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

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

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.

Nick900

Is Steff still the old Steff?

98 posts in this topic

At some point before the ramping up of the Trump campaign, I somewhat lost interest in Freedomain Radio. I had been listening to the older podcasts for a few years now (in order), but was watching the occasional new one if it spiked my interest. As the Trump campaign was ramping up, Steff's content shifted heavily from the philosophical to the political (I'm aware that the two are very connected). He kept saying that he couldn't wait to get back to philosophy after it was all over and done with. Looking at the recent videos now, most of them look like political/current event vids rather than call-in shows & philosophy. I may be wrong about this since I've not listened to them in awhile, but I'm curious as to how Steff's opinions/outlook on his previous work has changed in recent months? So my questions to you: 

1. Has he significantly changed his mind on any of the big ideas he put forward in his earlier podcasts?

2. Has the show gotten back to philosophy or is it still heavily political/current events?

3. Briefly, has he adopted any new big philosophical ideas in recent months?

Thanks! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, myself, have felt quite dissociated from the show for quite a while now. 

 

When I first joined the call in shows abounded in really personal internal struggles people were going through...things such as anxiety, depression, things related to self-esteem, isolation, bullying, childhood talks, lack of direction...etc, it was those that impacted me the most and were the most meaningful to me. 

I was not even sure if it was only me who got the impression that for the last 2 years or so Stefan does not delve so deep into people's histories and their primary relationships as he once did. 

He recommends therapy whenever the caller is in need for like he always did on the show but my impression is that he does not assume the position of a "healer" himself in the call ins anymore. 

 

That's what I have been missing. 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick900 said:

Has he significantly changed his mind on any of the big ideas he put forward in his earlier podcasts?

The aim was (and still is for FDR people) a free society, by allowing people to reach a high enough IQ and empathy - through peaceful parenting - to be able to apply the NAP.

The problem is that you cannot exceed your genetic maximum no matter how well nurtured you are. And it seems that only Aryans, Ashkenazi Jews, and northeast mongoloids have an IQ high enough.  The capacity to feel guilt without external shaming is unique to Aryans.

So yes, I think that race and IQ has significantly improved his ideas.

2 hours ago, Nick900 said:

Has the show gotten back to philosophy or is it still heavily political/current events?

His call show occasionally does abstract philosophy, but it is usually a mix of politics, self-knowledge, and real-time relationships.

His interviews and "truth about" videos are still political / news.

2 hours ago, Nick900 said:

Briefly, has he adopted any new big philosophical ideas in recent months?

Not that I know of, but he does a great job of applying philosophy to new things.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I don't think so. Core values are still there. He often said in his earlier stuff that it may be too early for the world to accept the ideas that are put forth on this show. The whole peaceful parenting used to be the #1 issue but with what is going on in the world today it may be too early for that idea too. Can't really parent peacefully within sharia law. Or communism for that matter.

2) I think it's more philosophical now. Earlier call-in shows delved a lot into the personal. The bulk of a typical call-in show was Stefan doing an impromptu psychological analysis, tested it, then offered a philosophical solution. Now it's mainly ideas that are discussed compared to going deep into self-knowledge. I'm not complaining either way.

3) I may be wrong about this but I think what's new is his view on political action. Trump is truly a global game-changer, he just showed the rest of the world what can be done. What one man can achieve another can and will achieve it too but with less effort. I mean just imagine, 6 months ago we lived in a world where we ignored politics completely because we knew it was all lies. Now we live in a world where we know politicians CAN keep their promises AND we actually expect them to. When a politician lied we used to go "well, what else could be expect", now if they lie we go "let's all meet up, get our pitchforks, and lynch the asshole".

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

I may be wrong about this but I think what's new is his view on political action. Trump is truly a global game-changer, he just showed the rest of the world what can be done. What one man can achieve another can and will achieve it too but with less effort. I mean just imagine, 6 months ago we lived in a world where we ignored politics completely because we knew it was all lies. Now we live in a world where we know politicians CAN keep their promises AND we actually expect them to. When a politician lied we used to go "well, what else could be expect", now if they lie we go "let's all meet up, get our pitchforks, and lynch the asshole".

Huh... which video was this??? I'll have to watch again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Erwin said:

Huh... which video was this??? I'll have to watch again.

Him and Mike also explained several times why they went pro-Trump in other podacsts.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wuzzums said:

 Can't really parent peacefully within sharia law. Or communism for that matter.

 

To push back on that a little, I don't think it is wise to ignore the peaceful parenting issue. The whole idea of Trump was supposed to be a "Self defense move" to "buy time". If parents in the west just shrug and say "Well I can't be a peaceful parent cause there are some Marxists in our government" then that isn't really different from parents who say "Well, I did the best I could".

It's not too early for the peaceful parenting message. If anything it's too late, but taking that stance and acting it out is probably nihilistic. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaVinci said:

To push back on that a little, I don't think it is wise to ignore the peaceful parenting issue. The whole idea of Trump was supposed to be a "Self defense move" to "buy time". If parents in the west just shrug and say "Well I can't be a peaceful parent cause there are some Marxists in our government" then that isn't really different from parents who say "Well, I did the best I could".

It's not too early for the peaceful parenting message. If anything it's too late, but taking that stance and acting it out is probably nihilistic. 

 

But nobody's ignoring the peaceful parenting issue. The whole point is to achieve a society in which we can peaceful parent. Both aspects have to be tackled at once, it's not an either/or issue.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

But nobody's ignoring the peaceful parenting issue. The whole point is to achieve a society in which we can peaceful parent. Both aspects have to be tackled at once, it's not an either/or issue.

You said : "The whole peaceful parenting used to be the #1 issue but with what is going on in the world today it may be too early for that idea too"

Ignore means to intentionally disregard. Saying "it may be too early for that idea" is to disregard it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you said "may be", but I still disagree that it's too early. 

You achieve a peaceful society by making it happen in the now. If you agree with that, then no, peaceful parenting is not too early. Peaceful parenting shouldn't "used to be the number one issue". It should always be the number one issue. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaVinci said:

You said : "The whole peaceful parenting used to be the #1 issue but with what is going on in the world today it may be too early for that idea too

I took "ignoring" as "abandoning" which it is not. 

4 hours ago, DaVinci said:

You achieve a peaceful society by making it happen in the now. If you agree with that, then no, peaceful parenting is not too early. Peaceful parenting shouldn't "used to be the number one issue". It should always be the number one issue. 

I would like to know how we can achieve a peaceful society when the peacefully raised children are mowed down by bullets, hacked and tortured to death, and run over by a truck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nick900 said:

At some point before the ramping up of the Trump campaign, I somewhat lost interest in Freedomain Radio. I had been listening to the older podcasts for a few years now (in order), but was watching the occasional new one if it spiked my interest. As the Trump campaign was ramping up, Steff's content shifted heavily from the philosophical to the political (I'm aware that the two are very connected). He kept saying that he couldn't wait to get back to philosophy after it was all over and done with. Looking at the recent videos now, most of them look like political/current event vids rather than call-in shows & philosophy. I may be wrong about this since I've not listened to them in awhile, but I'm curious as to how Steff's opinions/outlook on his previous work has changed in recent months? So my questions to you: 

1. Has he significantly changed his mind on any of the big ideas he put forward in his earlier podcasts?

2. Has the show gotten back to philosophy or is it still heavily political/current events?

3. Briefly, has he adopted any new big philosophical ideas in recent months?

Thanks! :)

You aren't wrong. His show is becoming more and more political, and less philosophical. 

While I used to respect his thought-out, patiently clarified podcasts....he's become so sensationalist. He is dramatic, angry, and quite frankly, annoying.

I remember several shows where he takes this exact criticism, and he replies with something like "I have to make it entertaining!"

No Stephan, you should make it concise and pointed.

Why has this happened to him and his show? We can blame it on politics, we can blame the money aspect, but I think it has a lot more to do with age. His sharp wit is declining, and rather than retool his approach, he became sensationalist. He saw what worked for people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. 

He is not the Stephan you knew from previous podcasts.

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lived in some parts of Europe you wouldn't consider it sensationalist.

Besides the guy has been working at the show for over 10 years plus learning philosophy and self-knowledge prior to that. Gone from sounding like a double glazing salesman, to being like a Titan.

Who else are doing shows on real world issues other than the "Valkyries" (Girls with nice boobs and charisma + Truth). Plus a handful of others.

Perhaps if anyone has any conviction about how the show should go, they will do one of their own. Trump = Awesome; high IQ free market, Experience plus requires less sleep than average huge boon to age. "Aragorn". Hillary = Death warmed up. Both could have been entertaining, but to have not have given any support to Trump, would have been one huge joke given what was known. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good philosophy requires good/valid/complete/verifiable information. Over the last 10 years, Stef has acquired more and more good information, specifically information about the political climate of the world. If he didn't incorporate this new information, he'd be a bad philosopher. 

After 10 years if Stef hasn't changed some of his ideas, then he is either: 1. an arrogant ass, 2. godlike in his premonitions.  Philosophy is not about writing down ideas to make them laws. It is a way of living. To be alive is to always be changing; philosophy assists in implementing changes which a person believes will bring the greatest benefit toward whatever goal. Stef's underlying base principle (UPB), which serves as the foundation of FDR has not changed. The conclusions drawn from applying UPB to current circumstances has changed because the circumstances have changed. (or at the very least our knowledge of the current circumstances has changed). Applying UPB to personal relationships is great. It can lead to very deep, unbreakable connections while showing you with whom to not waste your time. For any personal relationship, UPB cannot be applied if someone is initiating force. Likewise, Western Civilization is under direct and sustained attack by those from without and those from within. UPB is not compatible in any other major culture. Therefore, if the West falls, so does any chance the human race has of achieving lasting freedom. 

----------------------------

Metaphor:

Stef: "Here's a great way to decorate the inside of your housOHH MY GOD THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!"

You: "While I mostly agree with Stef on most things mostly, I'm not so sure these drapes match the throw pillows."

Gordon Ramsay: "HEY! YOU, COME 'ERE! f*** OFF! P***OFF RIGHT UPSTAIRS YA DONKEY!"

----------------------------

Nick900, all you've done is out yourself as useless. I'd like to know where and in what context Stef said he'd "like to get back to philosophy." The show never stopped being philosophical. 

If you have an aesthetic preference for listening to philosophy without doing philosophy, that's fine, whatever. But don't put the responsibility for that on Stef and then whine that he's "being political/not philosophical". Your aesthetic preferences are your choice. What kind of dysfunction must be present in order to sit back while your house and the houses all around you are burning down?

Related image

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I would like to know how we can achieve a peaceful society when the peacefully raised children are mowed down by bullets, hacked and tortured to death, and run over by a truck.

I look at it like this. Imagine a free anarchic world is starting tomorrow. This is the last day of government rule ever. What does that mean? For most people who don't understand anarchy they think that means "chaos" and riots, and the water is shut off, etc. In my scenario that means the anarchic world was built in parallel with the "current" systems making them outdated, and obsolete. So the last day of government is coming at the end of a shutting down process for all government. 

You don't turn off government and start up anarchy. You start up anarchy now. The earlier you start anarchy the earlier the government will disappear. Even if it's 500 years from now, for every day you wait to start anarchy that's at least another day, if not more, of government rule. Why? Cause government always has an incentive to keep running. They always have an incentive to create new "problems" to "solve" that need a tax farm and slaves. 

The big problem right now is all of these killings in Europe. But we're right back to what I just said. The government loves having problems to solve. It justifies their existence. So while we certainly have to protect ourselves from violent people you don't necessarily solve the problem of violence forever by blowing them up in retaliation. It just doesn't work. Every time the west blows up some cave they use it as a reason to recruit to their suicide killers. 

I think peaceful parenting, as well as change in other areas, is the most important change that can be made today. To a certain extent the fight against immigration is a distraction. I'm not saying it's not important. But I do see lots of regular people, here and elsewhere, who are fighting the wrong fights, which is a whole other topic. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Good philosophy requires good/valid/complete/verifiable information. Over the last 10 years, Stef has acquired more and more good information, specifically information about the political climate of the world. If he didn't incorporate this new information, he'd be a bad philosopher. 

After 10 years if Stef hasn't changed some of his ideas, then he is either: 1. an arrogant ass, 2. godlike in his premonitions.  Philosophy is not about writing down ideas to make them laws. It is a way of living. To be alive is to always be changing; philosophy assists in implementing changes which a person believes will bring the greatest benefit toward whatever goal. Stef's underlying base principle (UPB), which serves as the foundation of FDR has not changed. The conclusions drawn from applying UPB to current circumstances has changed because the circumstances have changed. (or at the very least our knowledge of the current circumstances has changed). Applying UPB to personal relationships is great. It can lead to very deep, unbreakable connections while showing you with whom to not waste your time. For any personal relationship, UPB cannot be applied if someone is initiating force. Likewise, Western Civilization is under direct and sustained attack by those from without and those from within. UPB is not compatible in any other major culture. Therefore, if the West falls, so does any chance the human race has of achieving lasting freedom. 

----------------------------

Metaphor:

Stef: "Here's a great way to decorate the inside of your housOHH MY GOD THE ROOF IS ON FIRE!!!"

You: "While I mostly agree with Stef on most things mostly, I'm not so sure these drapes match the throw pillows."

Gordon Ramsay: "HEY! YOU, COME 'ERE! f*** OFF! P***OFF RIGHT UPSTAIRS YA DONKEY!"

----------------------------

Nick900, all you've done is out yourself as useless. I'd like to know where and in what context Stef said he'd "like to get back to philosophy." The show never stopped being philosophical. 

If you have an aesthetic preference for listening to philosophy without doing philosophy, that's fine, whatever. But don't put the responsibility for that on Stef and then whine that he's "being political/not philosophical". Your aesthetic preferences are your choice. What kind of dysfunction must be present in order to sit back while your house and the houses all around you are burning down?

Related image

I guess it just seems somewhat hypocritical to have condemned politics for years as a moral evil and then to suddenly throw your weight behind a political candidate because reasons. For years he stated the political machenary was a bad way to bring about change, then when the he likes the change being offered, the show becomes all about politics. 

Is he still against using political systems to bring about change or is it ok now that "the house is on fire"? 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nick900 said:

I guess it just seems somewhat hypocritical to have condemned politics for years as a moral evil and then to suddenly throw your weight behind a political candidate because reasons. For years he stated the political machenary was a bad way to bring about change, then when the he likes the change being offered, the show becomes all about politics. 

Is he still against using political systems to bring about change or is it ok now that "the house is on fire"? 

He also said that government will always grow in size and power. 
That will inevitably happen during/after Trump.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ValueOfBrevity said:

You aren't wrong. His show is becoming more and more political, and less philosophical. 

While I used to respect his thought-out, patiently clarified podcasts....he's become so sensationalist. He is dramatic, angry, and quite frankly, annoying.

I remember several shows where he takes this exact criticism, and he replies with something like "I have to make it entertaining!"

No Stephan, you should make it concise and pointed.

Why has this happened to him and his show? We can blame it on politics, we can blame the money aspect, but I think it has a lot more to do with age. His sharp wit is declining, and rather than retool his approach, he became sensationalist. He saw what worked for people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. 

He is not the Stephan you knew from previous podcasts.

Here's how I know you're full of shit:

1) It's "steFan", not "stePHan"

2) He has been on Alex Jones' show several times way back in 2010.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DaVinci said:

So while we certainly have to protect ourselves from violent people you don't necessarily solve the problem of violence forever by blowing them up in retaliation. It just doesn't work.

Yes it does work actually. Violence works all the time and the only reason it doesn't it's because you haven't used enough of it. History has clearly taught us this much. Contrary to what Trudeau might think, if you kill your enemies you win. Forever. The issue is not finding a solution, it's finding another solution.

I agree with your whole anarchy plan. Let me put it to you like this: you're living in an anarchic society, you let a bunch of of violent people in that are raping and killing the peaceful parenters. What's the first thing you have to take care of in order to maintain peaceful parenting? Anarchy and peaceful parenting don't really go hand in hand. One does not imply the other. Peaceful parenting will lead to a peaceful anarchic society, sure, otherwise it will just be chaos.

I also agree with blaming the government for the current state of affairs. It does like to create a problem then offer itself as the solution. However if government did indeed disappear tomorrow that will still leave the problems it created still unsolved. How will peaceful parenting solve the issue of having as a neighbor an islamist?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wuzzums said:

Yes it does work actually. Violence works all the time and the only reason it doesn't it's because you haven't used enough of it. History has clearly taught us this much. Contrary to what Trudeau might think, if you kill your enemies you win. Forever. The issue is not finding a solution, it's finding another solution.

It's... the final solution.

huehuehueheu

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nick900 said:

I guess it just seems somewhat hypocritical to have condemned politics for years as a moral evil and then to suddenly throw your weight behind a political candidate because reasons. For years he stated the political machenary was a bad way to bring about change, then when the he likes the change being offered, the show becomes all about politics. 

Is he still against using political systems to bring about change or is it ok now that "the house is on fire"? 

I'm waiting for an argument. Or do you just have "it seems..."? 

Sorry to be pithy, but I've answered this in my previous post. So I'm not clear on what you want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Yes it does work actually. Violence works all the time and the only reason it doesn't it's because you haven't used enough of it. History has clearly taught us this much. Contrary to what Trudeau might think, if you kill your enemies you win. Forever. The issue is not finding a solution, it's finding another solution.

I agree with your whole anarchy plan. Let me put it to you like this: you're living in an anarchic society, you let a bunch of of violent people in that are raping and killing the peaceful parenters. What's the first thing you have to take care of in order to maintain peaceful parenting? Anarchy and peaceful parenting don't really go hand in hand. One does not imply the other. Peaceful parenting will lead to a peaceful anarchic society, sure, otherwise it will just be chaos.

I also agree with blaming the government for the current state of affairs. It does like to create a problem then offer itself as the solution. However if government did indeed disappear tomorrow that will still leave the problems it created still unsolved. How will peaceful parenting solve the issue of having as a neighbor an islamist?

I think you are missing the bigger picture. If you go blow up the other side of the planet, even if you are killing the "bad guys" you are also opening yourself up to be used as a recruitment tool for more bad guys. There's a reason terrorists groups don't want to destroy the evil infidels of the North Pole. They can't recruit people to a cause that isn't based on anything. 

The same thing is happening in the U.S. with BLM. They use those incidents with the police as tools for recruitment. 

That's why this is such a complex issue. Defending yourself can recruit your own future opposition. 

I've been saying for months now that the right needs to stop treating the political left like enemies. The longer that keeps happening the longer they will use the right as a recruitment tool. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaVinci said:

I think you are missing the bigger picture. If you go blow up the other side of the planet, even if you are killing the "bad guys" you are also opening yourself up to be used as a recruitment tool for more bad guys. There's a reason terrorists groups don't want to destroy the evil infidels of the North Pole. They can't recruit people to a cause that isn't based on anything. 

Where are all the radical american Indian extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Jewish extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Australian aborigines extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Slavic extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Chinese extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical South Korean extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical French extremists blowing themselves up?

I can go on and on.

You're a muslim apologist. I'll leave you with this Sam Harris snippet that detail this is not about retaliation, it's about conquering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMKOV2zA9Wc

It's time to stop treating these people like abused dogs and start treating them as persons with the responsibility that comes with.

2 hours ago, DaVinci said:

That's why this is such a complex issue. Defending yourself can recruit your own future opposition. 

"If you kill your enemies, they win."

2 hours ago, DaVinci said:

I've been saying for months now that the right needs to stop treating the political left like enemies. The longer that keeps happening the longer they will use the right as a recruitment tool. 

The left is the enemy. The right has been treating them as just opposition for decades while the left have been treating the right as the enemies. This is why the right has been losing. The right is just reactionary. The left started it, the right is fighting back, now that the right is winning suddenly leftist vermin come out of the woodwork and preach compassion and empathy and "we're not enemies, we just have different opinions". The right has the moral high ground, whether they choose to completely destroy the left or choose to stop attacking after the left abdicates, they're still on the right side of history.

Let me ask you another question. Where are your posts from 2016/2015/2014/2013/2012/2011/2010/2009 that calls out for leftists to stop treating the political right as enemies because the longer it happens the longer they will use the left as a recruitment tool for the right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaVinci said:

I think you are missing the bigger picture. If you go blow up the other side of the planet, even if you are killing the "bad guys" you are also opening yourself up to be used as a recruitment tool for more bad guys. There's a reason terrorists groups don't want to destroy the evil infidels of the North Pole. They can't recruit people to a cause that isn't based on anything. 

Ever heard of "protective measures"? If, for instance, I am the ruler of country A and people from B are causing chaos, the simple solution is to expel all the people from country B. The Bs may slander me all they want, they're gone. They're no longer an issue. Should they decide to declare war, they I must make sure we're ready to fight and annihilate them, or at least destroy their wills to fight. Islam however is a very far away country B. Simply getting rid of all the Muslims should be enough to prevent further conflict in our country A. Especially since they really can't invade us or do anything to us, unless they had nuclear bombs which I doubt they'd ever use, of course I'd be for some kind of anti-A-bomb thing just to make sure.

The barrel of the gun is the arbiter of all great political conflicts. Trying to fight the gun without another gun will only lead to the guy with the gun dominating the submissive party.

 

5 hours ago, DaVinci said:

The same thing is happening in the U.S. with BLM. They use those incidents with the police as tools for recruitment. 

That's why this is such a complex issue. Defending yourself can recruit your own future opposition. 

I've been saying for months now that the right needs to stop treating the political left like enemies. The longer that keeps happening the longer they will use the right as a recruitment tool. 

 

The solution here is simple: destroy the Left, destroy the hostile races, and both ethnically cleanse and culturally unite the country. If someone were to somehow segregate by force all the races, at the very least, and have peaceful parenting become the propaganda of schools, then society will slowly recede from total autocracy to anarchism. 

This isn't a "pretty" solution, but it is the most obvious and simplest. The problem now is simply making it happen. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Erwin said:

It's... the final solution.

huehuehueheu

Also known as a good guide for uniting a culturally and ethnically divided nation!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Here's how I know you're full of shit:

1) It's "steFan", not "stePHan"

2) He has been on Alex Jones' show several times way back in 2010.



#1 is not an argument.

As for #2: Alex Jones has become more popular because he is loud and eccentric; Stephan has become more eccentric for the sake of entertainment. Paul Joseph Watson takes the same brash tone. 

 

-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

I'm waiting for an argument. Or do you just have "it seems..."? 

Sorry to be pithy, but I've answered this in my previous post. So I'm not clear on what you want.

Political machinery is still corrupt, and cannot lead to less government. 
Trump may reduce some government power, but he will be out of office within 7 years. 

EDIT:  Will you guys defend him no matter what? He never took back what he said about Dear White People. That was sensationalist for sure. Can you point out a time when Stephan has honestly admitted he's wrong?

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan made a video about the pareto distribution. If there are like 20% of his listenership who are really the world changers, I think they need to be equipped with the sharpest swords in the shed. It doesn't matter if his more latest videos appeal to a greater number of people if those people are ineffective. It's the 20% who are the people who will start their own campaigns. My fear now is that that 20% is being replaced with people who have misunderstood Stefan's arguments for their own ideology. The fascists, conspiracy theorists, ethnonationalists, religious folks, supremacists. Perhaps Stefan envisioned that 20% would have been political leaders, businessmen, voters. Maybe if we can explicitly incorporate principles into our political arguments we can draw a better crowd. For example, Stefan says that immigration is another government program but perhaps he could explain what this really means to the lay audience, because when he says that it just sounds like he's trying to keep and not frighten his older audience rather than attract a new one because he doesn't go through the axioms which only the older audience understand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Where are all the radical american Indian extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Jewish extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Australian aborigines extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Slavic extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical Chinese extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical South Korean extremists blowing themselves up?

Where are all the radical French extremists blowing themselves up?

I can go on and on.

You're a muslim apologist. I'll leave you with this Sam Harris snippet that detail this is not about retaliation, it's about conquering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMKOV2zA9Wc

It's time to stop treating these people like abused dogs and start treating them as persons with the responsibility that comes with.

"If you kill your enemies, they win."

The left is the enemy. The right has been treating them as just opposition for decades while the left have been treating the right as the enemies. This is why the right has been losing. The right is just reactionary. The left started it, the right is fighting back, now that the right is winning suddenly leftist vermin come out of the woodwork and preach compassion and empathy and "we're not enemies, we just have different opinions". The right has the moral high ground, whether they choose to completely destroy the left or choose to stop attacking after the left abdicates, they're still on the right side of history.

Let me ask you another question. Where are your posts from 2016/2015/2014/2013/2012/2011/2010/2009 that calls out for leftists to stop treating the political right as enemies because the longer it happens the longer they will use the left as a recruitment tool for the right?

Calling me a Muslim apologist is a strawman. I'm not apologizing for them. If that's what you see, that's on you. 

What I'm saying is that you don't get to a peaceful world through the barrel of a gun. That's like getting to love making with a gun. That doesn't mean "Don't defend yourself." People need to stop perverting the idea of changing the world into a peaceful one to mean "lay down and accept your death". That's not what it means it all. Changing the world to a peaceful one and defending yourself are not mutually exclusive. 

You have to use the right tools for the job you are doing. Some jobs require a chainsaw. Some require a scalpel. If you use a chainsaw for everything you are probably causing more problems than you are solving. The more problems you create the more you have to clean up. 

I'm wondering how many of you have actually dealt with physical conflict before, or been bullied? I know from extensive experience that bullies and people prone to aggression typically become more aggressive in response to those who are aggressive back. Even if it is aggression to defend themselves. 

As for your last question those posts aren't here, but they do exist. I'm just as critical of the left as i am of the right. It's just there aren't really any left leaning people here that I know of. But if you would like to tag them in this thread I'd be glad to take note of that so I can be on the lookout for their posts in the future. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2017 at 8:21 PM, ValueOfBrevity said:

Political machinery is still corrupt, and cannot lead to less government. 
Trump may reduce some government power, but he will be out of office within 7 years. 

EDIT:  Will you guys defend him no matter what? He never took back what he said about Dear White People. That was sensationalist for sure. Can you point out a time when Stephan has honestly admitted he's wrong?

I see. You have unresolved daddy issues. How boring. If you've been listening to the podcasts "for a few years now" and this is what you come up with, just stop. You're wasting your time.

The "Dear White People" video he made was about the trailer, not the show itself. There was nothing incorrect about anything he said. If that's all you have....you just need to delete your account and move on with your life. This is pathetic.

 

Off the top of my head I know Stefan has changed his mind on the following:

1. the cause of homosexuality - from being environmental to genetic (and likely now, epigenetic. See he's learned new information and incorporated them into his understanding of the world)

2. Libertarians - was very onboard with libertarians until realizing they do not apply their own basic principle (the NAP) universally (specifically to the treatment of children)

3. FDR Podcast 3708 - call-in show from May 31, 2017. The 7th and final caller challenges Stef on his definition of a god and the contradictory nature of omnipotence and omniscience. Stef agrees with the caller's argument

4. Stef has changed his mind on what should be the main focus for saving humanity from it's own destruction. It used to be peaceful parenting, but that has been superceded by the more immediate need of saving the West. Why? Because the ideas that can combat and reduce widespread violence have only arisen in the West. Without the West, there is no petri dish to grow peaceful parenting. The election of Hillary Clinton would have spelt doom for America. He's fighting tooth and nail. What the shit are you doing?

5. His view of Christianity has dramatically changed specifically over the past year or two from a position of downright intellectual hostility to a degree of respect. This respect comes out of the fact that, while Christianity did not birth the West, it sure as hell kept it alive for well over 1000 years. In parallel, Stef's view toward mainstream atheists has been negatively impacted due to their involvement with the destruction of the West. (See video below)

6. Climate change - by doing research into the "climate change consensus", Stef has become very skeptical of "man made climate change". (see video below)

7. Stefan used to be a socialist (before starting FDR, see video below)

8. There have been a plethora of shows about the effects of genetics and race on IQ. Stef has had his mind changed on equality for sure. No need to post a video because a simple YouTube search yields many results.

 

and on and on and on blah blah blah blah. You know why I'm able to pull all these examples straight out of my ass? Because I'm engaged in actual philosophy. Philosophy is a methodology for understanding the world around us. If our understanding doesn't change/evolve with new, contradictory information, then the methodology is broken. Do I suck at the Holy Nipple of Saint Molyneux? Nope! What has become clear to me in the early years of the show is that he had some naivete about those around him. He's matured/grown up/moved on from all that and is better for it. He's far more decerning with people now, while respecting his own needs. I also think he has been and continues to be dead ass wrong on a lot of what normies would call "conspiracy theories".  His listener conversations on these topics are some of the worst shows he's put out. Thankfully, these shows are rare.

So my suggestion to you is to stop listening. Put down the podcasts and move on. This is clearly not your thing and you have proven yourself to be a trollish distraction from topics that actually matter.

 

(something I do agree with, which Stef has taught me, is that self-immolation at the alter of dysfunction disguising itself as reason is a recipe for disaster. So, seriously, gtfo, or do much better.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaVinci said:

I'm wondering how many of you have actually dealt with physical conflict before, or been bullied? I know from extensive experience that bullies and people prone to aggression typically become more aggressive in response to those who are aggressive back. Even if it is aggression to defend themselves. 

In my experience it's the exact opposite. Like literally the exact opposite. The bully doesn't stop being aggressive, they stop being aggressive towards you and pick on another target.

11 hours ago, DaVinci said:

What I'm saying is that you don't get to a peaceful world through the barrel of a gun. That's like getting to love making with a gun. That doesn't mean "Don't defend yourself." People need to stop perverting the idea of changing the world into a peaceful one to mean "lay down and accept your death". That's not what it means it all. Changing the world to a peaceful one and defending yourself are not mutually exclusive. 

Yes you can. That's the whole point of the US' 2nd Amendment. You don't get a peaceful society by making everyone weak. What sense does that make? You make a peaceful society by making everyone strong and able to fight back against those that seek out to do harm. I don't understand when you say that peace and defending yourself aren't mutually exclusive yet also preach compassion towards those with no compassion. My definition of self-defense, and I think this is valid for most people, it's an equal or GREATER response against the attacker. It's logical, anything less than an equal response cannot fall under self-defense because it's ineffective for defense.

 

Listen, I don't know where you're from or what kind of guilt has been taught to you in the school or media. Where I come from Vlad The Impaler is a national hero for standing up to the Ottoman Empire. He literally lead a jihad against the muslim oppressors. If you're from the US, hopefully or else this analogy will fail, imagine the brits invading the US with the sole purpose of turning it into a colony again and taking away your constitution and making you subservient to the monarchy once again. How will the americans react? You think the people with extensive collections of guns will willingly bow their heads and decide to wait for some future anarchic society that will set them free somehow? This is exactly the scenario that is playing out in certain parts of Europe. Certain parts that these "refugees" somehow manage to walk right past. Peaceful parenting will lead to a peaceful society in the future but we're living in the present and right now we're past the point of no return. The problem is here and peaceful parenting is not the solution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I'm wondering how many of you have actually dealt with physical conflict before, or been bullied? I know from extensive experience that bullies and people prone to aggression typically become more aggressive in response to those who are aggressive back. Even if it is aggression to defend themselves.

Anyone will defend himself against a single instance of attack.  But that is beside the point.  We're talking about "people" that chronically initiate their own attacks.  So you're essentially saying that criminals resist arrest?  That can be granted without any impact on the urgency of doing it.

12 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

5. His view of Christianity has dramatically changed specifically over the past year or two from a position of downright intellectual hostility to a degree of respect. This respect comes out of the fact that, while Christianity did not birth the West, it sure as hell kept it alive for well over 1000 years. In parallel, Stef's view toward mainstream atheists has been negatively impacted due to their involvement with the destruction of the West. (See video below)

"He who does not work shall not eat".  Lenin quoted Apostle Paul for a primary principle of socialism.  Turning the other cheek to "love your enemies" is directly attributed to Christ.  Many of today's "atheists" are merely disciples of Christian values that subtracted God from consideration.  Christianity has lorded over the flower of commerce and science in Europe, ripping off its petals for 2000 years and sharing the ripping with Islam for 1400 years.  As I've said before, it's no coincidence that the current primary point of attack is Germany where the ruling party is Christian Democratic Union.  Everything that is happening now is just that old time religion at work.  When commerce and science have been surrendered for Biblical purpose and the last vestiges hide in a cave from persecution Christians will likewise claim that they are keeping this cave alive.  Just because many atheists don't clearly identify by the origin of their ideology and are often better Christians than those that title themselves as such doesn't mean Christianity isn't a part of the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Caley McKibbin said:

"He who does not work shall not eat".  Lenin quoted Apostle Paul for a primary principle of socialism.  Turning the other cheek to "love your enemies" is directly attributed to Christ.  Many of today's "atheists" are merely disciples of Christian values that subtracted God from consideration.  Christianity has lorded over the flower of commerce and science in Europe, ripping off its petals for 2000 years and sharing the ripping with Islam for 1400 years.  As I've said before, it's no coincidence that the current primary point of attack is Germany where the ruling party is Christian Democratic Union.  Everything that is happening now is just that old time religion at work.  When commerce and science have been surrendered for Biblical purpose and the last vestiges hide in a cave from persecution Christians will likewise claim that they are keeping this cave alive.  Just because many atheists don't clearly identify by the origin of their ideology and are often better Christians than those that title themselves as such doesn't mean Christianity isn't a part of the problem.

And yet none of what you said had anything to do with what I was talking about. Nice job.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

In my experience it's the exact opposite. Like literally the exact opposite. The bully doesn't stop being aggressive, they stop being aggressive towards you and pick on another target.

Yes you can. That's the whole point of the US' 2nd Amendment. You don't get a peaceful society by making everyone weak. What sense does that make? You make a peaceful society by making everyone strong and able to fight back against those that seek out to do harm. I don't understand when you say that peace and defending yourself aren't mutually exclusive yet also preach compassion towards those with no compassion. My definition of self-defense, and I think this is valid for most people, it's an equal or GREATER response against the attacker. It's logical, anything less than an equal response cannot fall under self-defense because it's ineffective for defense.

 

Listen, I don't know where you're from or what kind of guilt has been taught to you in the school or media. Where I come from Vlad The Impaler is a national hero for standing up to the Ottoman Empire. He literally lead a jihad against the muslim oppressors. If you're from the US, hopefully or else this analogy will fail, imagine the brits invading the US with the sole purpose of turning it into a colony again and taking away your constitution and making you subservient to the monarchy once again. How will the americans react? You think the people with extensive collections of guns will willingly bow their heads and decide to wait for some future anarchic society that will set them free somehow? This is exactly the scenario that is playing out in certain parts of Europe. Certain parts that these "refugees" somehow manage to walk right past. Peaceful parenting will lead to a peaceful society in the future but we're living in the present and right now we're past the point of no return. The problem is here and peaceful parenting is not the solution.

 

I'm glad you've had a different experience than mine. My experiences have all been that escalating conflict, even in self defense, leads to heightened aggression and retribution from those who attacked. Even Stef has mentioned that when he challenges peoples opinions they will end up adhering to those opinions harder than they did before. 

You brought up this scenario of "What if Britain invaded the U.S. again." There are many historians who think that was going to happen. That England had plans to take back the "colonies". So why didn't they? It didn't make sense economically. There was no need to invade once they could gather resources elsewhere. Yes, America having a military force, and regular people having guns was a deterrent, but considering your opposition before you attack them, and what happens during a fight are not the same thought process. 

Side note, look up War Plan Red to read about how the U.S. had a military strategy for fighting a war against England in the 20th century. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say self defense must be equal or greater. Are we talking about some kind of arm wrestling match? There isn't just one way to defend yourself. You don't have to bulk up with steroids to take on a physical bully. You can just outsmart them. You can remove their incentive to fight. You can be quicker. Harder to catch. Self defense isn't always physical force against physical force.

I get that you grew up in a bad area, but that doesn't mean I grew up being "taught guilt". Perhaps your perspective is one that is always on guard. You're always looking for enemies. Always ready to spin around and punch. That doesn't mean that is the only way to defend yourself. Again, I'm not saying "don't defend yourself". I'm saying there is not a one size fits all approach to defense. You don't cut out cancer with a chainsaw. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

And yet none of what you said had anything to do with what I was talking about. Nice job.

You said Christianity has kept the west alive and well for over 1000 years.  I explained that this is the opposite of the truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now