Author Topic: Is Molyneux just another con man or does he really believe he's a philosopher?  (Read 3595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
True but Stef has done his own research.

The problem with modern autodidacticism is the dearth of information online, people like Molyneux have got it into their heads that education is a simple matter of absorbing information, but without a good grounding in the subject you're researching you'll often be at a loss as to what information is credible or what is - for example - bias driven, what are valid sources of data, studies, trials, how to tell whether a claim made is well grounded, how the claims made by people (who you have no way of assessing) stand up . . . and so on.

Molyneux himself makes this point when he says (in LEFTISTS WANT TO BAN HAVING "BEST FRIENDS" / YouTube) "if you haven’t trained, if you haven’t taken the vocational steps, if you haven’t taken the exams . . . you can’t call yourself a psychologist."

And I'd agree, there's a world of difference between a psychologist who has spent countless hours, weeks and months learning - solely - how to correctly interpret and analyse studies . . . and a 18 year old kid who types "are women more evil than men" into Google, the 18 year old might think he's done his 'research', but without a grounding in the subject he's unlikely to be able to navigate it with any reliability.

Molyneux has no qualifications in genealogy, biology, genetics, philosophy, psychology (etc), which is probably how he ended up at the Anonymous Conservative blog, lifting a lot of the politically driven 'science' to piece together his laughable 'gene wars' series of videos.

Academia is grossly over rated.  A piece of paper doesn't mean you know more than another person

Who is going to remove the cancer from your daughter's neck ? The 'overrated' (qualified) paediatric oncologist or your friend Bruce who is an absolute genius with his Youtube search terms, can get you a video on anything in a couple of minutes ?

Difference is you're full of shit😂😂😂

Not an argument.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 11:51:19 PM by Lupus »

money detonator

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Respect: +756
Molyneux still not sitting at the cool kids lunch table:   ;D



I can find faults with all those people, but none of them are anywhere near as disingenuous as Molyneux is. All of those guys are examples of what Molyneux could have been, if had been more honest.

I think he got further using dishonesty and BS than if he was honest about his abilities.  I think that is why he went that route. He wanted to be a popular celebrity but didn't have it in him for it to happen naturally.

The Observer

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
  • Respect: +136
Molyneux still not sitting at the cool kids lunch table:   ;D



I can find faults with all those people, but none of them are anywhere near as disingenuous as Molyneux is. All of those guys are examples of what Molyneux could have been, if had been more honest.

I think he got further using dishonesty and BS than if he was honest about his abilities.  I think that is why he went that route. He wanted to be a popular celebrity but didn't have it in him for it to happen naturally.

That's a very good point, but dishonestly has a ceiling.  Peterson has blown by Stef in terms of subs and success.  Those other guys (with the exception of Harris) have also become more successful.  Stefan has pretty much topped out at 800K subs.  He won't hit a million for a long time.  The politics thing is what gave Stef most of his subs since 2015.  Funny how Molyneux is even being excluded from Youtube, just like everything else in his work life.  Maybe he'll realize the problem is himself and not the world.  Seems the only person backing him these days is Lauren Southern, who has been proven as being dishonest with her reporting and lets just say, not very intelligent. 

Stef's recent videos are just a rehash of his old ones.  Saying the same old things about socialism, business (which he knows little about) and lefists.  Mike and Stef will need to be a lot more creative if they are to continue to grow their channel.  I don't think they have it in them to find something like Trump again to attract new donators.


money detonator

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Respect: +756
That's a very good point, but dishonestly has a ceiling. 
hmmm, I have to disagree about the ceiling.  We have a President that lied all the way to the White House!  I think Molyneux didn't get very far because he is mediocre at lying, like he is at a lot of things, but will do it because he can't resist taking advantage of others and has no shame.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 01:01:26 AM by money detonator »

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
It's a hidden argument you're just not smart enough to see it.😉

Making mistakes on an irrelvant forum is not the measure of someone's intelligence.  However I do question those who have to resort to focusing on someone's typos to hide from the fact that they have nothing intelgent to say.

I follow Stef  quite often.  I've never gotton that impression.  If you had evidence I'm sure you would have shown it to me by now.

Not demanding a trigger warning and simply wanted a civil debate.  Also knowing what a word means is different from k knowing what someone specfically  means by it.

Nope as usual you're misinterpreting  what stef is saying.  Also it's hard to have a serious discussion with people when insults are being thrown around from one to the other.  Only so much time on the show anyways.  You've clearly cut this moment to suit your negative view point of Stef.  You are being unfair and because of that, thats why I'm here. 

Prove it, I'm waiting....

You Cleary don't know the left, they don't have a sense of humor.  Except when it comes to making fun of Trump.

It's a hidden argument.  You have searched long enough.

Nope problem is I'm too smart for you. Sad you aren't smart enough to realize that.

Not an argument.

You call always tell the smart ones, they can barely put a sentence together without half a dozen basic mistakes and are all too keen to tell everyone how smart they are.  ;)

No he doesn't demand trigger warnings.

You know it's an odd trait in (some) people, that when a claim is made they dismiss it without ever wanting to see evidence to support the claim, to me this suggests a mind driven by confirmation bias, if someone had made claim X, I would want to see the evidence that had led them to make claim X, only on seeing the evidence would I decide whether claim X was true or not.

Anyhow, you are wrong, just like those on the left, he does demand trigger warnings, for example in his video 'ALWAYS BE NICE?!? FAIL' (Youtube) the caller suggests Molyneux can sometimes get 'carried away', this triggers a visibly offended Molyneux, who interrupts the caller with "what does carried away mean ? I don't know what the phrase carried away means" (he obviously does know what the phrase means), the caller responds with " . . .well, I'm about to explain it" . . Molyneux jumps back in with "what you should do is explain it before you use a somewhat inflammatory phrase . . . " (complete with all the facial expressions and body language of someone outraged at an imagined insult) . . .

So, cut it however you like to suit whatever idealised image of Molyneux you're trying to maintain, but put simply he was offended / triggered by someone saying that he can often get 'carried away' and responded by telling the caller that before he uses language that might offend he needs to first outline what words he's going to use in case any of them are offensive or hurtful.

A ... trigger ... warning. 

Yes my ban people from time to time. I disagree with that but he doesn't make a big fuss about it.

Really, he lost his f*cking mind when people criticised him for issuing DCMAs  ;D he was literally foaming at the mouth ! Lol. And what does making (or not making) a 'big fuss' about it have to do with the point, the point is - like the left - he bans and blocks opinions he disagrees with, even going as far as to use state force and 'the gun in the room' . . . whether or not he makes a 'big fuss' about it is irrelevant, the point is, like the left, he censors, silences and shuts down opinions he disagrees with.

😂😂😂  the helicopter meme is just that a meme and a total joke.

I'm sure there are plenty on the left who see the 'punch a nazi' similarly, a meme, virtue signalling, something 'cool' to say in the right company.

Nope not really you are really stretching it and making some of his postions what they aren't.  You want to believe he's like this but sadly for you he's not.

Not an argument.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
That is true but you assume that academia doesn't use that to their advatage  to push their false agenda on people.  You're base because of academia could be doing you more harm than good.

Yes but you can take exams outside of college.

Yes but a psychologist could have researched all the ring information.  Having so called credentials or qualifications doesn't mean a darn thing.  however even if they did he does have experts on the show who do.

Two very different things.  Knowledge isn't something that is obviously correct or incorrect.  How to do surgery is hands and is something that you can easily see what is correct and what isn't and you can work on that and perfect that craft.

Why does the gene war make you laugh??

Come on man keeping searching the argument is there.  I believe in you, you'll eventually find it.....

True but Stef has done his own research.

The problem with modern autodidacticism is the dearth of information online, people like Molyneux have got it into their heads that education is a simple matter of absorbing information, but without a good grounding in the subject you're researching you'll often be at a loss as to what information is credible or what is - for example - bias driven, what are valid sources of data, studies, trials, how to tell whether a claim made is well grounded, how the claims made by people (who you have no way of assessing) stand up . . . and so on.

Molyneux himself makes this point when he says (in LEFTISTS WANT TO BAN HAVING "BEST FRIENDS" / YouTube) "if you haven’t trained, if you haven’t taken the vocational steps, if you haven’t taken the exams . . . you can’t call yourself a psychologist."

And I'd agree, there's a world of difference between a psychologist who has spent countless hours, weeks and months learning - solely - how to correctly interpret and analyse studies . . . and a 18 year old kid who types "are women more evil than men" into Google, the 18 year old might think he's done his 'research', but without a grounding in the subject he's unlikely to be able to navigate it with any reliability.

Molyneux has no qualifications in genealogy, biology, genetics, philosophy, psychology (etc), which is probably how he ended up at the Anonymous Conservative blog, lifting a lot of the politically driven 'science' to piece together his laughable 'gene wars' series of videos.

Academia is grossly over rated.  A piece of paper doesn't mean you know more than another person

Who is going to remove the cancer from your daughter's neck ? The 'overrated' (qualified) paediatric oncologist or your friend Bruce who is an absolute genius with his Youtube search terms, can get you a video on anything in a couple of minutes ?

Difference is you're full of shit😂😂😂

Not an argument.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Seriously you slander Lauren too??  What has she been dishonest about??  Also stef  is spot  on about  the left, socialism and business.  Not agreeing with Stef doesn't make him wrong.

Molyneux still not sitting at the cool kids lunch table:   ;D



I can find faults with all those people, but none of them are anywhere near as disingenuous as Molyneux is. All of those guys are examples of what Molyneux could have been, if had been more honest.

I think he got further using dishonesty and BS than if he was honest about his abilities.  I think that is why he went that route. He wanted to be a popular celebrity but didn't have it in him for it to happen naturally.

That's a very good point, but dishonestly has a ceiling.  Peterson has blown by Stef in terms of subs and success.  Those other guys (with the exception of Harris) have also become more successful.  Stefan has pretty much topped out at 800K subs.  He won't hit a million for a long time.  The politics thing is what gave Stef most of his subs since 2015.  Funny how Molyneux is even being excluded from Youtube, just like everything else in his work life.  Maybe he'll realize the problem is himself and not the world.  Seems the only person backing him these days is Lauren Southern, who has been proven as being dishonest with her reporting and lets just say, not very intelligent. 

Stef's recent videos are just a rehash of his old ones.  Saying the same old things about socialism, business (which he knows little about) and lefists.  Mike and Stef will need to be a lot more creative if they are to continue to grow their channel.  I don't think they have it in them to find something like Trump again to attract new donators.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
So now you're slandering Trump too??  Are you a leftist??  Seems like the left has a problem with calling things a lie when they don't agree with something.  Even though its true.

That's a very good point, but dishonestly has a ceiling. 
hmmm, I have to disagree about the ceiling.  We have a President that lied all the way to the White House!  I think Molyneux didn't get very far because he is mediocre at lying, like he is at a lot of things, but will do it because he can't resist taking advantage of others and has no shame.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
It's a hidden argument you're just not smart enough to see it.😉

Sure, you are  - for some unknown reason - in the habit of hiding brilliant arguments in seemingly straightforward comments . . . and everyone is too stupid to recognise your quick witted intelligence.

Making mistakes on an irrelvant forum is not the measure of someone's intelligence.  However I do question those who have to resort to focusing on someone's typos to hide from the fact that they have nothing intelgent to say.

I'd say an inability to form a coherent sentence or follow an argument - regardless of the platform - although not absolute, is a reasonable (although imperfect) measure of someone's intelligence.

I follow Stef  quite often.  I've never gotton that impression.  If you had evidence I'm sure you would have shown it to me by now.

I'm not sure what exactly this is responding to . . . but if you could state which part of my post you are responding to, and what evidence you would be willing to accept I'll be happy to respond.

Not demanding a trigger warning and simply wanted a civil debate.

Lol  ;D I'm sure the SJWs probably argue from the same position 'hey, we just want a civil debate, so warn us before using hate speech like "carried away".  ;D ;D ;D ;D

To be precise . . . in this situation Molyneux is saying that before 'inflammatory' language is entered into the conversation - ("carried away" is considered 'inflammatory' to Molyneux's paper-thin ego) - you must first explain what it is you are going to be saying . . . in case you offend someone.

Like I say, you can cut it however you like, but at the end of the day Molyneux is very clearly demanding a trigger warning.

Nope as usual you're misinterpreting  what stef is saying.

Again, it's not clear precisely which point this is responding to. Also 'you're misinterpreting' is not an argument, you'd need to show how I am misinterpreting, establish it rather than simply state it.

You've clearly cut this moment to suit your negative view point of Stef.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, I've 'cut' this moment ? As if I've taken a clip out of context ? If you want to see the context watch the video.

Prove it, I'm waiting....

Again without a reference I'm not sure what you are responding to . . . but if you want to state the point you are responding to - and say what evidence, what proof, you are looking for / willing to accept, then I'm happy to respond.

You Cleary don't know the left, they don't have a sense of humor.  Except when it comes to making fun of Trump.

As you like to say 'Prove it' . . . show me a study or survey or any data that supports this claim - it doesn't need to be exhaustive, just any credible (i.e. non-partisan) source that reasonbly supports the idea that those on the political left have no sense of humour.

It's a hidden argument.  You have searched long enough.

'It's a hidden argument' (why on earth would you want to hide your argument') and 'prove it' . . . are simply attempts to hide from challenge.



Faith

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Respect: +16
 :)Lupus
I see Kronze21 is back. Not sure what his point is,  but I suppose he must have one. (BTW, we're waiting Kronze21).

I had to laugh at the hidden argument argument. Maybe Kronze21 will tell us what he thinks this "hidden argument" is so that we can debate it. Or we can play guessing games instead. Whatever is more productive

The Observer

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
  • Respect: +136
That's a very good point, but dishonestly has a ceiling. 
hmmm, I have to disagree about the ceiling.  We have a President that lied all the way to the White House!  I think Molyneux didn't get very far because he is mediocre at lying, like he is at a lot of things, but will do it because he can't resist taking advantage of others and has no shame.

You might be right.  I'm just going off my own theory.  What I was trying to get at is that Molyneux will never reach the top of his field and get taken seriously.  Alex Jones is very popular, but a lot of his subs are for entertainment reasons.  Jones isn't taken seriously by professionals, and Molyneux has a similar fate. 

I find it funny that this Kronze guy thinks I care what he thinks.    ;D

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
. . . What I was trying to get at is that Molyneux will never reach the top of his field . . .

I don't think Molyneux is even in the field (philosophy), let alone vying to get to the top, or any position of influence . . . from what I can see he's not at all taken seriously or even recognised within philosophy.

Of course his white-knights (along with Molyneux himself) will tell you this is the result of a giant all encompassing leftist plot to stymie his brilliant insights, but inherent in that idea is a recognition (or even an admission) that he's not in fact be taken seriously or recognised in the field of philosophy.


summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +47
. . . What I was trying to get at is that Molyneux will never reach the top of his field . . .

I don't think Molyneux is even in the field (philosophy), let alone vying to get to the top, or any position of influence . . . from what I can see he's not at all taken seriously or even recognised within philosophy.

Of course his white-knights (along with Molyneux himself) will tell you this is the result of a giant all encompassing leftist plot to stymie his brilliant insights, but inherent in that idea is a recognition (or even an admission) that he's not in fact be taken seriously or recognised in the field of philosophy.

Listen to what Molyneux has to say about the history of philosophy here https://youtu.be/cdax5DJwfik. Starting around 9:30 he basically says the entire philosophical oeuvre, up until about 10 years ago (coincidentally when he was starting his podcasts, ha) is suspect because there was no real free speech so it all "served the needs of the rulers". There's nothing that can be added to that to make it more asinine, it just stands on its own as representing the scope of his thinking.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 03:49:19 PM by summa logicae »

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
"Sure, you are  - for some unknown reason - in the habit of hiding brilliant arguments in seemingly straightforward comments . . . and everyone is too stupid to recognise your quick witted intelligence."

Hey you're smarter than I thought.  It just took you a little while.😉

Right  but you need to take into account your exact lack in those areas before you judge  anyone else.

True but what I mean by a civil debate is not threating people's life and not interupting to the point of the convo being pointless.  Also insult s to the point where it just becomes a blood sport.  Insults every now and then is cool but if every other word is an insult whats the point of a debate might  as well just have a rap battle.

SJW's cant handle anything that isnt nice.

When does Stef say this?

Your comment isnt an argument either.

I listend  to the podcast and just what I thought you took it out of context.  He was talking about violent criminals.

I can show you proof that  modern liberalism is a mental disorder.  Care to see??

Because  I like to be difficult.  Hide from what challenge?  Finding the non existent  info myself??

It's a hidden argument you're just not smart enough to see it.😉

Sure, you are  - for some unknown reason - in the habit of hiding brilliant arguments in seemingly straightforward comments . . . and everyone is too stupid to recognise your quick witted intelligence.

Making mistakes on an irrelvant forum is not the measure of someone's intelligence.  However I do question those who have to resort to focusing on someone's typos to hide from the fact that they have nothing intelgent to say.

I'd say an inability to form a coherent sentence or follow an argument - regardless of the platform - although not absolute, is a reasonable (although imperfect) measure of someone's intelligence.

I follow Stef  quite often.  I've never gotton that impression.  If you had evidence I'm sure you would have shown it to me by now.

I'm not sure what exactly this is responding to . . . but if you could state which part of my post you are responding to, and what evidence you would be willing to accept I'll be happy to respond.

Not demanding a trigger warning and simply wanted a civil debate.

Lol  ;D I'm sure the SJWs probably argue from the same position 'hey, we just want a civil debate, so warn us before using hate speech like "carried away".  ;D ;D ;D ;D

To be precise . . . in this situation Molyneux is saying that before 'inflammatory' language is entered into the conversation - ("carried away" is considered 'inflammatory' to Molyneux's paper-thin ego) - you must first explain what it is you are going to be saying . . . in case you offend someone.

Like I say, you can cut it however you like, but at the end of the day Molyneux is very clearly demanding a trigger warning.

Nope as usual you're misinterpreting  what stef is saying.

Again, it's not clear precisely which point this is responding to. Also 'you're misinterpreting' is not an argument, you'd need to show how I am misinterpreting, establish it rather than simply state it.

You've clearly cut this moment to suit your negative view point of Stef.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, I've 'cut' this moment ? As if I've taken a clip out of context ? If you want to see the context watch the video.

Prove it, I'm waiting....

Again without a reference I'm not sure what you are responding to . . . but if you want to state the point you are responding to - and say what evidence, what proof, you are looking for / willing to accept, then I'm happy to respond.

You Cleary don't know the left, they don't have a sense of humor.  Except when it comes to making fun of Trump.

As you like to say 'Prove it' . . . show me a study or survey or any data that supports this claim - it doesn't need to be exhaustive, just any credible (i.e. non-partisan) source that reasonbly supports the idea that those on the political left have no sense of humour.

It's a hidden argument.  You have searched long enough.

'It's a hidden argument' (why on earth would you want to hide your argument') and 'prove it' . . . are simply attempts to hide from challenge.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Yeah ill show up from time to time as long as you reply to me.

I have many points.  For example you people are full of crap  but in a funny, entertaining  for the moment kind of way.

Yeah im a silly kinda guy.  Ill go with guessing games theyre more fun.  Has that aura of mystery, got love that.


:)Lupus
I see Kronze21 is back. Not sure what his point is,  but I suppose he must have one. (BTW, we're waiting Kronze21).

I had to laugh at the hidden argument argument. Maybe Kronze21 will tell us what he thinks this "hidden argument" is so that we can debate it. Or we can play guessing games instead. Whatever is more productive