Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 72 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.


Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom


Photo

[YouTube] Why Free Speech Is All That Matters


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
MMD

MMD

  • 2922 posts


Support The Show: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate MP3: http://www.fdrpodcas...ll-that-matters Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.c...ll-that-matters Civilization is a conversation, and moral progress is always the most shocking part of that conversation. Every great moral advance in human history has been met with shocked revulsion by significant existing power groups. The great abolitionist Wilberforce spend more than three decades making the case for ending slavery, before the British Parliament finally voted to outlaw the hideous practice on the third of the globe ruled by Great Britain. John Milton wrote his passionate defense of free speech in 1644 – freedom of the press was not achieved in England until 1695, more than half a century later. Equal rights for women and minorities, freedom of trade, separation of church and state, the right to divorce – each of these advances was considered an appalling break with virtuous traditions – and they all have one thing in common. One thing. In the absence of free speech, these advances would never have occurred. Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com Amazon Affiliate Links US: http://www.fdrurl.com/Amazon Canada: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada UK: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK
  • 0

#2
saspatz

saspatz
  • 19 posts

Beautifully said :thumbsup:


  • 0

#3
Aquilar

Aquilar
  • 9 posts

We would be nothing but machines without freedom of speech.


  • 0

#4
Will Torbald

Will Torbald
  • 1005 posts

Stef is such a liberal progressive when he calls equal rights for women "advances". It's so cringey to watch.


  • -3

#5
twinklingwinter

twinklingwinter
  • 44 posts

Stef is such a liberal progressive when he calls equal rights for women "advances". It's so cringey to watch.

 

Can you expand on that?


  • 0

#6
Will Torbald

Will Torbald
  • 1005 posts

Can you expand on that?

 

He doesn't realize his own duplicity in his content. On one side he will "red pill" you on female nature, go on tirades against feminism, self identify as not liberal and not marxist - then goes on to praise their movement, and work within their framework of thought. "Progress" is a marxist teleological concept that searches a goal = total equality. Women's rights is just one step towards total social entropy, where people are completely interchangeable cogs in the machine. Using this framework is a tacit acceptance of that goal. Or at least, he only wants partial progress in the lukewarm waters of mild equality - ah, but women are vain and they need to be in check too. There's no consistency, and honesty. You either take a liberal progressive mindset, or you don't. He's been dabbing in human biodiversity, race and IQ. Well gender is also real, and females are biologically unequipped for responsible political involvement. Even Ayn Rand knew this, but since Stef got mad that she had a lover, maybe he also discontinued that line of thought wholesale along with her philosophy. Women, by having completely opposite biological values to men, will use their instincts to overturn everything good in it. It's like men taking charge of motherhood, it doesn't work. Everyone knew this in the US, which is why it never tried to expand the franchise to women. Empirically speaking, only through data, women's suffrage is always a complete turnaround towards socialism, expanded government power, and downright degeneracy of culture and values. Everywhere. Everything he hates, but praises women's suffrage. Total dissonance in his mind if he can't acknowledge this, or his downvoting acolytes.


  • 0

#7
shirgall

shirgall

    Bacon

  • 3010 posts

He doesn't realize his own duplicity in his content. On one side he will "red pill" you on female nature, go on tirades against feminism, self identify as not liberal and not marxist - then goes on to praise their movement, and work within their framework of thought. "Progress" is a marxist teleological concept that searches a goal = total equality. Women's rights is just one step towards total social entropy, where people are completely interchangeable cogs in the machine. Using this framework is a tacit acceptance of that goal. Or at least, he only wants partial progress in the lukewarm waters of mild equality - ah, but women are vain and they need to be in check too. There's no consistency, and honesty. You either take a liberal progressive mindset, or you don't. He's been dabbing in human biodiversity, race and IQ. Well gender is also real, and females are biologically unequipped for responsible political involvement. Even Ayn Rand knew this, but since Stef got mad that she had a lover, maybe he also discontinued that line of thought wholesale along with her philosophy. Women, by having completely opposite biological values to men, will use their instincts to overturn everything good in it. It's like men taking charge of motherhood, it doesn't work. Everyone knew this in the US, which is why it never tried to expand the franchise to women. Empirically speaking, only through data, women's suffrage is always a complete turnaround towards socialism, expanded government power, and downright degeneracy of culture and values. Everywhere. Everything he hates, but praises women's suffrage. Total dissonance in his mind if he can't acknowledge this, or his downvoting acolytes.

 

So, are you completely missing the point he was making that great changes in moral values are disruptive? He was not endorsing it, he was using it an an example of a significant change in the society's values.


  • 0

#8
Donnadogsoth

Donnadogsoth
  • 1401 posts
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."
--Stephen Hawking

  • 0