe Rogan discovered  the real Stefan Molyneux

On your newstand now!

Question, I dispute your assertion that no one was talking about the ethicist part of Molyneux's saga. Philosophy Lines had made a video about that angle 5 days ago and I believe he was in some clashes with folks on the anarcho-capitalist subreddit after posting it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxT24kBnHD0&list=UUr42uLz8tYgRW9Q5FJW0yeg&index=2

[QuestEon]

Question, I dispute your assertion that no one was talking about the ethicist part of Molyneux's saga. Philosophy Lines had made a video about that angle 5 days ago and I believe he was in some clashes with folks on the anarcho-capitalist subreddit after posting it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxT24kBnHD0&list=UUr42uLz8tYgRW9Q5FJW0yeg&index=2

I'm tickled pink for that find! Thank you! I have thrown this video into the references for that article and happily admitted my mistake.

[Disillusioned]

Thanks for sharing that video, BiggerThanBothofMe. Very laughable but, oh so much truth in it.
The big resulting question is, if after all of this has come out into the open, the true believers are still in defense of their Holy Moly, what is it that eventually breaks through in those such as yourself who are able to "wake up" and see Molyneux for what he really is?

That seems to be very individual. Hypocrisy and inconsistencies like this pile up in their minds despite the rationalizing. I think their own unhappiness is an important factor, too. If they keep believing they are happier in their new thinking than they used to be, there isn't much motivation to rethink things.

[Elvis_left_the_building]

I'm working my way through it. He does pull back a lot. I quit FDR because of the misogyny and stef argument to rogan was that he was "just trying to shed the light on women that no one else will". That is total BS. He doesn't just shed light on the abuses of women he drags them through the mud. Just look at the his response to Ana from the young Turks, it's peppered with sexist slurs like "maybe if you didn't spend so much time with your make up you'd have more time to do proper research". Women as the gate keepers for asshole, etc, etc.

He does not do it the nice way, because abusive women ain´t nice. The remark about the Kasparian chick is was outright abusive. It is not like she had personally attacked him or something. If someone drags a guy through the mud, nobody gives a damn about feelings and stuff.

It is like Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."