Leaderboard

what would it take to elevate your discourse from passive aggressive, strawman, whiny, cucked out, non-intellectual, baby food spew to actual philosophy? Thanks for breaking out the Hitler argument so early. Always lets you know who's full of complete s---

Thought I'd share this gem I found on the apa website. tl;dr: All problems in the black community are caused by evil white racism. Blacks have no control over their actions and only act in response to whites. Africa was literally an peaceful parenting utopia before whites came and ruined it.

I beg to differ. The idea that the Jewish problem has anything to do with a world wide conspiracy or Zionism is shit posting, but Jews have an evolutionary bent towards subverting their host culture and pushing for multicultural (and leftist) policies in order to protect their own minority, highly cohesive in-group. Other races have now adapted the strategies Jews have been using since before the birth of Christ. This is generally unconscious, but manifests in their behaviors none the less. Especially in the 20th century, Jews were the intellectual force and roots behind almost every leftist position or culturally subversive position today. The Culture of Critique (a book written by a University of California PhD) and the two volumes written before that, detail extensively the evolution of the Jewish people and their numerous connections to subversive and leftist ideology. It's certainly not a world wide conspiracy, but it is something every Anglo-Saxon white male should be aware of.

Spend less time on computer and message boards.

I'm not sure of any resources to offer, but I have found somethings to be particularly effective or helpful. But, first, we cannot change anyone. They change themselves, and the best we can do is offer guidance, structure, and support. So, the first thing I do is try to seek common ground. It's important that the argument does not get polarized like a political debate between republicans and democrats. The way that I like to look at it is that you want to less get into an argument/debate and have more of a discussion of ideas. You want to be trying to head toward the same goal, not trying to beat the other person's arguments or position. Another thing that I try to be aware of to stave off and circumvent is conclusions/labels that are applied to people. I try never to say something like, "You're a bad parent," and I actively try to predict and deal with those potential inferences, where I might say, "It's bad parenting. You're not a bad parent, but it's not good for the children." Something that I have found helpful is to say something along the lines of, "we all could be better (at) x." Even really awesome, peaceful parents could still be better parents. There is always room for improvement, and don't the children deserve that? Most parents do want what is best for their children, but they have bad conclusions about how to obtain it. Don't press the other too hard on a conclusion. They will either fight back or submit for the sake of getting past it, and no lasting change will occur. Finally, be aware of the emotional climate of the conversation. If emotions and tensions are escalating, the conversation is too stressful to learn anything.

Stefan did an interview with Stephen Gorard from p4c (https://p4c.com/), which sounds similar to what you described

Hmm... You're giving me ideas.... IQ is basically a smart man's cock after all. We compensate for our small penises and inability to handle monotony and social conformity with grandiosity and a hyper-charged brain cock with which we build and destroy societies. Whose brain cock is the biggest???

>2017 >Paying attention to what women say and think. Women adapt their ideology to peer pressure. They learn via osmosis. Some are capable of independent rational thought though.

Because you can't give advice on some relationship which you have very little information on, don't know the people involved, nor have had any similar experiences. This is his first post meaning he wants advice from complete strangers which makes him a fool, or he's looking for approval for the decision he already made which makes it pointless, or he's trolling. It's one thing to ask someone who has proven themselves for advice such as Stefan, it's another thing to ask some random people who might in turn be trolling.

As always, Dylan kills it with his pragmatic, brief and to-the-point solution. Love it.

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.

You need a common denominator and like you said, women seek resource, men seek looks. These 2 are not the same. Thus a man seeking an attractive female is not equivalent to a woman seeking a richer man. Male attractiveness for a woman doesn't carry the same amount of weight as female attractiveness for a man. Female resources for a man doesn't carry the same amount of weight as male resources do for a woman. A man in his 40s will never ever trade his wife for a 20 year old that's more attractive than him AND richer than him. If the 20 year old is more attractive than his wife and/or not richer than him then he will probably make the switch. This is not to say he's mating UP the dominance hierarchy. The 20 year old being somewhere in between his wife and him in the dominance hierarchy. Hypergamy refers to trading up to oneself, not trading up compared to another female. There are several reasons why men cannot be hypergamous. (a) Women are hypergamous. They will never trade down therefore a man who IS willing to marry a hot rich 20 year old won't be able to because the 20 year old won't want to date him. (b) Men were bred to b the dominant one in the human species and most other species. Therefore a man who cannot dominate his woman, so to speak, will feel emasculated. It's true when they say that men fear strong women. The roles are reversed and the man will revert to being the child-like one. Little boys may love their mother but they also fear her. Keep in mind when I say "dominate" I'm referring to any human endeavor that a man is better at than his woman. A female MMA fighter might marry a wimpy tech nerd IF the nerd is smarter than her and has more resources. She may have the strength but he has the power. Btw, I just made an interesting connection that strengthens my point. There's the adage than men insult each other without meaning it and women compliment each other without meaning it, right. This is also true with the relationships between men and women. Men make backhanded compliments all the time to women. Same with backhanded insults. This lowers the woman status (artificially) and implicitly raises the man's status (artificially). The man is happy because the higher he is in a dominance hierarchy the greater the odds of the woman staying with him AND the woman is also happy because the higher the man is in a dominance hierarchy the greater her desire to stay with him. It's a win/win. Same thing with a woman that compliments her mate.

Chloroform? Board games, might be better. I guess it depends on how your mind works and what area you live in.

So I knew I had heard this in a previous FDR podcast: Stef's brother had done Landmark back when he and Stef were in business together years prior to the podcast. FDR168 At the end of the podcast, Stef talks a bit about Landmark and how it came out of this hippie guru type who was in California and evidently was tied up with the church of scientology (which explains the formation of Landmark's tactics of recruitment and influence). Apparently, the guy had also been driven to flee the country to escape investigations around child molestation or something like that as well. Anyways, the more pertinent information was about how Stef had relayed the experience of his brother at Landmark. I'm pretty sure it is talked about in greater detail though in a much later episode, like the early call-in shows when Greg, Nate and Rod(zilla) were the common participants, like the Volume 3 set. But I can't be sure that's quite accurate

Hi Coleman. I've had some friends do the Landmark Forum who say that it's improved their lives immensely, but I'm torn about it for the following reasons. Firstly, what I've heard from my friends and what I've read suggests that it's about enforcing personal responsibility, stopping your history from determining your future, and not projecting your past onto your relationships. All of that sounds damn good. In fact, it sounds like the call-ins to Stef about relationship or self-knowledge questions. Back when I first started listening to FDR Stef would go in in deep with these callers for an hour or more. Stef's approach is to question the caller thoroughly about their question, situation, personal history and childhood, draw parallels between the past and the decisions the caller is making today, and discuss how to overcome those patterns of behavior. Importantly, Stef insists on absolute personal responsibility and honesty. He unhesitatingly calls out lies, contradictions, evasions, minimizations, and any attempt to avoid answering questions. Through this, the caller comes to realizations they may not have otherwise. The Forum's method includes something of this, so that appeals to me. On the other hand, Stef counters the caller's resistance with reason and evidence (usually by pointing out something the caller said but then tried to gloss over). Some reading I've done suggests that when Forum participants make excuses, and especially if they criticize Landmark's methods, they are met with abuse, mockery, and public shaming in front of a group that has been primed to police your and each other's behavior. Less correcting factual errors via logic and more silencing dissent via emotion. The other reason I don't like the Forum is also the reason I didn't join; the ferocious, manipulative, borderline-abusive hard-sell. I attended a home introduction to Landmark, and went through one of these for two hours, and it was miserable. I almost caved but thankfully another friend who was there (and didn't sign up) gave me the social backing I needed to refuse. My memory of that event has kept me away ever since. On top of that, my reading suggests you get called on throughout the Forum to sign up for the advanced course, and are required to bring a friend or family member to the "graduation ceremony". There, your guest is surrounded by Landmark sales reps and pressured to sign up for the Forum. This is exactly what happened when my sister attended the graduation of a Forum-going friend. I don't want that again; not for me, sure as hell not for anyone I care about. So that's a big and enduring turn-off. And just to put the cherry on it, the friends who did the course seem to have cut me off, and I think it's because of my persistent refusal to follow them. Here are the sources I've been referring to. Have a look and see what you think. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karin-badt/inside-the-landmark-forum_b_90028.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/14/ameliahill.theobserver http://www.xojane.com/newagey/landmark-forum-cult http://www.gq.com/story/landmark-forum-get-confident-stupid-gq-may-2005 http://www.philosophyforlife.org/category/landmark-forum/ http://www.mypracticalphilosophy.com/shelp/landmarkforum.htm EDIT: Mentioned the personal experience of Landmark's hard-sell to one of my siblings.

How about we hear from OP?

1. Get a job. 2. Come back here and re-write questions after doing so.

Can I play too? "You have arms to work, and legs to move around, so it is axiomatic that you are here to be my slave. We don't need to find any proof, it just is that way. Now mop the floor!" Did I do it right?

Women are not drawn to resources. Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido. Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance. What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things. The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference. If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat. The roles would reverse just from that.

If my girlfriend started a fight about feminism I would either just laugh at her and keep watching TV. If she was literally screaming in my face or something I would either pick her up and put her over my knee and spank her or I would leave and not come back until she contacted me and apologized. Never play into female hysteria. Ever.

I'd stay as far away from shrinks as possible if I were you. The goal of freudian psychology is to make you conform and train you to be a better slave.

I completely agree. The tagline at freedomainradio.com is "The largest philosophical discussion in the world". When you read that tagline you immediately think of the great philosophers, the great books, the great conversation spanning thousands of years. This site is not a book club. FDR was never intended to be a place for general philosophy. The way I see it, Molyneux used to be about his own libertarian philosophy, but now he's about libertarian politics and social commentary. His shift is why this forum has lost its purpose. To be relevant to Stephan Molyneux and his listeners this forum has to be re-purposed as a political forum and a place for libertarians to come together. If this really is a philosophy forum we would find someone who's primarily interested in philosophy to rally around. Stephan Molyneux is far better known as a leading libertarian commentator than a philosopher. This forum could be a power base where libertarians come together and organise a political movement. Libertarians could come here to discuss how to influence others, and overthrow the established ideology. We could make that the mission of this forum. However we define the forum, it has to line up with what Moleneux is doing. We need a mission-statement.

I agree with you that they are not mutually exclusive. My understanding is that a philosopher is an umbrella term for an intellectual, lover of wisdom, containing both a true and false self. The term philosopher does not mean that the intellectual is adept with these selves. The distinction I was making is that the world could benefit more from true selves - people who are spontaneous, expansive, loving, giving, and communicating - people who accepts others feelings without judgement and fear. To contrast that with the false self, that part is our egocentric ego that feels uncomfortable, strained, or unauthentic - focused on what others think of it, it is envious, critical, idealized, blaming, shaming and perfectionist. A human-being is composed of a logical and emotional brain. The emotional is ancient and trumps the logical side. From what I see, our species is the cutting-edge of evolution which strains to incorporate these two halves - hence, Stef's contribution to ethics. With more intellectuals who also pursue self-knowledge and are adept with their true-selves, we would not see a philosophy forum composed of conversations with down-votes or the rationalization of ill behaviour - instead, there would be civilized rebuttals with the understanding that we are fallible and open to reparation. This makes me wonder if philosophy is second to psychology. Let me know if that's more helpful / comprehensible than my previous post.

I think I could come up with a good hypothesis on this. First, Stefan used to be an anarcho-capitalist, while now he openly supports Trump and gets a lot of conservative viewers. There is at least one major libertarian website that has abandoned their support for Molyneux, and I suspect many former members of this site, who used to be ancaps, have abandoned him as well. His show has also deviated largely from discussions on how to have a free society and abstract philosophy, to why Trump isn't as bad as the media makes him out to be, comments on multiculturalism, and the authoritarian left. To the extent that his fanbase has largely been replaced by alt-right and conservative viewers, its not clear that they are all that interested in philosophy, or having discussions on online forums. I have noticed on youtube comment sections that they usually leave comments such as "we need to secure a future for white people", or "women shouldn't have the right to vote", or "we need a new hitler", to various crude insults of CNN, leftists, professors, climate science being a hoax, etc. Its not exactly erudite discussion. Beyond that, most conservative viewers tend to be 50+; they have families, jobs, meetings...not much time to have philosophical discussions on forums, if that is their interest at all, which it is likely not. I'm not sure exactly where the alt-right tends to post, but I suspect it is on the more popular channels and various subforums on reddit affiliated with the alt-right. And as for me personally, I would never have a discussion on these forums. On the very first page of this thread you can see that people bully each other pretty easily. If you actually want to have a serious discussion in philosophy, you don't insult people on a regular basis. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the behaviour Molyneux displays when people call into his show. If they make a mistake, he berates them for a few minutes, practically getting them to admit they're total idiots before continuing. If people on the forums emulate Molyneux, no one would want to have a discussion here, even if they were ancaps. You can see this in any number of videos Stefan puts up where people call into his show.