Three

I can scarcely think of a better way to validate the thesis that society does not care about men and boys than to try this simple experiment: Simply talk about the very real issues that males face today. Talk to them about these issues and see how they respond. From my own experience, the sad truth is that even the most heartfelt attempts I’ve made to evoke sympathy and understanding towards the suffering of men and boys through some of my most carefully crafted sentences fall completely on deaf ears. Men Don't Exist: Society's Indifference Towards Male Suffering Article Version: https://selfknowledgedaily.com/men-don-t-exist-society-s-indifference-towards-male-suffering-3f580ef6b21d#.t6phemutk

DAYUM! I just discovered this man and wow! What heroic moment. Larry Elder dropped a hell of a truth bomb on the conversation Eric Guster:"Bill Clinton's policies were very impactful among those in the African American community. That's what people are holding him accountable for." (Sean and Eric talk for about thirty seconds and then..) Larry Elder: "Why are we pretending that there's not a crime problem in the inner cities? Come on! The number one preventable cause of death for young black men is homicide. The number one preventable cause of death for young white There is a disproportionate amount of crime in the inner cities affecting other black people. Of the non-suicide gun deaths in America, half of them are black people killing other black people, usually young people, often gang related. There is a real problem and the problem has to do with the break down of the black family. If you want to argue and blame somebody, blame left-wing policies that have encouraged women to marry the government and men to abandon their financial and moral responsibilities. I didn't say it, Obama said it, if you grow up without a Dad you are 5 times more likely to be poor and commit crime, 9 times more likely to drop out of school,and twenty times more likely to go to jail. That's what we ought to be talking about here.." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF-WVvNaKLg

I think this is an important question to answer because it allows us to have a standard by which we can compare our current relationships. Many of us go through life getting into relationships with people who we call friends and sometimes these relationships never really flourish in the way that we expect and the way we want them to. Sometimes these relationships completely blow up altogether, leaving us hurt and resentful. Here I want to describe the bare minimum essentials that I think need to be present in order for a relationship to warrant the title of “friendship.” The first thing to understand is that friendship is like parenting. And the way that friendship is like parenting is that what defines a friend is his actions just as what defines a parent is his actions. Friendship is so much more than just a title. In other words, putting on scrubs and slapping a label on yourself called “surgeon” doesn’t make you a surgeon anymore than having kids and slapping the label “parent” on yourself makes you a parent. Actions speak louder than labels. However, there is a crucial difference between the relationship between two adult friends and the relationship between a parent and a child, which is the difference of mutuality. The parent’s job is to meet the needs of the child. It is not incumbent upon and in fact it would be highly inappropriate to expect a child to meet the parent’s need. With friends there is a mutual exchange of value between two equals. When there’s not this mutual exchange of value, even if both parties are great people, it’s not going to be a fun or productive relationship just as it wouldn’t be fun or productive if I attempt to play tennis with someone who is vastly inferior to me at tennis. Still, there’s got to be more to friendship than two parties mutually exchanging value. After all, when I buy a car from someone, I want the car more than my money and the person who’s selling the car wants the money more than the car. It’s a win-win interaction that involves a mutual exchange of value. But, I wouldn’t call a random salesmen a friend. So, what’s other ingredient that is needed in order for friendship to be present? Well, I believe that ingredient is the same thing that must be present in order for a romantic relationship to be present. That ingredient is love. Love is our involuntary response to virtues if we ourselves are virtuous. To me, somebody earns the title of friend once they’ve earned my love, which means they display characteristics that are lovable. And love is something that grows overtime. So often have I seen the following: somebody talks to you maybe 3 or 4 times and because the conversations happen to be enjoyable, they then slap the label “friend” on you and expect to reap all the value and obligations that come along with you being a “friend.” To me, it doesn’t work that way. Think about it, when you are getting into a romantic relationship, do you just slap the label “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” on somebody else just because you feel the last 4 conversations were good? Of course not. The other party has to have a say as to whether they are “your girlfriend or not. Just like romance, if your goal is to get friendship, you must undergo a long process of mutual negotiation that involves curiously asking questions to get to know the other person so that you’ll have a better idea of whether or not there is compatibility resent or not. In conclusion, relationships don’t blossom into friendships over night. Friendship is something you and the other party grows into gradually and organically over time. Slapping a lab called “flower” on a rose stem doesn’t meanit’s bloomed any more than slapping called “friendship” doesn’t automatically make a relationship friendship

A response to a criticism I see all over the internet.

Medium Version A Transcription “Here’s how you can judge the immigrants. And this is not particular to Muslim immigrants. ‘Ugh, you can’t judge the immigrants!’ Well, you kind of can. Let’s say that there was some Japanese policy, that you could go live in Japan and you could go and get 5000 dollars a month ‘for free’, so to speak, from the taxpayers in Japan. And, if I were to think of going for whatever reason, I think I’d say to myself, ‘Well, wait a minute. I haven’t paid into this system. I’m going to go there and I’m going to squat on the necks of the Japanese taxpayers.’ Because the welfare state was originally suppose to work this way: you pay your taxes, if there’s some emergency, we make sure you don’t starve to death until you get back on your feet. That was sort of how it was suppose to work in the first place and it wasn’t an absolute disaster when it first started. But, I would feel really bad. I would feel really bad and it would stop me from doing it, to go to Japan and know that all the 5000 dollars a month that I was getting was coming from a system I had never paid into and it was being paid for against the Japanese people’s will. Because it’s tax money, which means they don’t want it. If it’s a charity and someone sponsors me, that’s different. That’s voluntary. Now, this to me is one of the basic tests of the whole migrant situation. And one of the basic tests of the whole migrant situation is, are the migrants emotionally aware that they’re coming here and taking money from a system they never paid into? The fact that they don’t care means that there’s an empathy mismatch, to put it as nicely as possible. So, what it means is, if they are willing to come and take all of this government money and in the states 90 to 95% of all the Muslim migrants who arrive goes on welfare and a lot of them stay on it for a long time if not forever. And also there are minimum wage laws, which means in Germany two-thirds of the Syrian migrants are functionally illiterate and there’s been some research that says if they don’t hugely lower the minimum wage laws, then these people can never really produce enough value. So, they’re going to come on welfare and it’s the same thing with the Hispanics, the people from South and Central America, they’re moving north into the United States, they come and they get on welfare. Now, do they know that they’ve never paid into this system and that the money has been transferred against the domestic population’s will through the violence of taxation? Now there’s either one of two options. Either A. They do know that and they don’t care fundamentally. “Hey! Free stuff! Who cares? Free stuff.“ It’s not free, assholes. It’s not free. People are working from dawn to dusk, not seeing their kids, to pay for you and your hammock and your tequila. (That’s not of course a reference to the Muslims who are not big on alcohol.) That is the question. Either they do know that they’re taking money from people against their will from a system that they never paid into and they don’t fucking care, in which case sorry, you’re an asshole! They’re coming in and taking money from my pocket through the power of the state. And either you know that’s happening, but you want the money anyway, in which case you’re an asshole or you don’t even know that, in which case you’re not smart enough to do anything of value in this society. Either way, not a fan.” -Stefan Molyneux (Podcast 3238-1:34:00)

Thank you so much for reading and for your feedback. I can certainly relate to that experience! To what degree that is influenced by biology, childhood stuff, or both, I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I can give advice persay, but was there anything else you were curious about or were you just curious if I could relate?

Thank you both for your kind words and reading. Also, I can sympathize with why someone avoids anxiety. Anxiety is painful. Sometimes I avoid, sometimes I make a conscious effort to step out of my comfort zone. Whatever decision is made I think self compassion, self patience, self awareness, and self empathy is important to be present.

Unattainable Intimacy: The Curse of the Insecure Attachment (Medium Version) Each year in my hometown of Decatur, Alabama, the city hosts a memorial day festival, which the locals simply refer to as “The Jubilee.” Decatur isn’t terribly large, but despite its modest size the festival manages to bring in an impressively large crowd. There are a number of things people look forward to at the Jubilee, from the antique car show to an abundance of live music and great food, but by far the main attraction are the hot air balloons. Whether I was watching dozens of these roaring, colorful behemoths gracefully soar through the sky during the day or glow like giant lanterns scattered across the landscape at night — as a child these balloons were nothing short of awe inspiring. Unfortunately, these incredible moments are not the most vivid memories I have of the Jubilee. The most vivid memory I have of these balloons, in fact one of the earliest and most vivid memories I have in general, is of when my mother left me with my half-sister to go on a tethered balloon ride. It was not explained to me that my mom was only going for brief ride, so in my three-year-old mind all I could see was that my mom was flying off somewhere and that she had left me in the arms of my half-sister, who was practically a stranger to me. As I watched her moving further and further away from land, I panicked and desperately called out to her as loud as I could, hoping that I could persuade her to reconsider leaving me. Besides the memory of the terror I felt being very clear in my mind, I’ll also never forget my mother’s response to me once her ride was over. “I wasn’t going anywhere, Joel,” she reassured me in a matter of fact tone. However, I did not feel assured. If anything, I felt confused and less safe. Looking back, I feel like I was owed an apology that ensured nothing like that would happen again. Meaningful Memories Of all of the days and events we live through in our lives, we only remember a very tiny percent of them. It is for this reason that I think we remember what we do for a reason. In other words, just as I think the symbols in our dreams are not random and can be interpreted to reveal important wisdom, so too do I think our memories, especially vivid ones, hold metaphorical significance. The reason this memory stands out so much to me is because it tells me everything about the kind of relationship I had with my mother when I was a child, as well as throughout the rest of my adult life. What this memory tells me is that I did not have a secure attachment with my mother. And because I did not experience a secure bond with her, I did not feel safe with her. I felt like I mattered so little to her that she could leave me at any time without hesitation if she so desired. Attachment Style The kind of attachment we have with our primary caregiver has a huge impact on the relationships we choose throughout our lives as well the relationship we have with ourselves. All children need a secure attachment with their primary caregiver. Children who experience a secure attachment are better equipped to maintain emotional balance in the face of stress and are more likely to develop a healthy sense of self. This was a need that was not met. My mother often kept her distance from me and my attempts to bond with her were often met with rejection. “Go back to your room,” she’d say frequently when I’d try to climb in bed with her to cuddle after I’d wake up in the middle of the night as a child. As a teenager, during the middle of conflicts she’d abruptly abandon the conversation by turning around, walking out the door, and driving off in her truck. Sometimes she would stay gone for hours. This only reinforced and confirmed my fears of abandonment as a child that if I upset her enough there would be nothing to stop her from leaving me — not even love. Also, my mother was very distracted and thus, emotionally absent. This wasn’t inevitable, of course. It was not like she just didn’t have the time to make proactive attempts to connect with me and ask me how I was doing. She was, after all, a full time mom. I just was not important enough for her to put me a little higher on her list of priorities. She certainly did have time to do things like pursue a degree in criminal justice, which she never used. Being the strident feminist that she was, I’m sure she was just exercising her “strength” and “independence” by liberating herself from the shackles of traditional gender roles. Essential Defenses Still, when caregivers are distracted or overworked, from a child’s perspective it appears as though mommy and daddy are on the verge of collapse. As a result, children naturally learn to adjust their behavior so as not to apply any extra pressure to their already exhausted parents. The last thing a child wants to be is the straw that breaks mommy’s back. In tribal societies, being too burdensome could easily result in abandonment, which for a child is synonymous with death since children simply cannot survive without a caregiver. Hiding preferences and emotions that would be perceived as inconvenient to the parents then becomes the default choice for a child whose survival depends on the bond between him and his caregiver. Ironically, the child can only exist through self-erasure. I like to think of this process as putting the true self in cryosleep, since we can never truly eradicate our authentic self, so that we can revive these parts of our identity at a latter date. Self-knowledge and therapy then become the process by which we unthaw ourselves. Without self-knowledge we will remain eternally frozen in the thick, murky ice of history. It’s hard to fully grasp the amount of stress a child experiences when he is put in the position of having to self-erase. A child naturally wants closeness, but when a child has parents who don’t want him to act upon getting this basic need met is to become “inconvenient,” which creates distance and rejection. However, to not act on getting this need met is to also ensure distance and isolation. It truly is a head wrecking double bind. The best option the child can hope for is to choose between the lesser of two torments. In any case, he is put in a position of choosing that which is most unnatural to him. When a child’s survival depends on the bond between he and his caregiver, the idea of having incompetent or cruel parents is a thought much to overwhelming for a child to entertain. What children do as a way to cope is to blame themselves for the abuse that is done unto them as a way of maintaining some semblance of an attachment with their caregivers. For example, if a mother is coldly distant and neglectful, this behavior can’t be seen by the child as the callous and rageful act that it truly is. Instead, the child says, “Mom must be distant because there’s something wrong with me. I must not be lovable.” Core Beliefs This is the origin of core beliefs. Core beliefs are the very essence of how we see ourselves, other people, and the world. Most of us will have developed very entrenched core beliefs by the time we have reached adulthood. These beliefs are deeply rooted in the unconscious where they will remain hidden like an artifact in an undersea shipwreck without deliberate efforts to bring them to the surface of awareness. Trauma from abuse and neglect has a detrimental impact on these core beliefs. For example, a secure attachment can lead us to form positive core beliefs about ourselves, such as “I am intrinsically lovable,” whereas traumatic experiences can lead us to form negative core beliefs about ourselves, such as, “Others will abandon me” or “I am not worth caring about.” When core beliefs form, it is as if the child becomes cursed as surely as if a witch had just waved her wand and cited a magical incantation that said, “from this day onward you will be chased by a rain cloud that will shower dysfunction and unhappiness upon your relationships.” Self-Fulfilling Prophecies What I mean by this is that core beliefs affects our behavior since these beliefs are liable to become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, if I am a woman who had a violent and authoritarian father, I will unconsciously excuse his behavior by saying, “Men in general are oppressive and hostile.” This allows me to maintain distance from my unprocessed rage by projecting it into something abstract like “The Patriarchy” and therefore, maintain some sort of an attachment to him. Taking this route, however unjust and dishonest it may be, would also reward me with all the social approval that comes with pretending to be bravely taking up a just cause called, “feminism.” After all, it does take a great deal of courage to criticize men. Thus, because I believe men are oppressive and violent, I will bully men and feel that my misandry is justified as a form of self-defense. Lo and behold, because the men are being bullied, they will likely react to this hostility with hostility, which will in turn only serve to reinforce my core belief that, “Men are oppressive and hostile.” Suddenly, the victim becomes the aggressor and the aggressor becomes the victim in this topsy-turvy narrative that is so typical of projection. What We Don’t Process, We Repeat. While I have made enormous strides since I started on this path towards self-knowledge, to say that I have completely healed from not having my need for a secure attachment met would be dishonest. In fact, I still experience anxiety and insecurities that stem from this loss. Because my mother could and would leave at any moment, sometimes I find myself feeling anxiety when I interact with women that are even close friends. I notice, for example, that if I receive a message that seems unenthusiastic or very brief, I will immediately blame myself and think, “Hey, she doesn’t seem happy to talk to me. It must be because I did something wrong.” When I read these messages I also interpret them in such a say so that the other person sounds cold and dismissive, as if they just want me to go away, which in turn exacerbates my fears. And despite knowing consciously that my friends have never interacted with me in the way I’m imagining, these moments for me still become very visceral. Suddenly, I feel like I’m in the position of a child again who has no object constancy and is fearful that mommy is going to leave at any moment. I’m incredibly proud of myself for sitting with and exploring the anxiety, rather than managing it through behaviors that only would create the abandonment I fear the most. There is no external solution to the problem of insecurity. Insecurity must me tackled from within. With self-knowledge, I will lift the curse of the insecure attachment. Find more great content at Self-Knowledge Daily

Thank you both so much for reading and complimenting!

Curiosity is not just putting a question mark a the end of a sentence any more than love is simply uttering the statement, “I love you.” Curiosity is a state of mind. It’s something you feel. And it’s something you can measure by a person’s behavior as well, just like love. However, just like love, curiosity can be feigned for the sole purpose of manipulating you.

To say that somebody is talking to much is just another way of saying somebody isn't asking enough questions. For more great content go to: selfknowledgedaily.com

I couldn't agree more. It has nothing to do with women's issue and, like race baiting, serves the purpose of expanding the control of the state. Im also not expecting an apology any time soon.

Thank you !

Oh, shucks! Typo in the title. Really not "Rally"

Medium article here. Text preceded peaceful parenting video playlist. https://medium.com/self-knowledge-daily/raising-the-skyline-of-humanity-through-peaceful-parenting-c1a092f4c897#.wud2dl3at When children are the most inconvenient and most grating on the nerves, they deserve our undivided attention. But not in the form of coercion, with the goal of manipulating and dominating the child’s will into deadened obedience, as if he were some unruly canine. No, during these difficult moments, the child deserves our curiosity the most, for even the most unpleasant behaviors are simply the child’s best attempts to tell us something about his inner world. A child effectively lives in the position of a hostage, since children do not choose their parents, cannot leave their parents, and do not choose how to be reared. A child’s behavior is largely the symptom of a brain that has developed as a result of how well his caregivers meet his unique needs, which is not under his control, so we cannot logically condemn him as morally bad and assign moral responsibility to him for his “difficult” behavior. If taking other people’s needs into consideration is a universal rule that applies to everyone, then given the circumstances I just mentioned, children deserve this consideration the most as children are people too, albeit miniature people who need support and guidance. Tragically, because children are not seen in this way, are not seen as equals who deserve freedom from aggression as much as anyone else, they consequently become the receptacles in which the parents dump their own repressed pain and humiliation, much to the detriment of society. When children are accorded the same level of respect and care that we give puppies, or even adult dogs for that matter — that would be a leap for mankind so great as to surpass even the Apollo 11 moon landing in significance and this world would be such a less hostile place to live in as to be nearly unrecognizable. If there’s anything I would like to do with my life, it would be to remove the shroud of relativism that surrounds the subject of parenting and to elevate it to at least the same standard of rigor and objectivity that is expected of professions such as architecture. That way, parenting may too become a discipline of passion and dedication and as a result, produce the same kind of beauty and magnificence that we have grown so accustomed to admiring in the world’s most impressive towers. For if we are to create a society in which humans can ascend to the towering heights of fully actualized potential and grandeur that we’re so capable of, then a sturdy foundation is needed. That sturdy foundation is peaceful parenting.

Check out article version on Medium here! :https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18#.1mcn6cxx5 There’s a rather interesting objection I’ve heard in response to some of the arguments Stefan Molyneux has made in videos such as, “What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Crisis”. It’s an objection that I’ve seen frequently enough that I think it deserves a response. The objection goes like this: “Stef talks about the terrible consequences of open borders in a welfare state. He says the mass importation of millions of people who are part of a culture that is antithetical to western values will result in a bloodbath, not assimilation, particularly because the welfare state allows for these little isolated communities wherein nobody has to adapt to the native culture at all, which would be required to some degree in a free society in order to enter into the job market. In other words, Stef is saying the consequences of open borders will be bad. But, Stef has also said that, ‘consequences don’t matter, only principles’ such as the non aggression principle, and it is a violation of the non aggression principle to close the borders. So, isn’t Stef being hypocritical? “ Admittedly, I am exaggerating a little bit. The objections I’ve read like this aren’t nearly as humble, curious, or articulate. But besides that, why is this objection wrong? Well, the first and most common mistake I see people make when they’re criticizing Stef is that they ignore context. This is not a minor error. This is like misreading the nutritionist’s recommendations so that you think it says to take 500 grams of a supplement, rather than 500 mg and then declaring the nutritionist is “trying to get people killed!” It shows a considerable lack of attention to detail. This is an important distinction. The people who are making the argument from consequences are the CEO’s , the leftists, and the politicians who are saying, ‘The most effective way to help the migrants would be to take them in. Taking in the migrants will have good consequences for the economy. Therefore, we should take in the migrants.” Talking about consequences is entirely appropriate when you are rebutting an argument from consequences. Stef is rebutting this mainstream narrative that taking in the migrant is the best way to help them by saying, “Actually, taking the migrants in is not the most effective way to help them, nor will taking in the migrants who hold an opposing culture benefit society and here’s the data that shows why. People imagine that Stef, by simply pointing out these facts is making a leap to saying, “Therefore, we should close the borders because the consequences of open borders would be bad.” It is true that Stef has said that there would be practical consequences to halting the mass importation of child hostile cultures into, for example, the United States that would be beneficial, despite the fact that closing the borders would be a violation of the nonaggression principle. “If the path to a free society requires friendly parents and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds or thousands, if not millions of child unfriendly or child hostile cultures and if Donald Trump can put a stop to that, then that buys some time to convince people closer to the child friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about. I don’t view Donald Trump as someone who is going to bring about a free society, but if Donald Trump can buy enough time for the peaceful parenting message to spread against the massive influx of child unfriendly cultures and histories coming into america, which not only means that there are more people who are coming in who are child hostile, but it also means that the quality of the people’s childhoods and adult lives become tax slaves to child unfriendly cultures, the quality of families declines even for the people who are native. ( See Stefan Molyneux Podcast 3174 for full quote. ) But, because there’s a violation of the non aggression principle either way, since opening the borders also violates freedom of association due to the fact that so many illegal immigrants take welfare, it doesn’t matter. There’s no ideal short term moral solution to the problem and because of this all you can do is look at the practicality of each option and the evidence seems to suggest that closing the borders would result in less force that allowing them to be open. (See Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) “People say if people are not allowed to come into the country, then that is the initiation of the use of force. I completely agree with that. I completely and totally agree with that. However, if the actions of someone by entering a particular area results in the greater initiation of force, then it’s not as simple as people think. The problem is that people are showing it in isolation. So, let me give you a tiny example. If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force. If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what? He’s initiating the use of force. If he comes in while I’m sleeping and steals from me he is initiating the use of force. Now, if someone comes into my house because I’ve invited them and we’re going to play Yahtzee and Monopoly or he’s going to fix my toilet because I had Indian food, then he’s coming into my house voluntarily and he’s not initiating the use of force and neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me. So, the reality is that statistically, by and large and by far both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America. And so, simply by looking at putting putting a barrier around america to prevent people from coming into america and saying, ‘Well, that’s the only initiation of force that matters’ That’s ridiculous. There’s a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I’ve seen a few Libertarians talk about. But, immigrants use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens. So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives. And those natives include high utilizers of the welfare state such as blacks and hispanics. Among illegal immigrants, it’s even higher. It’s more than twice the rate of natives. So, the reality is and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your ass that you can drill though your nipples and call them telescopes. The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, coming into america are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state. If you care about the welfare state, then you need to diminish the number of people on the welfare state. This is not brain surgery. People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and puts a roof over their heads that is necessary for their survival. And the fact that this is even debatable or even debated, I don;t even know what to say. It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding something. And when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, and for illegal immigrants in particularly, get on welfare at a rate of 62%, those people in order to survive in america require massive amounts of government spending in America and indeed the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr. Steven Camarota has pointed out on this show, is by voting for an ever increasing welfare state. When, you get people coming in to a country who can only survive and live in that country because of government spending, what do you think they’re going to vote for? An expansion of extraction of government power? “- Stefan Molyneux(Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) Still, even if closing closing the borders would result in less force than allowing them to be open, there’s a difference between saying, “If open borders, the consequences will not be good” vs “ Because the consequences will not be good if we open borders we SHOULD do X, such as close the borders or vote for Donald Trump.” When Stef says things like consequences don’t matter he was saying that the validity of a moral theory cannot be determined based on its outcome. If the consequences to freeing the slaves are negative, that is irrelevant because slavery is immoral. Context is key. Criticizing the government program called open borders is not by default endorsing a statist solution to the problem. It’s merely pointing out the facts. However, whenever you start to criticize open borders as the government program it truly is people, usually Libertarians, without giving your argument a moment’s thought will jump to the conclusion that you must saying, “I think we should shoot people!” The goal is not to impact statist policies, but to impact parenting. There is no contradiction. “Am I in support of closing the borders? I’m not sure what that would even mean? Because that would mean to say that I am in support of a government doing something effective towards whatever end I might have, which would be to accept that the government could do something competently”- (Stefan Molyneux Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration?) Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisti... http://www.theguardian.com/world/data... http://www.economist.com/news/europe/... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/0... http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-... http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/ca... https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s... http://www.newsweek.com/become-even-more-prosperous-we-should-open-our-borders-372875

I think that's great, dsayers!

I agree! I do assume a lot of background knowledge. The average joe will probably not get it because there are so many premises that I just take for granted. My audience is for people like you though. Also, if someone is curious, in the medium article includes links to some of the facts I stated.

Great post! Also, I can understand the anxiety! It's a hot issue. I feel it too when I talk about it. I recently made a post of my own on this forum. I even made it a medium article. https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18#.m83sksd29

Please share if valuable. Medium article: https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18 There’s a rather interesting objection I’ve heard in response to some of the arguments Stefan Molyneux has made in videos such as, “What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Crisis”. It’s an objection that I’ve seen frequently enough that I think it deserves a post about it. The objection goes like this: “Stef talks about the terrible consequences of open borders in a welfare state. He says the mass importation of millions of people who are part of a culture that is antithetical to western values will result in a bloodbath, not assimilation, particularly because the welfare state allows for these little isolated communities wherein nobody has to adapt to the native culture at all, which would be required to some degree in order to enter into the job market. In other words, Stef is saying the consequences will be bad. But, Stef has also said that, “consequences don’t matter, only principles” and it is a violation of the non aggression principle to close the borders. So, isn’t Stef being hypocritical? “ (See Post Debate Review - Anarchism Versus Minarchism for more on principles.) Admittedly, I am exaggerating a little bit. The objections I’ve read like this aren’t nearly as humble, curious, or articulate. But besides that, why is this objection wrong? Well, the first and most common mistake I see people make when they’re criticizing Stef is that they ignore context. This is not a minor error. This is like misreading the nutritionist’s recommendations so that you think it says to take 500 grams of a supplement, rather than 500mg and then declaring the nutritionist is “trying to get people killed!” It shows a considerable lack of attention to detail. This is an important distinction. The people who are making the argument from consequences are the CEO’s , the leftists, and the politicians who are saying, ‘The most effective way to help the migrants would be to take them in. Taking in the migrants will have good consequences for the economy. Therefore, we should take in the migrants.” Talking about consequences is entirely appropriate when you are rebutting an argument from consequences. Stef is rebutting this mainstream narrative by saying, “Actually, taking the migrants in is not the most effective way to help them, nor will taking in the migrants who hold an opposing culture benefit society and here’s the data that shows why.’ (See What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Crisis) People imagine that Stef, by simply pointing out these facts, is making a leap to saying, “Therefore, we should close the borders because the consequences of open borders would be bad.” It is true that Stef has said that there would be practical consequences to halting the mass importation of child hostile cultures into the United States that would be beneficial, despite the fact that closing the borders would be a violation of the nonaggression principle. “If the path to a free society requires friendly parents and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds or thousands, if not millions of child unfriendly or child hostile cultures and if Donald Trump can put a stop to that, then that buys some time to convince people closer to the child friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about. I don’t view Donald Trump as someone who is going to bring about a free society, but if Donald Trump can buy enough time for the peaceful parenting message to spread against the massive influx of child unfriendly cultures and histories coming into america, which not only means that there are more people who are coming in who are child hostile, but it also means that the quality of the people’s childhoods and adult lives become tax slaves to child unfriendly cultures, the quality of families declines even for the people who are native. ( See Stefan Molyneux Podcast 3174 for full quote. ) But, because there’s a violation of the non aggression principle either way, since opening the borders also violates freedom of association due to the fact that so many illegal immigrants take welfare, it doesn’t matter. There’s no ideal short term moral solution to the problem and because of this all you can do is look at the practicality of each option and the evidence seems to suggest that closing the borders would result in less force that allowing them to be open. (See Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) “People say if people are not allowed to come into the country, then that is the initiation of the use of force. I completely agree with that. I completely and totally agree with that. However, if the actions of someone by entering a particular area results in the greater initiation of force, then it’s not as simple as people think. The problem is that people are showing it in isolation. So, let me give you a tiny example. If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force. If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what? He’s initiating the use of force. If he comes in while I’m sleeping and steals from me he is initiating the use of force. Now, if someone comes into my house because I’ve invited them and we’re going to play Yahtzee and Monopoly or he’s going to fix my toilet because I had Indian food, then he’s coming into my house voluntarily and he’s not initiating the use of force and neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me. So, the reality is that statistically, by and large and by far both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America. And so, simply by looking at putting putting a barrier around america to prevent people from coming into america and saying, ‘Well, that’s the only initiation of force that matters’ That’s ridiculous. There’s a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I’ve seen a few Libertarians talk about. But, immigrants use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens. So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives. And those natives include high utilizers of the welfare state such as blacks and hispanics. “Immigrants don’t consume more public benefits than natives; in fact, they use fewer. Indeed, they have kept Social Security afloat, even though they will never get a dime from the system. They don’t love liberty less: they poll in as more libertarian.”- Jeffrey Tucker Among illegal immigrants, it’s even higher. It’s more than twice the rate of natives. So, the reality is and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your ass that you can drill though your nipples and call them telescopes. The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, coming into america are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state. If you care about the welfare state, then you need to diminish the number of people on the welfare state. This is not brain surgery. People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and puts a roof over their heads that is necessary for their survival. And the fact that this is even debatable or even debated, I don;t even know what to say. It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding something. And when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, and for illegal immigrants in particularly, get on welfare at a rate of 62%, those people in order to survive in america require massive amounts of government spending in America and indeed the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr. Steven Camarota has pointed out on this show, is by voting for an ever increasing welfare state. When, you get people coming in to a country who can only survive and live in that country because of government spending, what do you think they’re going to vote for? An expansion of extraction of government power? “ Still, even if closing closing the borders would result in less force than allowing them to be open there’s a difference between saying, “If open borders, the consequences will not be good” vs “ Because the consequences will not be good if we open borders we SHOULD do X, such as close the borders or vote for Donald Trump.” When Stef says things like consequences don’t matter he was saying that the validity of a moral theory cannot be determined based on its outcome. If the consequences to freeing the slaves are negative, that is irrelevant because slavery is immoral. Context is key. Criticizing the government program called open borders is not by default endorsing a statist solution to the problem. We’re merely pointing out the facts. However, whenever you start to criticize open borders as the government program it truly is people, usually Libertarians, without giving your argument a moment’s thought will jump to the conclusion that you must saying, “I think we should shoot people!” The goal is not to impact statist policies, but to impact parenting. The show really hasn’t changed that much. “Am I in support of closing the borders? I’m not sure what that would even mean? Because that would mean to say that I am in support of a government doing something effective towards whatever end I might have, which would be to accept that the government could do something competently”- (Stefan Molyneux Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration?)

Originally written on Medium: https://medium.com/self-knowledge-daily/man-s-wounds-a-plea-for-understanding-cd443ed7cdfe#.z475tkuc0 Doctors mutilate our genitals when we are babies, our mothers hit us when we are children, and our teachers humiliate us when we are adolescents. Then when we become adults, our professors tell us that we are the oppressive ones, the spousal abusers, and the rapists of society, and that we contain the entire capacity for sexism and abuse. Even if we are single and live alone, possibly due to the low self-image and feelings of being unworthy that result from this incessant scorn, when we turn on the TV, we are reminded of how inconsiderate we are for taking up so much room on the local subway transit and then if nothing else, that we are still objectifying others through our sexist video games. It’s no wonder the suicide rate for men is so high. It is a kind of soft totalitarianism. Instead of there being loudspeakers all over town constantly praising the dear leader, as is the case in North Korea, instead of all operas, films, and concert performances praising the dear leader and attacking the West, anti-male propaganda is everywhere, shaming masculinity. It is relentless, it is omnipresent. And it works. People become brainwashed into accepting this anti-male narrative. And just as targets of narcissistic abuse are left in a constant state of fear because they cannot predict when the next attack will come, men are left with this debilitating experience of paralyzing hypervigilance that results when people find themselves in no-win situations. Because we as men never know when a smile will provoke scorn. We never know when playfulness will be derided as creepy. We never know when our manners will be condemned as rude. It is a no-win situation indeed, due to the brain wrecking amount of contradictory messages and edicts we are programmed from birth to accept and follow. We are told we are evil, yet at the same time we’re told we must show confidence. We are told we are all potential rapists who must be viewed with suspicion, yet it is we who must make the first move to ask a woman out. We are told to be chivalrous, yet we might be castigated for holding a door open for someone. We are told we are unnecessary, yet it is our job to pay for every date. We are told we need to be more sensitive, yet when we do, we are scorned for being pussies. We must not be pussies, yet we cannot fight back to defend ourselves when being clobbered by a woman. As doing so might result in our arrest. I couldn’t think of a better way to set a person up for failure, yet we are told that success is our duty and obligation. We are made sick and then commanded to be well. Well, at least in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother only watched you. Now he watches and he purses his lips and he wags his finger and he nags, slanders, berates, and scorns. This is what the modern Western incarnation of totalitarianism looks like: subjugation by proxy, with the policing offloaded to the social justice warriors, the feminists, the political correct cultural Marxists. For the Western tax farmers have learned, unlike Kim Jong Un, that owning slaves becomes that much more profitable when you can get the slaves to attack each other. George Orwell once wrote, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” I think that he was quite accurate. Except that in the West, the boot has been replaced by the high heel of feminism.

To be clear, I don't think that every time somebody says, "well, what about" it's always and necessarily a diversion. The thing I'm talking about is the specific definition I mentioned. Also, great suggestions by the way.

Whataboutery is an attempt to down play a negative point by diverting attention to something else. Well, let's say I bring up a specific issue like abuse that is perpetrated by females. The reason I'd be doing that would not be to distract us from the abuse perpetrated by males. The reason I'd be bringing up something specific like that rather than talking about abuse in general terms, is because it is important and often overlooked. And thus, that is why I would be bringing one's attention to that specific thing rather than something else. So, the definition of whataboutery would not apply to me simply due to the fact that I'm bringing one's attention to something specific.

Originally Published on Medium. https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/whataboutery-don-t-do-it-df00f8667578#.anospiwty There’s a tactic I’ve noticed my opponents use in disagreements I’ve had recently that I find really irritating. It goes like this: You bring up a criticism of something, like say Islamic terrorism, and instead of having your criticism evaluated, accepted, or rebutted, someone completely bypasses everything that you had just said with a, “what about” statement. Here are a few simplified examples. Islamic terrorism has resulted in x numbers of civilian deaths this year. “Yes, but what about American foreign policy!?!” The contains anti male themes and here are the instances from that film which support that thesis.“Yes, but what about when this character did this in the prequels?!?” People on the left use this manipulative argument quite often. “Yes, but what about the right. People on the right use manipulative arguments too?!” Studies show that females abuse in this way at this specific rate each year. “Yes, but what about the MEN?!?!” Little do people know that cats bite humans at a rate of x per year. “Yes, but what about Dogs?!?” I’ve been trying to articulate my frustrations about these kinds of responses for a few months now, so it was to my great delight that Richard Dawkins did just that while I was listening to his autobiography , “Brief Candle in The Dark.” Hopefully, by giving others the language to identify this response, it will save people from the frustration and confusion I’ve been experiencing from it for some time now.

“I can hardly hear myself think”, is a phrase that is often spoken when we lose our ability to concentrate while we are in the presence of overbearing noise. I think that, when we are bombarded throughout our lives with the endless commotion of external “standards”, which have scant to do with producing excellence within us as much as it has to do with producing convenience for others, “standards” that not only contained unrealistic edicts to aim for unattainable heights, but often contradictory and ever changing whims that were impossible to follow, I think that when we are repeatedly left trapped in such paralyzing double binds of intolerable humiliation, we too not only lose our ability to concentrate on our thoughts, but also our ability to concentrate on our genuine needs and preferences. In low-nurturant familial and school environments that are hostile to what we want, we comply in order to survive. So, in order to prevent each day of our childhood from becoming a new nightmare, these voices become internalized and continue to drown out the melodies of our true feelings and desires well into adulthood to keep us safe. Hence, as adults, with our sense of self still mute, we often become completely paralyzed when we are faced with opportunities and choice. Questions of what success and failure means to us become incredibly difficult to answer. These protective alters have no sense of time, but they do respond when listened to. And overtime, with persistent awareness, curiosity, and negotiation, these protective voices can learn to heed their protective layer of dissonance and produce a fine harmony of trust among the Self once again. And once more we shall be free to ask, uninterrupted by an uproar of foreign expectations, “Am I doing everything I want at the level that I want to do it?” and in being able to finally hear whatever the answer is to that question, no longer will our identity remain unheard. And once we hear it, it will never remain unexpressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted on medium in September. https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/the-unheard-identity-uncovering-the-self-through-persistent-listening-bdcc284eb189 If you enjoy my work, I gladly accept bitcoin donations: 1ALYYHuvAUjjsXLHJRyCxGQ5E9rDoDVpx4