Freedomain Radio

I listened to the interview (have not read the article yet) and to me it is surprising that the interview ends up with an article like that (judging from your comments). Greg apparently feels it coming, but to me the interview seems nice and then bam, hostile article, where did that come from? How could it be I can not see this coming? I would expect some trolling in the interview as well. Doe you have any idea what sets off your alarm bells so soon (or why I seem to have much less sensitive alarm bells?)

I've never in my life seen someone quote an internet forum.  Unbelievable.

Also, I was reading the other day an obituary of the anarchist Murray Bookchin that appeared in the guardian 2 years ago.  And the article said he was for overthrowing capitalism (because it is a "disease"), getting rid of all hierarchy, and quoted him as saying (in relation to ecology):

"The domination of nature by man stems from the very real domination of human by human,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/aug/08/guardianobituaries.usa

Though, no denigration whatsoever and no claims of "hate speech."   No comments section either.

Not far over the Horizon,much fouler beasts await.

Stefan Molyneux:

The desire can be very strong to emotionally engage with such bias... People who use such silly ad hominem attacks are doing their very best I think to tempt us to circle back and cease our exploration and curiosity, and fight with them over shadows, rather than discovering and shedding new light.

As always, my own lack of curiosity (rightfully pointed out by Nathan) is indicative of something I'm not paying close enough attention to in my life, and predictably has little to do with Mr. Ha.

I had a brief IM conversation this morning after posting, that helped identify a particular area of conflict in my own life that I was avoiding by focusing on this one instead. I think that's why the desire to engage was so seductive for me.

For what it's worth, I still feel disgust and revulsion at both Hilpern and Ha. Bu clearly, your own comportment during these events should have made it clear to me that my own desire to respond had nothing really to do with defending anyone, myself included.

I tried to comment on the article with my own history and story about my parents, however, sadly, it was censored.

Stefan Molyneux:

People who use such silly ad hominem attacks are doing their very best I think to tempt us to circle back and cease our exploration and curiosity, and fight with them over shadows, rather than discovering and shedding new light.

Greg

A much better analogy than mine, in fact less of an analogy. more insightful even..

Can I add another crude analogy, as I'm in the mood, as a means to lighten our loads as it were with these baseless assertions made by the press..

If we were on the mayflower now, cruising to freedom, stapled voluntarily to its bow as it were... We would have followed freedom with little choice of a return, rather than an unpleasent swim home.. I for one would have drowned in the first storm of baseless arguments.. Ok maybe the second storm. However, you my dear Greg would no doubt have reached shore, only to experience an inate desire to staple yourself to the bow of the mayflower 2..

Do you require some extra stapling Greg?...

(Please excuse my silliness)

GregG:

As always, my own lack of curiosity (rightfully pointed out by Nathan)

I want to give Mr. C some credit here since this came out of a conversation he and I had about your post.

Nathan:

I tried to comment on the article with my own history and story about my parents,

Well, I think it's important to express a positive viewpoint of FDR. Tell of our own experiences about why we are happier now right? Which is what I posted.  It's with the intent to point out that it's biased and none of the adult children were consulted for their own stories.

Nathan:

  It's with the intent to point out that it's biased and none of the adult children were consulted for their own stories.

On the fence readers? Certainly not those who were commenting.

I'm curious how I would have reacted to reading this article pre-FDR. I think I might have been turned off.

At least the photo was good.

Mr. Ha's sole job responsibility is to provide content that will help sell advertising. It is therefore not surprising that he chose to essentially ignore Stef's side of the story and promote the sensational.

quite telling that both articles reduced Tom's fathers behavior to 'screams to the cats and throws things' with which most people can more easily identify with than with "kicked the cats, trashed a room in 15 seconds, kicked in windows, which had to be repaired regulary' (which was explicitely mentioned in the interview)

it concludes with B. Weed worrying about what an amazing tool the internet is for spreading lies.

oh man, I can always become a journalist, how hard can that be? Ethics overboard, have an interview, keep a friendly face, take some notes, throw them in the trash on the way out, create a boogie man to make suburbia shiver in fear.

Probably the strangest thing is the reoccurring comment that "he'll see just how hard it is to parent in 16 years."

As if it will be some great challenge for Stef not to terrorize his kid(s) in the future.

It's kind of like Jon-Benet Ramsey's parents saying "well you'll just see how irresistable it was to enter our kid into all these modeling contests, beat her into submission to us, and then lie about murdering her.  You just weren't there, man!  And if you hate us so much, why are you having kids, too?"

You get a sense from the critics that they are yelling "please do not make me remember my own abuse.  please do not punish those who punished me -- they said it was my fault.  You are a bad person like I was before my will was broken and I learned to blame me -- the younger and stupider between myself and my parents! I learned to repress where my anger stems, why can't you learn to change the subject too?"