Leaderboard

In a world filled with anti-philosophical lemmings the popularity of a philosophy show has an inverse relationship to it's quality. The show grew because it rode the Trump wave and put a pause on offending people's sensibilities. More conservative pandering and less philosophical exposure of the state, the family, and the church. The people who like the show before and the people who like the show after are not going to be the same people. I think there has been a slow reemergence of prior content to slowly introduce conservative listeners to the original principles without losing them, but we'll see if we're actually headed back to the car or if we're having too much fun at the gas station (reference to the we got a flat tire[immigration/leftism] and we have to detour[push Trump, court Christians] to fix it analogy). Yes, there are plenty of people to defend Trump and rail against the decline of society, but when Stef left the "Ivory Tower" who was left to speak true philosophy? He often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason? This is a thought I sometimes have, but I hope I'm wrong about that and right about the detour - i.e. we buy time and gain some eyeballs to try and convince later.

Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc. He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly. Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left? In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society. But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason. So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years? I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump). I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though. If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow. But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".

Ok, ok, ok... everyone please stop this right now. I've noticed this little trend coming up these past weeks. Let's not turn the whole IQ conversation into a IQ-signaling circle-jerk like we're fucking Mensa or something. C'mon, guys, we're better than that !

Forget IQ. Focus on your will, drive, and persistence. Pick a goal and move towards it. Work and success will help take you out of paralyzing self-analysis.

1 problem that high IQ presents is boredom (and thus, inattention). Everyone thought my little brother had ADHD. He took an IQ test, and it turns out he zones out from boredom since the course material is so dull. Teachers usually present a concept then beat it to death. That may be necessary for most people, but the problem with high IQ is you'll get the jist of what the teacher is saying quickly. Anything else becomes repetitive. which can lead to boredom. If you are bored in class, chances are you'll zone out. If the teacher presents new material, you might miss out on it.

Why do you think this? is stephan unhealthy for having a wife? or is this in how we are defining rely and satisfy? i would think a healthy relationship enhances happiness and satisfaction in a scale that makes a person more satisfied than alone.

I'm new to FDR (as of March) and peaceful parenting. I wasn't into spanking, but let myself get shouty when I was frustrated. Stef often talks about the games and conversations he has with his daughter. One he mentioned was the objective/subjective game. My kids enjoy this (they're 7 and 9) but I'd love to get ideas from others about games to help them develop their logic, critical thinking and ethics. I'm really loving learning philosophy, but I'm struggling to find ways to bring it into every day conversations with my kids.

If this forum was a soccer match, would you still call players on the other team 'bullies' if they took the ball from you, or blocked it from where you wanted it to go? Sentimentality is quite a powerful and disabling force. If you let it grow its leaves around you, you will just be left crippled, and lulled into nothingness. Push that member berry manure away, look forward and make history. I have been engulfed by this crippling force, so I know what I am talking about. It will take several years to get out of it if you let it sink its teeth in you. (member berry: south park reference) No. Stop waiting for other people. Make it happen! And I'd imagine because you want the world to be a better place, with less immorality. (maybe that was such a given that you forgot about it)

Definitions are not inconsequential crap - it's how we set forth clear meaning to words. How can we have a rational discussion if the words we use to communicate with have different meanings? The implied claim that forums is not part of social media was incorrect, according to the definition.

No need to paraphrase when you have quotes. Through your paraphrasing, you have used words that I have not, creating an image of me that suits your claim that I'm bullying you. I have not agreed to misunderstanding you, only the possibility that I may have misunderstood a previous comment by you as not passive-aggressive on the condition that you comprehend what it is to be passive-aggressive - it does not appear like you have that level of self-knowledge. Furthermore, I made 2 replies to you before you made that highlighted comment shown above which doesn't build a strong enough case to use absolute language like "constantly" and "definitely". How many people don't have the patience? You say 2 days - Where did you collect this data and how many instances did this occur? How did you arrive at the conclusion that people are leaving because of your claimed wait time? Did you contact them? Please provide your collected data with all sources so that we may, if we choose, review your claim - otherwise, your just saying stuff. Did you contact Michael to find out if and why your posts are delayed? It's not the wait time that bothers you - my questioning your guesses is the problem for you. You prefer to just say stuff without having to go through the difficult and lengthy process of presenting your reasoning and supporting evidence. Ethnicity: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. Your still trying to use your ethnicity as a way to define board members behaviour as bullying. Being East-Asian is said to belong to a culture - you keep saying stuff without evidence based reasoning and no, just because I'm a donator does not mean I have power over you thereby allowing you to fit me into the definition that makes you happy. You're trying to use two different definitions for bullying in an attempt to just win. I think I'm beginning to understand what this "chess-game" term is, or maybe I'm treating this conversation like a chess-game by not allowing you to just say whatever you want without principles. Should I step aside and let this forum swell with members who make relativistic posts? Is that how we can avoid being called a bully? What about members who make posts that women are dogs that need to put into place, as seen here? Does that members bigotry, as evidenced, not support a forum banning motion? Will others speak against bigots or will bigot supporters help them while others remain silent? Am I making people uncomfortable? The problem is I'm misunderstanding you? You've confused you're unpleasant experience with philosophy for me.

Yes, that would be a passive-aggressive response. I'll assume your question is your way of joking. I must apologize for claiming that you, Mishi, have been passive-aggressive with me in this thread. You have said that you were not and so I must treat you and others with a presumption of innocence...again, I apologize for misunderstanding your text as passive-aggressive. I will be making sure that I don't treat others in future interactions without a presumption of innocence. As for this thread, the OP wanted "theories". My participation in this thread has been to give voice to FDR's guideline statement: however, this is in conflict with theorizing and so my participation has only been a disruption to contemplations, speculations, conjectures, and guesses. I'm not saying these things are wrong under the context of this thread, since that's what the OP wants, and there is room within this forum for such conversations. Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but I must also apologize to everyone in this thread for derailing this thread. You're going to need to provide an argument to support your claim that I'm a "concern troll". I would also appreciate it as a sign of respect if you could direct your argument to myself, on this thread, instead of through a passing comment to Mishi or anyone else here. I've looked up concern trolling but fail to understand how I fit this term.

No reason to take you serious.

I did. You only want a conversation using speculation. There's nothing wrong for wanting that kind of conversation because that's exactly what the OP wants as well. In fact, there's a shift on this forum away from the following: This was why I apologize for my participation in this thread - I'm applying a philosophical methodology using reason and evidence as per the original purpose of this forum. The market (members of this forum) do not want this. I've been involved in several conversations, I use that term loosely, where some people are offended when asked for reason and evidence to the point where they are clearly abusive and nobody appears to be held accountable for their actions here. How can this group enforce the social contract, law of the land, or an implementation of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organization) in society when this group cannot do so in their own backyard (this forum) where it is more manageable? This is a rhetorical question.