Kevin Beal

No problem There is a button on the top right (assuming it's not the mobile version) labeled "follow this topic". It has a couple options there. There is also a checkbox when you create a new thread at the top right again saying to notify me about new responses. Also, what you can do is whenever you are on the boards, click on your name at the very top left of the page to bring up a drop down and choose "my content" which will show all the threads you've posted in and will be highlighted in bold text if there has been a response since the last time you checked it out. It's not apparently obvious that you've gotten a reply to something you've written unless that person quoted you with a quote bubble. In which case you'll get a little "1" on the notification icon (the bell) at the top of the page (which you'll see since I've quoted you here).

First he says "It's most often a form of cowardice to pretend you have higher values than the those you are interacting with" (higher values or higher integrity). And adds that it's a form of exploitation. After that he says that it's a form of cowardice to hold yourself to "higher standards" than those you are interacting with. So, how I sort of interpreted it is that the person who's holding themselves to higher standards is not the one exploiting other people, but actually the one being exploited. In this case, the person is not being exploited like someone who has no idea that their credit card information was stolen, but instead are in denial about their own exploitation. So in the violent parents example, it would be a form of cowardice to pretend that when you hold yourself to that higher standard than the violent parents, that it's out of virtue that you do that (as opposed to confronting them about it). The pretense at virtue (higher standards) being a cover for that person's fear of confronting their parents. (The cowardice being the pretense and not the fear). These people who say that we ought treat our parents better than they ever treated us because that's a good thing, and if you don't do that you are some kind of selfish petty person, (aside from the blatant projection) are being cowards because it has nothing to do with virtue and everything to do with their own avoidance, culpability and co-dependency regarding the issue. And what's worse is that they are taking it out on people who have decided to face their own avoidance, because we show them for the cowards they are. If they did not pretend that what they were doing was a virtue and instead were honest with themselves that they don't confront their parents out of fear, then they aren't cowards. They are sane, lol. Holding yourself to higher standards in general, I think, is a very good thing. Upping the game. It's just not good when it's a pretense covering up cowardice. I hope that makes sense. If I've misunderstood your question please let me know

Hi meeri! I don't know the answer to your question unfortunately, but I'm very curious and I'll let you know if I figure it out listening to it tonite. Here is that series for anyone else who's wondering: 1867 – An Introduction to Virtue - Part 1 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1867_introduction_to_virtue_part_1.mp3 1868 – An Introduction to Virtue - Part 2 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1868_introduction_to_virtue_part_2.mp3 1869 – An Introduction to Virtue - Part 3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1869_introduction_to_virtue_part_3.mp3 1877 – An Introduction to Virtue Part 4 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1877_introduction_to_virtue_part_4.mp3

You know, you could say something like: "Oh really? That's very interesting. Could you tell me a little more about how these systems work? I have this society I would like to help build where there is a system like yours of a much larger scale, so large in fact that it encompasses all resource allocation on the planet, so it's super crucial for me to really understand how these types of systems work. How do these systems scale? Since efficiency is the name of the game, what kind of resources would I need to develop such a system without having to accumulate Google's capital? Can this large a project even be done?" There are engineers, economists, computer scientists and other very intelligent people on these forums who could teach you a hell of a lot toward understanding this future society you want to help build, but every post you've made (that I've read) you are telling people how it is, which wouldn't be so bad if you would actually pose an argument. You are putting people off who could be enormously valuable to you in achieving your goals, but you don't accept any criticisms, do not offer counter evidence, do not express humility about things that are seriously advanced things, and you suggest that people are doing immoral things, are fascists etc. That's really irritating. Do you get what I'm saying?

You can be on someone's side while being assertive and uncompromising. It is to the OP's brother's benefit to not hit his boy. Continuing to hit him erodes his brother's capacity to fix the relationship with his son the more he does it. Being nice is not the same thing as being on someone's side. In fact, it can be enabling behavior. Likewise, letting somebody have it is not necessarily being against that person either. It's a false dilemma. I am not aware of any person who has convinced more people to stop spanking than Stef, and he doesn't use kid gloves with people or do NVC. He is treats it like the very serious matter that it is.

I work on systems like this Having a central computer do this for us would actually not be to our advantage. We do it ourselves for very important reasons.

First off, thank you for doing what you can to stop child abuse in your own personal life. You do more than almost every activist toward achieving freedom when you do that. It takes courage and I applaud you for it If you can be sure that he's not going to take his aggression out on his son, then you can point out how incredibly cowardly and petty it is of him. I'm not so convinced that calmly explaining these things to people is the best approach. If they listen, it's usually short lived. Instead, being unrelenting and assertive in the face of corruption is my go to. I think by being nice and calm you aren't really communicating the gravity of the situation. They can just keep that grand chasm of avoidance between themselves and what they are doing. Given all that, I think the idea you have about how to approach it is a good one. Best of luck

Here it is! 421 – Humiliation http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_421_Humiliation.mp3

@armitage Okay. Well, you really ought to watch Stef's post debate analysis then because this approach you are taking to this debate is sophistic. You come off like a very sincere nice guy, but what you are saying is total boloney. You cannot use adjectives, frame a debate or even provide definitions without offering any actual counter argument and call it a criticism. What you need to do is provide very specific evidence of or demonstrations of any actual errors in logic (or false evidence) that Stef has made. Without that, you are not going to get very far among this group of philosophers. "Narrow" is not an argument. There is also an introduction to philosophy series that stef hosts on youtube which is quite good.

I thought it might be cool and interesting to see what are people's favorite FDR podcasts and maybe a little blurb about what you like about it. Brownie points for what was the first podcast you had heard I'll start: 678 - Everything you do is... http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3 The amount of self doubt that I've and so many others experience unnecessarily is it's own tragedy, and this is a very interesting way, I think, to not do that to myself. 356 & 357 - You Are Your Own Proof http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_356_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof.mp3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_357_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof_Part_2.mp3 Learning to trust my feelings and the power of my unconscious has been crucial for me. I had this idea that if I wasn't consciously working something out from first principles, then it was probably wrong was a hard thing to shake off, and understanding the principle here helped a lot. 234 - Contempt http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_234_Contempt.mp3 Contempt is completely underrated. There is a richness to contempt that I appreciate and trust and when people used to constantly tell me that contempt is bad and I shouldn't feel it,... it has always been really irritating to me. 122 - Am I Too Mean? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/am_i_too_mean.mp3 Something that has also bothered me a lot is this idea that we need to be nice to one another or else we are being immoral or acting out, or it's sadistic or something like that. I'm still working on this, but having this perspective (that I don't remember ever hearing before) has been important for me in the necessary confrontations I've had since. 476 – The Myth of Nice Christians http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_476_Nice_Mythical_Christians.mp3 People who are portrayed as being nice and that you shouldn't criticize them is a big irritation of mine (it looks like I have a theme going here, lol). So to hear arguments like these that cut through that bullshit like warm butter is very much of interest to me. 183 – Freedom Part 4: Parents (and everything!) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/personal_freedom_Part_4_parents_and_everything.mp3 Refusing to enable bad people and no longer pretending that there was a real relationship there to begin with when there was none, has been life changing for me. This podcast, On Truth and the But *my* parents were really nice series were the kick in the butt I needed to make one of the most important decisions of my life. 468 – Seeing Through Darkness http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_468_Seeing_Through_Darkness.mp3 Being aware of my own dark side has been crucial for me in taking responsibility for my own hypocrisies. The first FDR podcast I ever heard was: 1058 – Proof of Anarchy http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1058_Proof_of_Anarchy.mp3 So, yea. Those are some of my favorites. How 'bout you?

@Armitage What did you think of Stef's point about Peter arguing adjectives rather than pointing out errors in logic that he had made? As far as I can tell, you haven't actually pointed out any errors that Stef made, rather it looks like you are simply framing the debate, which kinda sucks to read several long posts looking for the actual counter argument only to hear adjectives, conjecture etc. If it's the case that you haven't actually formed a counter argument, but instead are framing the debate, unaware of or unduly ignoring the point about arguing adjectives, then it would stand to reason that this is a blind spot for you. Doing exactly what Stef showed that Peter was doing. If you are blind to this, and it makes up much of the debate, including the parts you say that Peter is making valid points that were not given their due consideration, then your conclusion that Stef is defending fascism becomes very suspect. Does that make sense? If I'm wrong and you have provided some kind of evidence or demonstration of your point, then could you refer me to them?

I guess you're right. I hadn't thought of that... Good point

There is something irreducible about being human as a result of certain emergent phenomena. Our cells (for example) can't maintain a conversation, or make informed decisions, our atoms don't have color or liquidity. A society on the other hand gains no emergent phenomena that is distinctly separate from it's individuals. Society doesn't turn purple as soon as more than 500 people compose it. So while you can't touch a society without touching a person, you can't can't touch a person without touching their cells, tissues, atoms etc. The difference is that emergent phenomena that makes a human are different than all of the elements that make up a human squished together in some twisted lab experiment. Hopefully that makes some sense.

I just wanted to add, that as far as whether or not to call her up and engage her goes versus maintaining your space, it doesn't really matter what her intentions were with the letter. The point of taking space (as you mentioned) is to have a more objective view of your childhood without the biased influence of your family. Your mother should respect that, and if she doesn't and is instead upset by it, that's not your responsibility. Your responsibility is to yourself. You have done nothing wrong in taking space. You do not owe her peace of mind.

To be accurate, it's a post that gets the vote, not members of the forum. I could see your point if it were, but you are not your posts. This is against the forum rules. If someone got downvoted, it could be for that reason, rather than because they are free willers with a grudge against determinist, or whatever the implication is there.

Yea. There are call in shows where Stef goes into violent movies, the relation to childhood and all that, but I'm having trouble finding them. Tarantino specifically, I don't think so, but it could be something that catches more people's eyes and possibly more listeners to the show.

This is just my opinion, but a strong one The way to get the most done in therapy is to bring up your honest experience of your therapist with her. What you don't want is to have things in the way of expressing your actual unfiltered experience. And if she responds poorly to your negative (or lacking in whatever way) experience of her then she may not be the therapist for you. If she responds empathetically, then you are going to build a lot of trust and know that when she offers her perspective that she is already aware of your reservations or skepticism. Maybe I'm missing some important context, but so what if you're wrong or judging yourself? The important thing it would seem to me, is to be aware of what you think and feel and if you are judging yourself then that's important to know about. There are therapists who will straight up tell their clients that family history is not what they do. Those therapists may be good therapists for all I know, but if what you are in therapy for is to understand the origins of your behavior and feelings, then you need to be sure that your therapist is going to help you in that area. If it appears as if she's getting in the way of that or not helping or whatever else, then you have every right to question her on it. And getting clear that this is what you are looking for in therapy could yield some surprising results. She may have counter intuitive but important ways of going about that, she may make a connection in her mind and reorient her priorities, or you may find out that she's not a good fit for you. In any case, more honesty is the solution. Building that trust quickly means you can more faster progress.

It's probably unfounded paranoia, but I've gotten more downvotes since posting in this thread than all of the time this feature has been on the boards. I must admit that it would be nice to hear an explanation for the votes. Or to see if it's like one guy who has a grudge or something. I think I wasn't completely right when I said that negative votes are a learning opportunity. It helps me see how I react to negative criticism, but it doesn't help very much to see what exactly I said that prompted the vote. I can come up with a story that it's because I wasn't [x] enough or that it's just some petty person, but it would be nice to know what prompted it. It is interesting to me how much the votes affect me, when maybe they shouldn't. I want to be liked and to know that something I've said is helpful to someone. But at the same time, it's text based, relatively short posts where you get a very incomplete picture of a person, and there's often a lot of it up for interpretation. The votes do offer me some credibility since I have a decent amount of them, as does the PK badge (I assume), and that gives me a little extra confidence that what I'm saying is going to be taken seriously. And isn't that what everyone wants? To be taken seriously? That would explain some of my own feelings about it, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably the most common reaction for people on the boards to negative votes: triggering that resentment about not being taken seriously, either because of a family history, or public school or whatever it was. I have a desire for people to explain their dislike to me and even a little desire to get them back somehow, and downvote their posts or something. I have the capacity for sadism myself and don't feel 100% on some of the votes (positive or negative) that I've made. So there's a blind spot for me that is prime for projection. And if it's difficult for me to deal with this kind of feedback, then it's probably the same for others. And just like I have a sadistic side, so might others. Is it really just me?

2190 – 'So one day you wake up in a Tarantino movie..'. Stefan Molyneux Speaks at FreedomFest 2012 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2190_freedomfest_2012_tarantino.mp3

Some relevant podcasts: 1 – The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3 2 – Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/caging_the_beasts32.mp3 139 – Saving Children: The Stateless Society and the Protection of the Helpless http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/saving_children.mp3 203 – Stateless Prisons http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_203_Stateless_Prisons.mp3

Interesting and relevant podcast: Am I too mean? http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/am_i_too_mean.mp3

I don't believe your mother is consciously thinking "how can I manipulate Olle into stopping taking space?" I would imagine that this is very much unconscious for your mother. She did say it for a reason though, and I think you are the going to be able to understand that on a level that nobody else will. If it were a letter from my own mother, then I would absolutely conclude that it was manipulation. Have you heard this podcast? Mommy's Letter: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_692_Mommys_Letter.mp3

I'm really sorry you have to deal with all this. I'm not sure what to make of the letter and don't know you or her, but something that bothers me about it is in how she emphasizes just how much pain your actions are causing her. She says you can tell her how you feel, but that seems secondary to the fact that this is torture for her. The letter seems to be about her and her feelings and not so much about you and yours. The message seems to be that you are hurting her with your decision to take space, and that you should stop regardless of whether or not the space is helpful to you. Maybe that's my own bias or baggage, but it does bother me. Since you say that you often tried to manage the adults' feelings as a child, I would not be too surprised if that is your trigger here, for why you would first feel shame and want to call her. And if she was playing that angle (if only unconsciously) in order to get you to stop taking space, then that's all the more reason to maintain that space and block her emails (you can always un-block later if you decide to). Are you seeing a therapist? This stuff is (I would say) impossible to be objective about without feedback from someone who you can trust and is knowledgeable of your past. I don't think there is any real substitute for a trained professional therapist, but something is better than nothing. I don't believe that her responses will ever not affect you. Did you feel you had to manage your mother's feelings as a child? If so, then you are likely to be very susceptible to that kind of manipulation. And it would suggest that she played into that when you were a child, and is therefore familiar with it at least unconsciously. From the outside, it sounds like good reason to keep that space. Hopefully this is helpful. Take care.

I find it very difficult to find any compassion for my inner critic. I get it intellectually that he exists as a response to protect my younger self, but abusive older siblings do shit like that too and I don't see how being compassionate in this way toward them is going to bring me closure and integration. Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia are going to teach their children that Allah is great and fill that child's mind with horseshit, and part of that is to protect the child if only unconsciously, but that doesn't excuse them. My inner critic is like the biggest asshole I know. I can't wrap my brain around how I'm ever supposed to feel genuine compassion for him. We talk maybe once a month or less for not very long, partly because the timing is inconvenient and partly because I really dislike him. I don't completely block him out only because I'm concerned about the effects of repression. (Also, there is a little "cool" factor cuz I get to say that I've done mecosystem work). I really don't understand that compassion thing. I'd love to hear how that works out for you (Stephen) or anyone else who takes this approach. Does it really help to integrate the good in that part? It felt forced when I tried it, and he called me out on that, of course.

People having bad standards for their downvotes is not a system to be changed technologically though. All that is being done is changing their incentives or preventing them expressing their dislike in that way. And I don't think that I agree that there is a culture to be changed. There aren't that many people who have the ability to downvote, and you actually can address them all on a personal level without much effort. It's not like larger society or anything.